THE HAWKE’S BAY TIMES. NAPIER, THURSDAY, SEPT. 11, 1862.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 63, 11 September 1862, Page 2

THE HAWKE’S BAY TIMES. NAPIER, THURSDAY, SEPT. 11, 1862.

Contrary to our usual custom, we, on this occasion, feel called upon to notice a communication in the “ open column” of our contemporary, from Mr. G. S. Cooper, containing strictures on our conduct in allowing a certain letter from Mr. T. Shirley to appear in our columns without remark. Mr. Cooper should be aware that the editor of a journal is not in any way identified with the opinions expressed in the various letters received from correspondents, especially, (as in the case referred to) where the name of the writer is given ; neither is it incumbent on an editor to give a running commentary on such, which, indeed, might on some occasions occupy a considerable proportion of his time—neither is there any necessity for this, as our columns are always open to any one who may feel himself aggrieved, and space for reply would have been as readily granted to Mr, Ward, Mr. Cooper, or indeed any other gentleman, as it was to Mr. Shirley; and we may remark in passing that it would only have been common courtesy on the part of Mr. Cooper, to have forwarded his complaint to us rather than to our contemporary. For the rest, we must say that we do not think it a mark of wisdom on the part of Air. Cooper to attempt the defence of an affair that is altogether indefensible, as was that of the solemn mockery to which he refers. We have no wish to re-enter on the discussion of a question which has already occupied a great portion of our space, and, but for this letter, probably should not have again referred to it; but as the question has been opened, we cannot allow the occasion to pass without a word of comment. The first intimation that reached Napier that a la Shirley was a satisfactory way of settling the grass money difficulty, was found in the report of a speech of Chief Justice Arney, in the Colonial Legislature, who is reported to have said : “Mr. CVosbic "Ward bad been successful in inaugurating a system at Hawke’s Bay, relative to caflle trespass which had proved acceptable to (he settlors of that district.” It is needless for us to say that such a statement took the settlers of the province by surprise, as it was simply untrue ; and each one felt that the good Justice had been most cgregiously deceived by some means or other. Nobody supposed that such a misstatement was made otherwise than in ignorance of the facts, and the only question remaining was. how ho had contrived to reach a conclusion so at variance with with fact — certainly not by consulting the Hawke's Bay press, which, severe as it was at the time on the question, yet failed to give full utterance to the indignation almost universally felt by the settlers ; and it was not until a considerable time had elapsed that that described by Air. Shirley as “ Air. Ward's lying report” reached the public of Napier, and plainly enough showed the authority for Air. Arney's words. Now, it is evident enough that it might appear to Air. Ward to have been as he has reported—for nothing is more apparent than the fact of a person seeing his own doings with eyes, and in a light, often very different from those of the by-standers—and we are far from charging Air. Ward with wilfully mis-stating the facts. But let any one, uninfluenced by such feelings towards the system as may reasonably enough he attributed to Air. Ward, refer to the Hawke's Bay papers of the time, (December last) and several of the journals of the other provinces of a somewhat later date, and he must of sheer necessity arrive at the conclusion that Air. Ward's “system” was neither “ satisfiictory,” nor “ acceptable to the settlers” of Hawke’s Bay. Try to evade the question as the apologists of that offiiir may, the truth stiU re-

mains, that while the Native Land Purchase Ordinance remains on the statute book, it is an illegal act to enter into arrangements with the natives for the right of pasturage, &c., on unalienatcd lands, and although it is quite probable that Mr. Shirley might—if he had done as Mr. Cooper is currently believed to be even note doing, that is, acted in open violation of the law—have enjoyed his native pasturage with impunity, and possibly have been elevated to a seat on the bench of Magistrates : but, on the other hand, he would have always been liable to a prosecution and conviction, if it was found to be necessary. It is only too apparent that the whole proceedings were undertaken to satisfy the Maoris—the rights of the settler and the law were alike ignored. Shirley was fined, and lest he should be found backward in paying the fine, the government (that is, the Colonists) pays it over to the Maoris at once, and they were justified in assaulting him on his own property, knocking him down senseless, and his wife into a ditch, destroying his stockyard, driving away his cattle and depriving him of his means of living for over three months—on the ground, forsooth, that they had no other course open to them. Mr. Cooper appears highly indignant at a gentleman like Mr. Ward being subjected to so grevious an attack in the columns of a newspaper, but let him for a moment place himself in the position of Mr. Shirley, and suppose he is spoken of in an official document in such words as these : “ Shirley had agreed to pay a certain amount, which the natives agreed to accept. Just at this time Shii’ley advertized his cattle to be sold by auction, and brought them into the yard for that purpose. The Notices, having reason, as it appears , to place no confidence in Shirley, would not permit the cattle to bo sold, and removed them by force from the yard.” Note here, no account of the personal assault, nor of the destruction of property by the natives—how very mildly it speaks of them, while of him how great the severity! His character must be blasted, lest that of the ruffian Maoris should sutler. Would Mr. Cooper consider it nothing to be so treated in such a document, albeit he had not Esq. appended to his name ?