WHO ARE THE FRIENDS OF THE WELLINGTON PARTY, AND THE FOES OF HAWKE’S BAY.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume I, Issue 11, 12 September 1861, Page 2

WHO ARE THE FRIENDS OF THE WELLINGTON PARTY, AND THE FOES OF HAWKE’S BAY.

To the Editor of the Haivhe's Bay Times. Sir, —I was scarcely surprised to see in tl.e Herald of to-day that your well-timed exposure of some of our Provincial abuses had begun to produce its legitimate effect on the sensitive mind of one of the “ thick and thin” supporters of the late Superintendent, who, forgetting that “ Truth is truth wherever found— Amongst our friends, amongst our foes,” &c., seems to consider that because Dr. Fcatherston is the exposer of “ something rotten in the state” we should close our eyes to the fact, turn round, and declare that tilings are not so. Like himself, I was struck with the apparent strangeness of Mr. Stafford’s conduct, and indeed of the general fact of the desertion of their ci-devant pet child by the whole party, particularly as the New Zealander's report had given them the Dr.’s speech, and so made the actual change appear even greater than it was ; but I must be permitted to say that the exact place at which Dr. Fcatherston did resume his speech is in both instances so evident that no man need have been led astray by that error. But be this as it may, you did not, at all events, copy the Hew Zealanders mis-report, but disentangled what was said by Mr. Stafford from the doctor’s speech, and therefore there was no possibility of your readers being misled by it. But, sir, there are some people who gladly avail themselves of such a chance of raising a cloud of dust, so as, if possible, to confuse where they cannot confute, and having no argument to advance in support of their cause, create a diversion such as this that they may mislead, crying here is one blunder, just as likely as not this is another. Sir, this is a very convenient but somewhat unsatisfactory method of evading the true point at issue. Did “Hawke’s Bay” (save the mark) possess only an ordinary share of common sense, he would be able to see that the enemies of this young province are those who,, by tlieir past un's-conduct, have enabled the Fcatherston party to lift the finger of scorn at a people who have been so duped by their £ s. d. patriots, who promised so much and performed so little—who would be able to govern the new-made and model province at so low a cost, but found on trial they were unable to avoid rushing to the contrary extreme, for, permit me to ask, had these gentlemen fulfilled their pledges—had the Executive Government been performed by a Superintendent and two clerks, at £IOOO a-year—had the gentleman who obtained that office continued to refuse the acceptance of a salary at the hands of a Council who wished to have him at their service, instead of performing the part of the frog in the well-known fable, and taking one equal to that paid the Superintendent of the original province (to say nothing of payments for the period during which he had refused to be paid)—had, in short, due economy been exercised in expending the revenue, and at the same time important and really beneficial public works been carried on, —could even the most ultra of the Wellington party have found fault ? But, sir, os they have acted out the very contrary character, feeding like cormorants on the vitals of the community, it is they who ore the true (and not the few) opponents of the principle of self-government. Arc- we to consider that the writer of that letter is

one of those whose purses have been filled with tho public cash ? who have, by their mis-govern-ment, thrown odium—not only on the Province of Hawke’s Bay, but on provincial institutions in general, and following out the too usual practice of selfishness and folly of the elder provincial governments, led at length to their condemnation in the House of Lords, by the Duke of Newcastle and others, particularly of one of the greatest privileges conferred on the people by the constitution, enjoyed in the elder provinces, but of which we were so unjustly deprived by the late 51 inistry, even when they granted the boon of separation—that of elective superintendents. Sir, supposing that he is one of these, I should recommend him instead of referring to abuses that may exist at Canterbury or elsewhere, which can only affect us as a warning to avoid them, to use his* influence to reform those in our own Government, remembering another trite and more elegant maxim than his own, about throwing stones, glass houses and their inhabitants, as by so doing he would help to take'from the Wellington party all grounds for opposing themselves to the progress of Hawke’s Bay. I am, sir, Yours &c., AHUEIRI. September 7th, 1861.