Original Correspondence.

New Zealander, Volume 3, Issue 125, 11 August 1847, Page 2

Original Correspondence.

To the Editor of the New Zealander. Mr. Editor, — My attention has been drawn to some remarks in your last week's paper, relative to a certain letter w liieti appeared in the Sydney Alias, under the si^natuie of " Scrutator," and although I fully admit the right of the writer of those remarks to pass such censure on the style of that letter, as to him might seem fit, ycl 1 cannotallow him to " usurp the functions of a judge," and in that capacity to pass condemnation on the writer's motives, as well as his facts, besides passing a censure on the talented Editor of the Sydney Atlas, for inserting " Scru« tator's" letter. With all due deference to his superior judgment, he will perhaps permit me to suggest, that the Editor of the Atlas is the best judge as to what he should insert or omit in his well-conducted newspaper. The writer of the remarks I allude to, states, that " Scrutator's" arguments are bad as well as his styre, that his facts are bad, and that he does not under* stand the nature of an " argument on demurrer." f must admit, Mr. Editor, that lam not a lawyer, and as such, that 1 am unable to mystify your readers with legal terms and bad latin, or to argue, when required, on either side of a case with equal fluency. I leave these accomplishments to the gentlemen of the wig and gown. My letter simply contained facts for the information of those individuals in the sister colony, who take an interest in the affairs of New Zealand ; and the writer of the remarks I allude to, may rest assured that " Scrutator" will not be deterred by any offensive remaria of his from " scrutinizing" the conduct of auy public officer, and if necessary, holding him up to public reprobation. As, however, the " bad taste" of " Scrutator's' letter is so strongly insisted on, perhaps ttie writer alluded to, will favor the public with his model for epistolary correspondence. But this subject ig too absurd. The writer in the New Zealander, states, that he has " reason to believe," although he has " no right to know," that the much talked of Proclamation of December, 1844, was not issued in accordance with the Attorney-General'3 advice, however, it might have been acquiesced in by him. Is not this something 1 like a legal quibble f The functionary 'above named, as the Governor's legal adviser, was, I presume, consulted as to the legality ol the proposed measure; and we are now told tliat he only " acquiesced 1 ' in it, but did not actually advise it, Did he the i warn the Governor of its illegality, or did be " acquiesce" in it, knowing it to be illegal? The writer in the New Zealander may rest assured, that the colonists are not to be blinded as to the real facts or the real merits of the case, by any shew of legal reasoning- or legal sophistiies. They are not wantiug in discrimination, and do not require to be told who are their friends or who their enemies. Great blame is to be attached in some quarter, for all the expense, trouble and obloquy that have been cast upon the land claimants, under Captain Fiizroy's Proclamation, and it is a poor satisfaction to them to be told now, that the whole affair was " a giand mistake," that the Governor had not the power to waive the Crown's righl of preemption, and that they have not the shadow of a legal title to the lauds so purchased. All this no doubt is perfectly true, -but who is to blame, and how was it that this great discovery was not made before issuing the proclamation ? However, the whole matter is now fortunately set at rest by the spontaneous liberality of the home Government; and it is therefore to he hoped, that all the " bad blood" and " bad reasoning" that has been engendered and made use of, iv connection with this unlortuuate subject, will now cease— and for ever. Not the least extraordinary part of the matter is, that it appears as if no one, from His Excellency downwards, can ever speak on this subject without losing his temper. Had the Governor taken upon himself the responsibility of settling the question two years ago, as m s fact he was authorised to do, how much ill feeling, ill' will, and annoyance would he have bayed himself as well as others. But he took the other course, and wbat has he gained by it ? I fear, neither honourlove— obedieuce, nor—' 1 troops of friends." I am, sir, yours, tifc., SCRUTATOR, j Auckland, August 7th, 1847.

[We arc glad to see that " Scrutator " has taken the game view of the Governor's late measure, with ourselves, and trust that he will use his influence to allay those feelings of irritation which are so natural to men that have suffered a heavy loss. Ed. N. 2.]