THE EIGHT AT OMARUNUI.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 8, Issue 444, 6 December 1866, Page 3

THE EIGHT AT OMARUNUI.

fTo the Editor of the Hawke’s Bay Times,!

Sib, —If * Truth,’ in your Thursday’s impression, had confined himself to facts, it would hare been much better. First, he says that “there is not anything but truth brought before the public” in an extract from a private letter published in the ‘Weekly News,’ of the 27th October last. But, after a careful perusal of the said extract, I really cannot see anything truthful in it, except where the writer says that the men behaved well—“ all honor to the men.” Again, he (‘Truth’—what a misnon.er!) says; “No one can deny the state* ment made,” and he says he is “quite sure that there is some blame attached to the generalship,” and adds that. the Militia and Volunteers “ did fire (the italics are his own) on each other.” Now, I cannot say that the generalship was all that could be desired; but, instead ot finding fault with the way in which the affair was conducted, it would have looked better had your correspondent pointed out a better way in which it could have been carried out. And if the Militia and Volunteers did fire on each other (on which opinions differ) why did not ‘Truth’ explain how that disadvantage could have been avoided without at the same time giving the Hau-haus an admirable chance of escaping? ‘Truth’ says “the whole affair is rather disgraceful than otherwise,” but he has signally failed in showing us wherein the disgrace lies. If there was any disgrace in the affair at all, it lay in taking any prisoners. ‘Truth’ finds no fault in the termination; hero again we differ. I find no fault in the commencement but I think the affair might have been wound up more gloriously. He says there wore 600 men on our side at Omarunui. Who told him so ? Was he there himself ? If he was there he must know his statement to be anything but true; if he was not there, he should have ascertained the correct number of those engaged in the fight before he rushed into print. I can tell him that, including the friendly natives (whose presence was anything but acceptable, I can assure you, Mr Editor) were there not more than 340 men present who were in any way connected with the fight, and 130 of that number were Maoris who would have been far better out of the way, inasmuch as they well nigh caused a panic amongst a body of the militia. A report is current, too, that about 50 of these dusky warriors, throughout the engagement, betook themselves to the friendly shelter of a venerable-looking willow tree ; what they were engaged in Dame Rumour sayeth not. ‘ Truth ’ says, he thinks “if Major Fraser and his little band had been at Omarunui, instead of the Hau-haus holding out two and-a-half hours (against 600 men) they would have been conquered in ten minutes.” Now this is really too bad. I wonder if the gallant Major himself would endorse the statement ? I question it very much. The Hau-haus did not hold out for two and-a-half hours—the fight having commenced at 7 a.m., and terminated at half-past 8, just one hour less than the time stated by your correspondent. As to the number of men engaged, I have answered that above, and I trust, if not to ‘ Truth’s,’ at any rate to the satisfaction of every one else. Mr. Editor, I fully agree with you that it was quite as well that Major Fraser was at Petane on the morning on which Omaiu ui w; s taken. He and his little band (to whom let all praise be awarded) did good service at the former place ; they could not have done better had they been at Omarunui; besides, they were not required there. In conclusion, Sir, I only hope that when ‘ Truth ’ again takes up his pen to write to your columns, or to any other paper, he will endeavour to manufacture a more feasible, and, at the same time, a more truthful tale than the one which appeared in your issue of the 29th November.—l am, &c., A Loves op (the) Tehth. Napier, 3rd Dec., 1860.