TE WHITI.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11493, 28 January 1903, Page 4

TE WHITI.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir,—l claimed in roy fetter on Saturday that I ww» entitled to infer from your silence that 1 had established certain points in my defence. As you now deny this, 1 must'beg your leave to re-state them succinctly. They were these three: — 1. That while you mfer that I had not 'troubled to consult any authority but Mr Rnsden," I had, as a matter of fact, not even eeen a volume of Rusden'e book till 1 read that sentence. 2. That while you charge me with '•grossly misrepresenting the motives" ot Mr John Bryce, the only reference to his motives is a passage that frankly describes him as "honest, well-meaning, and capable." 3. That- while you infer I was "unaware • that .Mr Rolleston and not Mr Bryce i signed" the I'rendergast proclamation, there is absolutely no mention in the book of the proclamation or iv» signature; on the other hand, you yourself pass over the significant fact that Mr Rolleston resigned the native portfolio on the day the proclamation vim issued. That a strongly partisan n«tfnspaper defers from some of the views in the book need not .seriously concern its author*. But I do owe it, not only to myself, but to my collaborates and my publisher*), establish the three points 1 have set out. The two first because through the medium ot your widely circulating weekly contemporary, the unfounded charge of "Ruedenism" might injure the book in England, where I the Jtfryce v Rusden trial is still remembered The last, becau.se there is no surer _way *.o damn a book in the eyes o€ Canterbury readers, than to suggest that it mdsrepresente in the slightest degree the actions o , a man «o justly honoured and loved among us as William Rolleston. You did not answer mo on these points because they are unanswerable. Your retort that you refrained "because you did not wish unduly to hurt Mr Alpere's feelings" is a puerile evasion. You probably know that my career as a journalist has been both long enough and varied enough to render my private "feelings" tolerably immune from hurt in a public controversy, how vigorously and incisively conducted soever. As to my quotations from the West Coast Conrauesion, they were cited at your invitation, not for the censure they implied,

but for the course they advocated. There was no intention to "distort" them by diverting their ce»sure from the Grey Administration. Even you will admit tliat the book distributes the blame for Parihaka with a nice impartiality between the Grey and the Hall Administrations. It charges the first with "blundering ttws second with "high-lianded arrogance'; it says that Sheehan "would not," and, Bryce "could not" understand the native grievances; and finally declares that "they suebetween them in 'bringing about

the pitiable fiasco of Parihaka." I fancy that does not leave inuuh to choose of censure or praise between tfie opposed political parties. Your astounding statement that. Parihaka was "a nest of immorality" I confess staggers me. In and out of Parliament, speeches and reports by men of all shaded of political opinion bore testimony to the marvellous influence exerted by Te Whiti in the direction of morality and sobriety. The one point on which, in those heated debates, there seemed to be unanimity, wae that the Parihaku Maoris were distinguished among natives for orderly, decent, and sober conduct. But I forbear to quote; after all, I cannot fling whole Blue-Books at your bead. You draw on alluring picture of the "punitive devastation" ordered by Mr Bryce which, apparently, wa* only intended to speed Te Whiffs parting guests and facilitate the removal of their furniture. Mr Bryce himself was not so sure of the gentleness of his perauosive methods, or of the extent to which his colleagues would, concur in them. On November 11th te telegraphed to Sir John Hall:-

"I may be forced into a choice of objectionable courses. NotwitheUnding this, tl*e thing hws to be settled, and I am confident I can do it, if lam not stopped. That the manner in which I do it will be free from objections is more than I can promise, and I hop* that you and! my colleague will put the most favourable construction on *hdngs." Even "Honest John Bryce," it appears, had a dull, uneaey apprehension that hi* gentle-minded colleagues might disapprove, and even "stop," his drastic measures. You, it i« interesting to note, do not chare hie qualmn. I <3» not wi«h to imply in my letter that Mr Bryce'e words: "I will careMly avoid all pampering," re- ! ferred to the proceedings I describe as | pillage. I Aould be sorry to think I had caught the trick of musquwtwfaion from my critics; but 1 imagine my distinct ascription of the words to a "subsequent telegram" saves the passage from sudi implication. 1 quoted tihe sentence "I will carefully avoid all pampering" because I knew that every reader who thus followed the career of tihe "Strong-man" Bryce, and studied his attitude on native questions, would be delighted with its droll naivete! its unconscious .irony. Mr Bryce ihas had many critics; tliey have said some unkind and a few unjust, things about him; but I do not imagine that the wora* of them ever accused "Honest John" of a sense of humour. But "Wβ are afraid," you say, "that our readers are getting very tired of TeWiiiti. To say the truth, sir, I am a liSWe bored myself. A newspaper has the feminine prerogative of the last word. I Jeave it to you, sir; but do not, I beg, mitigate ite severity by misplaced* solicitude; do not. I pray, fear overmuch to "hurt Mr Alpexs's feelings." Hammer tr.:, sir, with your Jieaviest rhetoric; hammer me as you would every rank blasphemer that would find a flaw in tlia thrice sacred fame of the "Continuous Ministry" ; hammer me as you would every* doting optimist who dares affirm that under the misrule of their successors this country can possibly hope for financial stability, political fnliglitenment, or even a :'i>ntim;«iiee of morfarateEy fine weatiher! Hammer me, sir, to your heart's content. So shall you be happy, "and I, none 4ie less reirasiin, in al! good humour,—Youra, quite sinoerely, „'• " . T °- T - J- ALPERS. C'hr-istehurc-li. January 24th, 1903.

[Wβ regret that owing to pressure on our epn*« we lwve had to hold over this letter from Monday lust. The points on which our correspondent lays m> much stress are quite subsidiary to the main issue, namely, whether lie did nob grossly misrepresent the proceedings at Parihaka and the policy which led up to the "raid." On this main issue we lave probably said enough to satisfy any impartial student of history. As Mr Alpers is anxious for us "to dea! categorically with his '•points' , however, we may say:— (1) We fully accept his statement that he did not look int? Rusden until after this controversy began. It is a curiotis confession for a would-be historian ot New Zealand to make. If he had added that he had looked into n-> other authority it would have made the explanation complete. If, how-ever, he avoided Rusden on account of his bias, the sequel was unfortunate, since his book shows that he must have pinned his faith , to some other writer on the same side, probably anonymous, with even less regard for the facts than the veracious Rusden (2) Our charge against Mr Alpers of " grossly misrepresenting the motives and actions of Mr Bryw" rested not on one | sentence alone, hut on hie entire Parihaka narrative, which is thioughout incorrect and misleading. (3) It is perfectly true I that Mr Kolleston lesigned the portfolio <if Native Minister into Mr Bryce'n !>ands after signing the proclamation. Mr Alpers seems quite in the dark a.-? to the explanation. which is that Mr Rolleston and his colleagues in the Hall Ministry had come to tiw eoadutioa that Mr Bryce'g policy

was the only proper ■sohttwn of the difficulty, and that Mr Bryce ought Ito carry it out. Mr Rolleston, it may be added, did valuable work in preparing the way for the " raid," by personally superintending the arming of the settlers on the coast and the calling out of the volunteers. Lastly, what Mr Alpers is pleased to refer to as our solicitude for the "continuous Ministry," is a deeire to do simple justice to men who have deserved so "well of their country as Sir John Hall, Mr Rolleston and Mr Bryc*. We wish to do justice to the oolony also, which cannot but be injured by the circulation of unfounded statements such as those to which we demur. It is a great pity, we think, that a New Zeaknder, writing a book which professes to be a history of the colony, for circulation in England and America, did not take at least ordinary care to verify his facts. -Ed "The Press. ,, ]