The New-Zealander.

New Zealander, Volume 8, Issue 676, 6 October 1852, Page 2

The New-Zealander.

He |iist and fear nut Let n)) tiio ends tlion .nin'st at, lie tliy Country's, Thy God's, and Tiuth's.

AUCKLAND, WEDNESDAY, OCT. 6, 1852.

Our profoundest salaams arc justly due, and ! arc hereby tendered, to our accomplished contemporary the Southern Cross, for the very marked — although probably wholly unintended — respect with which he treated the article in which we recently endeavoured to vindicate the proposition in the new Constitution Rill for reserving a certain annual amount to be applied for "Native purposes. 1 ' lie, at first, refrained from "answering on the spur of the moment," that he might "have the more leisure to ponder" arguments which, as he thus urtually confesses, he did not find it easy e\cn to make a show of grappling* with; and then, when he did flatter himself that he might ■\enlure on the encounter, he devoted three whole columns to the subject, although the mass of important intelligence brought by the Raven had arrived on the preceding day, and would naturally be looked for by his readers, — whom, howocr, ho put off with a meagre outline of news which, (extracts and all), scarcely occupied a space equal to that devoted to what he called "joining issue" with us. We cannot be insensible to the compliment implied in all this; although candour compels us to slate that we were unable to return the courtesy in kind. We really were not so overwhelmed by the weight of our contemporary's cannonade as to be under the necessity of waiting and "■pondering" before we again exhibited any sign of life on the question ; nor yet did we deem his manifesto against justice to the Natives so important as to warrant us in selling aside other and newer claims on our attention. We believed he had given no valid answer to the case we had put forward, and were so willing to let the public form their judgment on the matter as it already lay before them, that we frankly confess we recur to it to-day, not so much because we think it requires a reply, or because some of the most offensive and unfounded aspersions in it are repeated in the Cross of yesterday, as because there is rather a scarcity of interesting subjects immeiUataly suitable for editorial notice, pending the hourly expected arrival of intelligence from England which may render antiquated and out of place observations we might offer on some of the leading political topics now engaging the minds of the community, and especially the points involved in the Constitution Bill. Under these circumstances we may deal more briefly lhan we otherwise should, with a con sidcrablc part of the Southern Cross's long and laboured attempt to maintain thai Parliament should not show such regard for Her Majesty's Maori subjects as the "Reserve" manifests. We can the more easily be brief on some points as a reference to our former article will suffice to answer several of our contemporary's principal assertions. He says that — while the New Zealandeii "protests against the supposition that the claims of the Natives are based merely upon philanthropy and charily," we do not "show upon what the Native claims do rest." If he will be obligingenough to read our article again — he will see thai we did show this in some detail: — we showed, for example, that those claims rest, not merely generally upon the recognised law of nations, but specifically on the Treaty of Waitangi, and more particularly on the moral obligation to expend, for the benefit of the Natives, at least a considerable portion of the difference between the almost nominal price at which their lands are purchased from them by the Government and the real market value of those lands. We will add that such a provision as this lt Reserve" most fittingly forms part of a measure which gives the Colonial Legislature the control of the lands that, on such terms, are to be obtained from the Natives, their rightful and legal original proprietors Again, the Southern Cross does "not know where we have gathered the list of objects which we assume to be included in the Native Purposes, of the Colonial Minister," and " cannot perceive upon what grounds we suppose Hospitals and other charities will be charged against the annual impost of £7000." We have already given our authority, being no other than that of the Colonial Minister himself. Our contemporary's "ponderings" on our observations must have been very sleepy if he did not "perceive" that we stated this distinctly ; and if he will turn to the full report of Sir John Pakington's speech on introducing the measure which he will find (not in his own columns, for he did not indulge his readers with it ; but) in the New Zk ylander of the 4th ult., he will see that Sir John expressly slated the, objects in these words,—" He proposed that £7000 a year should be reserved for the benefit of the Native tribes, and that, upon the recommendation of the Governor, it should be appropriated for the construction and maintenance of hospitals and schools, the payment of Resident Magistrates, making presents to Native Chiefs in acknowledgment of their services, and generally to other purposes which would tend to promote the prosperity of the Natives." We shall not trespass upon the good nalureof our readers by repeating any more of our previous article here; they will judge for themselves of the character of a disputant who strives to | build up his case by a hardy assertion that we evaded points on which we were especially distinct and explanatory. The manner in which the "pondering" 1 Southern Cross deals with some of our arguments is amusingly characteristic. We had vi ged in support of the equity of this Reserve for the Natives,— the probability that they would not, at least for sometime, have any adequate or direct representation in the Colonial Legislature ;— ihcclaim on their behalf arising out of the large amount of their contributions to the Rc\enue; — and the consideration that the money reserved for their purposes would be spent in the country in which it was raised. Our contemporary does not altogether ignore the fact of our having advanced these pleas; but docs he answer them ? Not he, truly. lie calls them " cavils," and " a preposterous blinking of

the question," and "begs to assure us that the people of New Ulster can see as far into a niillslone as we ;"— and this is his answer to tangible, and, we venture to believe, clearly slated arguments. It is \<tv possible that there arc amongst the slavish followers of the Cross those who think that those "flowers of rhetoric" really are a reply; but it would ob\ious!y be only a waste of time and labour to discuss the" mailer with /Ann. Reasoning must be lost on clique-led men, whose reason is laid so prostrate at the feet of prejudice ; and our appeal must be to readers who can distinguish between arguments and mere noisy words, and who have sufficient independence of mind to judge for themselves. On one of the most important points, however, the Southern Cross has, with more cunning than fair-dealing, maintained an unbroken silence; we mean the power which the Rill proposed to vest in the (Jenoral Assembly of the Colony to "alter all or any of the sums mentioned in the Schedule and the appropriation of such sums to the services and purposes therein mentioned " Its readers must indeed "as tenderly be led by the nose as asses," if they arc content to adopt the conclusion of a leader who, while pretending to lay the whole case before them, keeps them, so far as he is concerned, in total ignorance of this most important fact, — that the Civil List and the Reserve for Native purposes are, in the aggregate and in detail, to be subjected to the control of the Colonial Legislature. We pass by all that is merely scolding of ourselves ; — but there is one accusation which runs throughout the web of our contemporary's comments, on which we have a right to demand that he should either prove or retract his statements, — although our past experience of his controversial tactics may give us little hope that he will have the ingenuousness to do the latter, while we know that he cannot do the former. Referring to the sum expended on Schools, he says, "of which sum our contemporary, and the body of which he is the recognised trumpeter, have fingered no inconsiderable share," and again, yesterday, he inveighs against "the clique who having largely shared in the past illegal and profligate appropriation of the educational funds are feelingly disconcerted at our objections to the colony being thus fleeced under the New Constitution, to the tuneof l 7000 a yearfor native purposes." We fearlessly challenge the Cross to prove that either the missionaries (to whom we suppose him to refer) or any parties immediately connected with this journal are justly liable to these imputations of sordid selfishness. Without waiting to comment on his trite but not true allegation that we are the "organ" and "recognised trumpeter" of any body or parly, we admit and rejoice that this journal has from its first establishment manifested a disposition of cordial friendship to the Missionary operations by which the country has been rendered a safe and promising field of colonization, and a numerous Native race has been elevated from the depths of heathen darkness to their present position. Jn this view of the services of the Missionaries, particularly in relation to their educational efforts, the Government have so far sympathised as to aid in operations instituted in the first instance, and to a great extent still supported, by the voluntary liberality of the British public. But, if we may speak on behalf of the Missionaries, let us ask in what particular have they individually bencfittcd, or are they likely to benefit, by grants for Native purposes? Their personal incomes are neither derived from, nor to even a fractional part, augmented by these grants : they are paid from the Funds of the Society whose agents they are. And if there be endowments of land in some instances for educational purposes, what private gain can the Missionaries derive from them? They are given strictly in trust, and must to all fnlure lime be sacredly appropriated to the public purposes for which they were granted. There as respects ourselves, will the Southern Cross point out in "what manner we are interested in the Grant for Native Purposes, beyond the general interest in the welfare of the people of both races in which we trust we participate? How have we ''fingered a share" in the Grant? That our advocacy of what we believe to be the interests of the Natives has been unbought, we confidently affirm, and we defy the Cross to disprove our statement ; merely adding, for the consideration of whom it may concern, that if we had been ourselves "sacking" — (to adopt for the moment one of our contemporary's favourite elegancies of speech) — if we had been ourselves "sacking" "no inconsiderable" portion of the money appropriated by the Government for the instruction of the Natives, we should at least have had the good taste to refrain from vilifying as "illegal and profligate" an expenditure, to our own share of which we were still clinging with an eager grasp. One word more. Are the Southern Cross and its sympathisers in hostility to this provision of justice and benevolence to the Natives, willing to have the sincerity of their professions of philanthropy towards them tested by an inquiry into what they have actually donedone with evident disinterestedness and at personal cost— for the good of the Native race in education or any similar way ? Are they willing to have a comparison instituted in this matter between them and those who are prepared cheerfully to acquiesce in the Reserve for Native purposes? The point is worth more expansion than we can give it at the close of an article which, in spile of our purposes of brevity, has extended to its present length.