A LITERARY GEM.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XI, Issue 200, 15 August 1876, Page 4

A LITERARY GEM.

Amongst the paper recently tabled in the House concerning the enquiry into the alleged improper sale of land north of Auckland, and papers relative thereto, is a perfect gem in the shape of a letter from Mr Charles Nelson, a native interpreler, to Mr J. A. Tole, solicitor, Auckland. The letter, as the saying is, "makes it lively" for the Government and Messrs Kemp and Preece, and as it is a fine specimen of the style, which necessarily follows a desire to copy tbat oi Sir George Grey and Mr Rees, we present it verbatim, as follows. The letter is dated lst May, 1876, and reads: —

Having perused the letters you sent me on the 29th ultimo, I beg to return them with the following desultory remarks upon their augmentation.

In the first place, I fail to comprehend why the hon. the Colonial Secretary makes use of satrical expressions, as " your honor is pleased to describe," &c, when his Honor the Superintendent simply transmits a report of complaints made by Paora Tubaere and other natives against certain members of tbe Native department.

It appears that in your letter to his Honor tbe Superintendent, or in its copy to the hon the Colonial Secretary Paora has written where, from the context, it is evident that Tiopira is meant; nevertheless this small graphical error is dwelt upon as one of tbe clinching points in tbe negative demonstration. The statement that Paul denies having " supplied the facts," seems to me to be a joco-serious, paranomastic subterfuge, where ambiguous diction is used as an armour of defence. Paul certes did not supply the facts, but he supplied (by means of an interpreter, myself) a narrative of the facts, and all tbe circumstances connected therewith. Did not Paul and other natives interview his Honor the Superintendent for a specific purpose? Did not Paul visit Colonel Haultaio, and, as Tiopira 's agent, object to the registration of certain deeds? I have put these two last statements interrogatively, remembering that as once an eminent scholar and logician proved satisfactorily to himself that Peter was not Peter, so tbe Hon Colonial Secretary migbt, by an equipollent process or ratiocination, disprove the identity of Peter.

Your "assertions," Mr Tole, are estimated as visionary figments. This is tbe correct thing : I grant tbat an assertion without proof is a nonentity. The bon the Colonial Secretary, I have noticed, is not always sucb a toe-the-line stickler for dialectical rules. Of course we shall now bare tbe pleasure of demonstrating tbe "assertions,'' to the doctor's satisfaotion. Very well — nous verronsl

As regards toe remarks of Messrs Preece and Kemp, I, in toto, deny their appositeness, admitting that the difference of our views is the result of parallax, our positions of observation being so very far apart. My having advanced £(320 to Tiopira and other natives on account of land sold has nothing to do with the subject of your letter, unless Messrs Kemp, Preece, and Co. intend to balance tbe accounts by contraß, and prove that I bave been negligent and remiss in my duly, or even betrayed the trust reposed in me by the hon the Native Minister.

I grant that advances, amounting to £620, were made "at a very early stage" of my negotiations, but not a moiety of this money was paid when Mr Wilson, who was surveying the Waipoua block, received a letter waruhim to leave the field, as otherwise Parore would send an armed party to drive him (Wilson) off the laud. Mr Wilson gave me tbe letter; it was written in English, and sub-signed "Preece and Graham, agents for Parore." Mr Graham was at that time surveying some land of Parore's; however, the ruse de guerre did not succeed.

The assertion that I ignored Parore's claim to the land is utterly devoid of truth. I can, if called upon to do so, adduce irrefutable evidence of having offered Parore £200 as an advance on tbe sale of his land; but be said " Give me £500, or tbe land never ehall be yours."

I could not controvert the assertion that " Parore is the principal chief in tbe district" where be lives, aud where he has disposed of thousands of acres; but I deny that he is the principal chief in tbe locality cold to the Government, area 72,892 acres, and the nearest boundary lour hours' ride from Parore's settlement.

Had Messrs Kemp and Preece taken the precaution to make "an early Btag6"in their negotiation, and advanced £400 or £500 to Parore prior to the decision in the Native Lands Court, tbey would have saved the country £500.

As regards Tiopira's reserve, it is a portion of the Waipoua block. It was surveyed by Mr Wilson, and a plan of it containing tbe area, was produced in the court, where it was adjudicated upon conjointly witb the Maunganui and Wapoua blocks. Tbe expression " whicb afterwards turned out to be 12,000 acres," is consequently nothing but puerile clap-trap; and indeed, to my mind, the whole of the statements above Mr Kemp's signature form the most flimsy, flabby, and vapid exegesis I thought it possible to emanate from from such a fountain of self-sufficiency .

I now come to Paora's letter: it is manifestly an answer to Mr Kemp's questions, " Who interpreted these answers to Mr Tole ? Was it Mr Nelson ? Paoro's reply ia " I cannot say

who the interpreter was to that lawyer. I only saw Mr Nelson there once, but Mr Tole, the surveyor, I saw oftener." Now, as you know, I brought Paul to your office once only, when I, at his request, gave you an account of his alleged grievances. So far, therefore, Paul is correct; but in the same breath almost, he acknowledges having seen your brother oftener than me. What an asgis of protection may not this equivocal manner of expression afford to an evasive controversialist. Paul's concluding sentence, "I had nothing to say with reference to the matter complained of," is all but the truth. While I gave you " tbe matter complained of" in English, Paul graciously condescended to treat you to an occasional mandarin nod.

Now, sir, being at the limit of my scribbling tether, I must ask you to overlook any inelegance of diction I may have indulged in unwittingly; while at the same time I would assure you tbat even assumiug the plasticity of some of the natives concerned, in conjunction with their official allies, I shall still be able to prove that truth can make headway against the strongest current of opposition, and tbat tbe conduct of Messrs Kemp and Preeoe has been contrary to the letter and spirit of the Native Lands Act.