WHO'S AFRAID?

New Zealander, Volume 9, Issue 748, 15 June 1853, Page 3

WHO'S AFRAID?

To the Editor of the Nkw-Zealaxder. Sir—lt is interesting in these days of political turmoiL. too see new matters and subjects, of a less exciting nature, brought forth. The Southern Cross, of Friday last, brings before us the important and almost startling fact that one Mr. David Burn is " not afraid of bullocks;" and it would be doubly interesting, as a matter of natural history, to know if " bullocks returned the compliment," for I remember the celebrated Charles Matthews once telling an anecdote of a man " who had ate so much beef that he was ashamed to look a bullock in the face." Now by a slight stretch of imagination one might suppose that this worthy comedian had our friend David in his eye at the time, for I know that the said worthy editor has often been on the horns of a dilemma. But be this so or not, the fact is now before the colony that " Mr. David Burn is not afraid of bullocks :" and as I should be sorry that this little piece of history was lost to the world (except that very minute portion of it who read any part ofthe Southern Cross but the advertisements), I have, therefore, troubled you with these few lines, and beg to remain, Sir, yours, &c, A Bullock-Driver. Epsom, June 11, 1853. [We let our correspondent have his own jocular " fling" on the point he has chosen to comment on, merely observing that he might have found in yesterday's Cross a little additional material in the avowal of the Editor that he finds it necessary "to breakfast between each battle"' ofthe many his pugnacious spirit hurries him into A good rump-steak from one of the " bullocks" in question not be a bad adjuvant to the doughty champion's matutinal repast on the eve of conflict (as he might himself say.) But we take the opportunity of making a more serious remark on the deceptive impression which the editor's note on Mr. Armson's letter in the Southern Cross of' Friday tends to convey. Because Mr. Armson, in correcting a misrepresentation with regard to himself which the Cross had put forward in its zeal to discharge every arrow, sharp or blunt, in its quiver against Colonel Wynyard, had stated that he, (Mr. A.,) had undertaken *' to procure five or six signatures" to the Memorial to the Lieutenant Governor for an extension ofthe boundaries within which the Cattle Trespass Ordinance might be put in force, therefore, our honest contemporary tells his readers that the Memorial had only fire or six signatures altogether. His words are, —"the ' numerously signed Memorial' of the New Zealander turns out to have had only five or six names—which was apparently all who could be found to ask to warp the Proclamation." The fact, as we have good reason to know, is that the Memorial had between thirty and forty signatures, including the names of many ofthe most respectable residents in the Suburbs. And, as the question of' the "legality" of the Proclamation has been greatly harped on, it is not unimportant to mention that amongst the signers were at least four lawyers. We do not say that this absolutely proves the legality of the step, for legal authorities often differ; but certainly any candid man may conclude that the fact might have been sufficient to prevent the ready occurrence of doubts on the point in the Lieutenant-Governor's mind. We have referred to the matter, however, for the simple purpose of adding one more to the accumulation of proofs ofthe way in which Mr. Brown's newspaper is made to warp and torture language in his service.—En. N. Z!\