To the Editor of the New Zealander.

New Zealander, Volume 8, Issue 675, 2 October 1852, Page 3

To the Editor of the New Zealander.

Sir,— l congratulate you on tbe position your journal occupies compared with the unenviable one attained by your contempoiavy, and of winch he has lately Veen boasting so loudly. The Cross has certainly obtained for itself a distinction among ihe periodicals of the colony— not because it ha"? promoted the real interests of the country but by having, as its Editors profpas, uniformly opposed the Government, and by having, as others think, dealt in the grossest personiilin'es, and «dvocated, not the interests of truth, but ihe personal interests of a party. Let M-. Brown boas', if he please, and congratulate himself that his elevation to M.L C.is a public tesiimony to the value of all his sayings and doings — perhaps the next election will teach him a different lesson. I hnve been for some time looking for a reply to your challenge, given a few weeks ago in your animadversions on the vauntings of the Cross in reference to the claims of Mr. Brown as a public man. You veiy naturally demand some tangible proof that that gentleman is really a paragon of patriotism and disinterested devotion to the colony, as intimated by the j Cross. But no evidence appears either from ihe gentleman himself or any of his suppor'ers. i I have been a quiet observer of the course f ursued by ; the Cross for several years, and it is my honest convic- j tion that the claims put forth for Mr. Brown in h-s ! own Cross arp not sustained by the facts of his history. It is true the Government of the country hive received from the Cioss under all its Governors almost unqualified opposl ion ; but has that opposition been dignified, and diserimina' ing, and just at all tin es 1 Ha* it been such as hn mci the approval of thoughful, moderate, fnrseeing men? Has it been of service to the colony? What h.ive been the results of it? Has it not vhtually los us the advantage of being the capital of the conn* tiy? H,is the "continual dropping" of the Cioss served our interests in England ? Is it not a fact that a gentleman in London said to a very near friend of Mr. I3rown something to this effect— l do not vouch for the exact words— "You talk of the New Zealand Company — Brown's Cross has done more harm to Auckland than ever the New Zealand Company didjyou." Can Mr. Brown, in reply to this, point to a single instance where his wtitings have been quoted by any friendly home piper, with a view to the advantage of tlos Settlement? No, he cannot. On the contrary, the organs of the Company have always found his paper an excellent auxiliary on the spot for their purposes of deprecia ing Auckland and the Northern Province. The numerous inteli gent, and industrious Native population of our district — one of ihe greatest advantages we possess — has been held up bv the Company's tools at home as a scirecrow to fiighten entrants from settling down here amongst a people repre-enied at all times by Mr. Brown as in a dangerous state of discontent and dissatisfaction. Tlie carping diseon'ented spirit of the Cross mustnecessaiily injure us in the distance. Is it possible for a stranger to read it without receiving the impression that for misrule, for commercial and agricultural difficulties, the like was never known in the history of our colonies. But, Sir, might not most of the gentlemen immediaiely conneced with the CroiS very confidently tell the woild how successful they at lea t h.ye been in this misgoverned country ? Some of them hay* had no« thing to do but sit in their counting houses, and without putting a spade in ihe ground or travelling beyond the suburbs have amassed pretty considerable fortunes. And not a few of those perpetual fault-finders are daily looking out on many broad acres, well c opped and stocked, with plenty and comfort smiling around them. lam glad it is so ; but what does the fact s<iy ? Why, that they can not have so much cause for grumbling after all. Let the Cross publi-h such facts «o the world, and they will do more good than whole columns of ex« sggeration about the country's diffieuliips. One might almost think the Cross wishes to deter merchants and capitalists fiom ooming 'o share 'he large profits. It is granted. Sir, that Mr. Brown has uniformly opposed the Government He opposed the Municipal Councils' Bill, and most diligen'ly employed ihe Cross in thwarting its objects, and Laving several members of the Common Council under his influence he succeeded. And what is the result ? Why some £2,500 is> lost to the Province ; a sum placed at the disposal of the Council that might have employed many of our labourers and supplied their families wi h the necessaries of life, while the inhabitants generally might have reaped he advantage in improvement on some of our roads and footpaths, but which has gone into the pockets of he New Zealand Company. And yet the Cross boasts o' its beneficial doirgs. Let me ask again, Sir— Does Mr. Brown really deserve to be regarded as a great protector of public funds? '1 his, too, is claimed for him ; and it is conceded that he has often spoken out on Government Expenditure, and perhaps in many cases not without reason ; but 1 like consistency. Where was the Cross when the Commissariat chest was in danger of hiving rather an exoibiunt price drawn from it foi supplies of beef for the army? — when a r'uh firm of large stoikholders laid apian to get other contractor out of the market, then sent in a lender (the only one) ot »n extravngant price -so high, that the chief of the department really guarded public interests by rejecting the tender and calling for new ones. As ilii-. affiir was most likely known to the Editors of the Cross, why \sas this protector of public funds so silent on ihe subject ? And why was the Cross so s\lent when complaints were made about the supp ies of bone and gristle and coarse meat, furnished for the poor suffering patients at the Colonial Hospital, when sufficient price was p<idfir tjood nuiritious lood t If the (ross weie really the impartial leformer of abuses it professes to be, could it be silent on such subjects? In fact, common humanity would demand exposuie. The Cross seems to be greatly incensed at the sum of £7000 provided by the New Constitution for Native purposes and makes it the occasion of a philippic against the support given to Native educatio'i. as at present cair'ed on in this colony. Is not this very consistent on the part of Mr. Brown ? Eid he not, before the election, declare that he did no* see how the suun secured for such purposes by the Ordinance tlien in existence could be better applied. Now the election is j past, he sneers at ihe idea of so much for " Missionary tea hinjr " and though, as you have shown, the sum inrlud s many things besides Education, yet this is tbe only subject attacked as though the j Cross wished particularly to roaifest its hostility to the Missionary bodies so usefully employed in this country. Why not bare remarked in some things in reference to tbe natives that really involve a complete waste of public money 1 As for instance tbe salary of £100 to an incompetent Editor for ibe Maori Messenger and the funds j wasted in printing a journal so useless as up to tbe present it has been. It might be made a very useful medium of instruction to the natives, but hitbet to, generally speaking, it is worse than useless. Are we to conclude | then, tha'* the fiction, the nonsense, the uttPT trash given to the natives by the Messenger, is preferred by the Cross to Education in tbe English language, in I writing, in arithmetic, in geography, in natural history, I &c, and in ploughing, sow ing, reaping, building, weaving, &c, and in religion, in their duty to God and to tbeir fellow-creatures, which they are receivm-i at some of those educational establishments? If not, wby , sneer at the latter as Missionary teachings not to be •upported, and overlook (he Maoi i Messenger and its expenses. Again, the Cioss claims to be the advocate of the injured, and is often dwelling on the case of individuals among the Church Missionaries, and taunting you, Sir, as not having taken up that controversy. Now, if the Cross had been equally zealous in defending the interest of other parties one might give it credit for sincerity and impartiality. But is it so 1 What has tbe C>oss to say in defence of Mr, Cbisholm's claim? And what in reference to Mr. F. White's land on the Ilokianga! Do not some parties connected with the doss know well tbat Mr. F. White holds an awaid fiom Commissioner Godfrey for a valuable piece of timbered land op the Hokianga, and that the Government would issue a grant if Mr. White could get the land surveyed, but because the na'ives can sell the timber for a good price they refuse to allow the Surveyors to go on to it ; and do not the Editors know that the vessels tbat have lately come here from Ilokianga laden with valuable spars and timber are laden from that very land 1 Oujfht not all parties concerned, act in this matter as Mr. Campbell did at the land sale in reference to Mr. Cbisholm's land, and refuse to buy it until the dispute be settled. Ought the natives •to be encouraged to cutdown the Umber under such ciroumstances ? Mr. White has the mortification of seeing vessel after vessel floated off to London laden with timber cut from bis land, his claims, to which were fully investigated and decided by Colonel Godfrey, and cannot help h mself. But where is tbe impartial Cross? and whire its disinterested Editors? H'beie these gieat fiiends of the colonists, these unflinching ailvoratea of justice to all parties? Why dovs i.ot the Cross bear his testimony to tbe right or wrong of such CA^esaa these] I have given you a few plain facts illustrative of the claims put forth by the Cross, and leave the subject for the present. If circumstances require, and you can spare me room, I may deem it right to uddnss you agam on the sa^ ings and doings of the Cross.~l am, &cc, Theu