DID Mr M'LEAN PREVENT ROPATA FROM GOING TO THE WEST COAST?

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 13, Issue 668, 29 March 1869, Page 2

DID Mr M'LEAN PREVENT ROPATA FROM GOING TO THE WEST COAST?

The Herald is highly indignant at the Advertiser for taking an affirmative view of the above question, and in its last issue, after remarking that " Boldness of assertion is frequently resorted to to v.phold a bad cause," proceeds to give the " true state of the case."

It happens, however, rather unfortunately for the Herald, "that this account of " the true state of the case" differs very materially from that which itself gave only a few days before, and which in boldness of assertion is quite equal to that of the Advertiser, In fact there is not in the Advertiser's article any charge of kC influencing Ropata" which is not more than warranted by the statements made by the Herald. On the 13th the Herald said, amongst more to the same effect: " Fortunately for the interests of the East Coast, he [Mr M'Lean] became acquainted in time with what was contemplated, [the removal of Ropata to the West Coastj and, regardless of the indignation of his official superiors, PUT A STOP to it." And lower down; "Mr M'Lean had the moral courage to act as lie did, and thus to defeat for a time the machinations of those who would sacrifice one part of the Colony for the aggrandizement of one particular officer in the Colonial service." On the 16th the Herald, on the subject of " the late interference of Mr M'Lean to defeat the selfish schemes of the Government" has the following : "Mr M'Lean, as General Government agent, saw fit to arrest the hand of his official superiors, in. the act of committing a great folly," and proceeds to indicate the remedy which was in the hands of the Government —" to displace Mr M'Lean as their representative " —precisely what was done, and about which the Herald is so indignant. In adtion to the above remai'ks in its leading columns, the Herald has teemed with local paragraphs to the same effect; so that if it is any authority at all, the question at the head of this article is answered in the affirmative.

Why tlien does the Herald eat its own words and now say that the Advertiser i& untruthful, when it merely repeats what the Herald has said ?< "Why does it try to take the blame which it at first cast on Mr M'Lean from him, and throw it on Ropata, saying that "after conferring with Mr M'Lean and the chiefs of this district, he decided that he himself should go no further "—making Mr M'Lean instead of the active agent who prevented, merely one of several passive advisers, who had little to do with the matter ?