CONTRADICTION.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume III, Issue 180, 24 June 1864, Page 3

CONTRADICTION.

The following remarks occurred in the Southern Cross of yesterday morning;— We publish to-day a little bit of romancing bv the ex-Superiutcndent of Auckland in a private letter to an Irish friend, which was incontinently published at home to supply food for laughter at the writer in this country, where the facts are known. The “ bit of romancing” was this : Under the heading of “ The late Superintendent of Auckland,” the New Zealand Advertiser of May 19th, says;—The following choice morceau, from the Skihhereen and West Carbert / Nagle, or SouthWestern Advertiser, has been handed to us for publication.—“Wo are allowed to make the following extract from a letter from a friend in New Zealand to John H. Townsend, Esq., J.P., Dunbeacon. It speaks favorably for that rising colony : —‘ Auckland is now a large town. There are few old faces to be met there. Sulratta is yet alive. Zusscnga has been gathered to his fathers, and so have others that used to give us a friendly greeting. Old Captain Porter wears out well. Your nephews, particularly Eichard, are fine lads and likely to do well. lam now proprietor of a large estate with thousands of sheep, and about one hundred horses, besides cattle ; being also the chief officer of the province is not to be despised, as the class of people here are really very good. In fee-simple, I possess in this province 17,000 acres, besides a right over about 100,000 —so you can see I have not done so badly. New Zealand is progressing rapidly. You see handsome mansions, good farms, fine stock, and abundance of the luxuries of life, without being encumbered with the restraints of home society.’” The assertion that this letter proceeded from the latest ex-superintendent of Auckland, meaning of course Mr. Williamson, is utterly and perfectly false. It is addressed to a gentleman in Scotland, not to an Irish friend ; and the writer is a gentleman who is not the ex-Superintendent, but tluf actual Superintendent of another province. He was long resident'in Auckland, and visits jit occasionally ; and his account of his possessions, and especially of his live stock, in the Province over which he now rules, is, as we believe, perfectly correct. The extract in question appeared some time ago in the Hawke's Bay Times, a paper not friendly to the present Superintendent of that Province. It was brought to our office by a gentleman who believed it to have been written by the present Superintendent of Auckland, and was only withheld from publication the A ew Zealander by the express wish of Mr. Williamson himself, who at oiice perceived that it did not emanate from Mr. Graham, but from the gentleman to whom we have referred. It is a pity that party feeling should lead to such reckless assertion. We cannot blame the New Zealand Advertiser, but we do regret that the gentlemen who profess to conduct the Cross should permit side-winded and covert attacks of this kind to be made in their paper, merely to gratify personal and political opponents of the late Superintendent.— June 11. [The letter above quoted was originally copied by us from the Irish journal referred to.—Ed. H.B.T. ]