Hawke's Bay Times. Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1870,

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 15, Issue 763, 21 February 1870, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Times. Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1870,

We observe that the person to whom is committed the task of defending the Fox-M'Lean Government in the columns of our contemporary has once more come to the rescue. It seems to taken him some little time to ''work himself up into the necessary frame of mind to so disregard the facts of the case " as to be able to do this, and after all he has not very well succeeded. It will not : require many words to utterly demolish the labored structure he has raised, and show that the view we have taken of things as they are is the correct one. We are taunted with the inaccuracy of our information, and with being thereby frequently led astray ; but it so happens that our information is of a more reliable character than that of our contemporary, not being sub jected to the alembic of any officer in the Government employ. The chemistry of politics—the process of distilling the news of the day, keeping hack the grosser particles, and presenting the public with only just what is desired shall be known—is doubtless interesting enough to the operator, but hardly satisfactory to the public, and we prefer to supply the article in its unsophisticated state. However, iu the present case we draw our information from precisely the same source as our contemporary.—the semi-official report of Mr Firth presented to the Native and Defence Minister. The question in dispute is, whether the sanction of the Native Minister was given to Firth's negociation with Te Kooti, or not. We do not sup pose that Mr Fo.\ sanctioned it. Outcontemporary entirely exonerates Mr M'Lean, and throws the blame on the shoulders of Dr Pollen, "a mem ber of the late Government, who largely exceeded his powers —did more, indeed, than any one Minister would ordinarily have done," but not so as to " implicate the Government in any way." This is our contemporary's statement of the case, but we will see how it is borne out. The published documents prove that Mr Firth was not directly in communication with anyone but the Native Minister. His second telegram, which ob'ained the terms to be offered to Te Kooti —no less than his first, which elicited the "courteous official reply" from Mr M'Lean—was addressed to that gentleman; so, likewise, was his semi-official report of the whole proceedings ; and it remains with the apologists of the Government to show how it came to pass that what was asked of Mr M'Lean should be replied to by Dr Pollen. If it be said that Mr M'Lean, in order not to compromise himself in the matter, caused the reply to be sent by Dr Pollen, so that it should not bear his name, it only makes the matter look all the more ugly, without in the slightest degree removing the responsibilitv from his own shoulders. Mr Firth telegraphs to Mr M'Lean Root's desire to see him, and asks for definite instructions as to what he shall say to him "on behalf of the Government," and in reply gets the following answer from Dr Pollen, —" If Te Kooti will surrender unconditionally, I will guarantee his safe conduct to Auckland as a prisoner." It is absurd to say that because Mr M'Lean did not actually put his own name to that reply that he evaded

all responsibility for it, or that because, from the delay in its being sent, it did not reach Firth before he went to see Kooti, that it any the less sanctioned the meeting and negociation. Our contemporary carefully avoids all reference to the suspension of Lieut Beere, the officer who arrested Mr Firth on his return from meeting Te Kooti. He "believes," indeed, "that nothing but doubts of the legal power to punish led to Mr Firth's discharge after he was ac rested" Indeed, then, have we no " Disturbed Districts Act," which gives power to any magistrate to punish offences less heinous than that ? or does our contemporary not know of it? At all events that would not account for the punishment of a zealous official for his well intentioned efforts in the public service. In illustration of the inaccuracy of our information relating to public matters, our casual reference to the " Hon. the Resident Minister, Auckland," is referred to. Really it would seem that our contemporary was lg norant of the existence of such an officer ! Our contempoiary cannot publish the most simple article without venting his spleen on the members of the late Government. In accounting for the retention of Dr Pollen as agent for the Government in Aucktand, he drags in Colonel Whitmore and Mr Richmond, and says that "Government employment was almost a necessity" for them and other adherents of the late Government. We shall be glad to find that the adherents of the present Government will not need anything of the kind on a change of Ministry, but the advent to office of Messrs. Fox and M'Lean is not yet so distant but but the public will remember the extreme difficulty experienced in retaining the services of even a sufficient number of able men to fill the usual Cabinet offices.