ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealander, Volume 9, Issue 718, 2 March 1853, Page 3

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the New-Zgv lander.

Sir, —The Southern Cross of this morning, or, to be quite correct, the disinterested “ Despiser of shams,” who writes with such good taste in that paper’s issue of to-day, reminds me of the saying about “ knocking a man down and then kicking him for falling,” The editor or proprietor (for it is necessary to make the distinction) of that newspaper evidently thinks that Mr. Burtt, the Vice-Consul of the United States, did get knocked doAVir by the attacks in his two former numbers ; his correspondence with Mr. Wm. Brown revealed first of all that that patriotic citizen had acknowledged him as Vice-Consul (a fact and a favour for which I hope Mr. Burtt feels duly grateful). This, however, not answering any purpose, the slashing article of Friday last was concocted, and now following hr the wake thereof the “Despiser” joins in chorus.

The “ Despiser of shams” surely must know that an office or appointment does not lose any of its authority by delegation so long as that delegation be made legally. I gather from the letter in the Cross, that Mr. Williams, being the duly appointed American Consul here, saw fit to appoint first Mr. Polack, and then Mr. Fitzgerald; that Mr. Fitzgerald, being about to leave Auckland appointed Mr. Lewis, and that Mr. Lewis before he left appointed Mr. James Burtt; there can be nothing irregular in this, surely. Mr. Lewis of course could have appointed anyone else, and if he had any reason for supposing the « Despiser of shams” to be the fittest person to succeed him he would'have appointed him. I dare say Mr. Burtt cares very little what the “Despiser” thinks of him or his appointment either, so long as he has the proper power to do his duty, and in doing it is respected by all right minded men. But, Sir, when this whole case is considered from the beginning, I must say it becomes far more serious than a mere matter of “sour grapes.” Such of your readers as see the Cross can hardly hut remember, bow very recently the proprietor of that paper thought it just mid fair to insert an article inviting some American House to open a « branch” in Auckland. I have not the paper by mo, hut I believe I state quite fairly the substance of the article in question. Now considering that the firm of Bain and Burtt had but recently succeeded to the American Agency and Consulate, considering that no firm in the place is more respectable, or more respected, and I believe so on good authority, why did the Cross think"it needful to print this when the Amarican Whalers \fere all in harbour ] If the editor wrote the paragraph, why did the proprietor, with a proper neighbourly feeling towards his brother Merchants, just as good and honourable as himself, not suppress it 1 I fear to trespass on your space, but another question arises out of this case, out of this bad case so far as the Southern Cross and all who write for it arc concerned. Can it be true that the proprietor of the Cross

uses his influence as proprietor of that paper to try and write down those who with intentions, which he lias no right to question being as pure ns he professes his own to he, yet differ from him as to the means of their accomplishment! Can it be true that if any man differ from him in business, or in what he would call “ politics (what a term to apply to petty local grievances, or to personal hates!) that man is not safe over any Tuesday or Friday morning, but may see his name in print with every contemptuous allusion and insinuation carried to the very verge of defamation of character \

Can it be true that all this is done hy one who has no right whatever to interfere in other men’s business, but who with self-conceit, as over-ween-ing as it is pitiful, merely because he chooses to pay for the publication of a newspaper, assumes that right, and appears to think that lie alone is capable of discussing politics, that he alone represents “the colonists,” that he is the only person fit to represent the Republic of America, that he alone in short is the “ genuine Jarley, and all else are counterfeits.” You will observe Ido not wish to refer in this letter to the “ Memorial” about Foreign Shipping which has proved the peg on which the Cross has hung so much ill feeling. I have a great respect for the “ 120 colonists” who are said to have signed it, and if they all read it before they signed it my respect will be much increased.

I do not even wish to notice, except by this passing allusion, the strange request which I was told the Cross lately made to have the disbursement accounts of the whalers made public. Why, said a friend to me, “ They might as well publish the Editor’s butcher’s bill!” I am not Mr. Burtt’s advocate, nor am I one of that “ frantic knot of Mr. Brown’s detainers,’ * of whose existence the “ Despiser” has for the first time made me acquainted, but I am one who wishes well for Auckland, who rejoices in its prosperity, who would like to see the whole community living In peace, who thinks from his heart that any person (especially if he be in the commission of the Peace) who sows discord and division amongst us, is not a friend, but an enemy. Yet this is the man who at the election of Provincial Councillors assumed precedence of those who for years had worked quietly in their vocations, without ever finding it necessary to print a newspaper, or hire a touter to trumpet their patriotism. Your obedient servant, Fair Pray. Auckland, Ist March, 1853.