Untitled

New Zealander, Volume 9, Issue 768, 24 August 1853, Page 2

The homely old proverb,— *' If you wrestle with a sweep, whether you are up or down you will be sooted," has more than once occurred lo our memory in connection with the controversies which the Southern Cross has forced upon us; and we have often fell it a humiliating—though circumstances rendered it a necessary-—task, to refute the slanders and misrepresentations of that journal. Recent occurrences having, however, (as wc have ample reason lo know) greatly contracted the circle in which itis read at all, and yet more narrowly limited the circle where its statements are received with the slightest credence, we have felt lo a great extent relieved from the obligation lo notice anything it may advance, knowing that amongst most classes of our community there would be a sufficient answer found in the pithy expression,—" It is only the Cross!" On this ground we pass by without comment its shuffling evasions of the real points in our exposure on Saturday of the factious and calumnious "Petition" respecting the military votes at the Election for the Superintendency, which Mr. Brown's parly say was forwarded lo England by the E1.M.8. Serpent, but the signatures to which they, wisely for their own purposes, still keep out of view. On this ground also we leave to make what impression it may, the allegation that six persons at Rangiawhia had written requesting to be registered. " The Cross says " this was so, (without, however, venturing to corroborate the assertion by giving the names of " the six"), and argues that therefore it wnsall right that seven voted for Mr. Brown. The testimony of the Clergyman of the district (in the self-vindication which he was compelled to publish) is this:—'/ Generally speaking these parties did not know that they had ban registered as voters until they received letters and voting papers requesting them to vote for Mr. Brown." This is enough for the present. Possibly in due time, for other reasons than because "the Cross says" so-and-so. there may be more light thrown on ihe registration of the voters of Rangiawhia, as well as at other places. The indifference which we feel respecting the aspersions of our contemporary on many persons and matters (so long as "It is only the Cross says it!") cannot with propriety be extended lo the case of the Rev. John Morgan, that gentleman being absent, and being evidently mistaken in his confidence as lo the fulfilment of his intentions by some to whom he entrusted the carrying out of them ; and, moreover, documents havingbcen forwarded direct to us which add (what indeed was unnecessary) confirmation lo his own distinct and positive statements. Mr. Brown's friend, Mr. Charles Smith, has come to the rescue with a letter published by our contemporary yesterday, which, even if it stood alone, would not affect, in any point of the slightest consequence, the view of the subject given in our last, but the value of which may appear more clearly from the following communication:

Snt,— Having read on the morning of August Ist, a statement in the Southern Cross ol* ,iuly Ctli, 1853, that the Rev. John' Morgan h;id overpersuaded cei-tain of the electors agiin-st voting l'or Mr. Brown, candidate for the Superiutendc ncy of tlie Province of Auckland : 1 was requested on the following day by the Rev. John Morgan to call upon Charles gmith,

i and West him to state the substance of the conversation which passed be ween Mew*. ! Smith, Wheeler, Chitham and the Key. John j Morgan on the morning of the election at Rangiawhia, that village being about four miles distant from Oiawhao. . I also requested Charles Smith to inform me whether the Rev. John Morgan, by the conversation with him had endeavoured to persuade him not to vote in favour of Mr. Biown. In reply to my first question Smith said that he askedTthe Rev. .John Morgan, whom he met !at the Church now in course of erection at Awamutu, whether in his opinion the Europeans in the country had a right to vote at the election ! The Rev. John Morgan replied, " Charley, in my opinion they have not a legal vote, being only squatters, and living on land for which no Crown Title has been granted." In reference to the second question, Smith said that the Rev. John Morgan had not endeavoured to persuade him not to vote, but had only his own private opinion as requested by Smith. jSmi'h further expressed himself as exceedingly annoyed at the conversation passed between himself and the Rev. John Morgan, being made the foundation of an attack on the Rev. John Morgan in the "Southern Cross" Samuel Morgan. Otawhao, August sth, 1853. In further corroboration of the true version of the transaction we also introduce the following statement from the other parties most immediately cognizant of the facts: The following is the substance of the conversation that passed between Charles Smith, the undersigned—Win. Chitham and Robert Wheeler—and the Rev. John Morgan, on the morning of the Election for the Superintendent. Chuiles Smith, being on his way to Rangiawhia, and passing by the building now in course of erection for the Church at the Awamutu station, and seeing Chitham and Wh.3eler at work, came up and asked Wheeler if he was not going to vote ; he replied that he did not think he should, as he did not think that any one living up here had a right to do so, being merely squatters. To this Smith instantly replied that that was his opinion. After some further conversation on indifferent subjects, Smith went to Edward's house. On his return, and passing again by the building and seeing the Rev. John Morgan in conversation with Chitham and Wheeler, he again came tip and entered into conversation about the election for the Superintendent, and then asked the Rev. John Morgan his opinion as to the right of the settlers in -the neighllourhood to vote. The Rev. John Morgan replied that he did not think we were qualified being squatters, and living on land for which no Crown Title had ever been granted. Charles Smith then went away, saying, he should go to Rangiawhia to see what was going on there about the Election.

The Rev. John Morgan did not say anything in our hearing, or use any influence that we are aware of in prejudice of either of the candidates. Robert Wheeler, William Ciutiiam. Otawhao, August sth, 1853.

All tin's we really deem supererogatory, but we did not feel at liberty to withhold documents which had been placed in our hands with a request, that we would ins3rt them if the Southern Cross should lake a course like that which it has taken. From a similar motive we feel constrained to offer a remark or two on the very characteristic manner in which Mr. Brown's newspaper returns to the attempt at once to gloss over the conduct pursued on its own side of the question, and to damage the reputation of an inoffensive and excellent clergyman. Our contemporary says,—

" The simple troth is this, that wc were unwilling to rake up the embers of a by-gone con-troversy,-and that the letter was unnecessarily damaging to theiwritcr himself- The gentleman to whom our contemporary's opy had been entrusted was likewise of this opinion, and therefore did not deliver it when received."

And ibis is " the simple truth" as " simple truth" is understood and reduced to practice in the council chamber of the Cross! Who can doubt that, on a matter so closely touching his personal concern, the Proprietor and "real Editor," the veritable " charioteer" was himself the superintendent here? Amiable man !---iiEwas "unwillingto rake up the embers of a by-gone controversy." So far from harbouring any vindictive feeling in his own bosom towards his pollical opponents, he, in his ardent love of peace and good neighbourhood., would not suffer the <alm succeeding the storm of a hotly contested election to be disturbed even by a clergyman's letter defending himself from a false accusation in the Crossl Resides, "the letter was unnecessarily damaging to the writer himself" I True, the writer did not think so : his view was that the calumny in the Cross was the '.* damaging" part of the affair, and that his contradiction of it was the really "necessary" part. But forsooth, he was in the hands of a man whose love for the cause of Christian missions, and lender regard for the character and usefulness of missionaries, impelled him to interpose as a guardian angel to prevent a Missionary from " damaging himself" ! And this is the Cross's " simple truth" ! The man of peace and love was not alone, however, in his views of what should be done in the matter. Mr. Morgan had sent a duplicate of this letter for insertion in our Columns, with a request that Ihc gentleman to whom it was enclosed " would read it and then forward it." This gentleman, (who, by a curious coincidence, happened just then to be conducting legal proceedings taken by Mr, Brown against a Public Journal for the boldness of its strictures on his unfitness for the Superintendency)our contemporary says, was of the same opinion with [himself, that it was belter the letter should not come before the public,—aVid " therefore did not deliver it when it was received." We might ask, how has the Cross obtained such accurate knowledge of that gentleman's "opinion"? How came it to pass that that gentleman, instead of couip lying with the request of his reverend correspondent by forwarding to us our. letter, held a conference with the party whose misstatements the letter was designed to contradict, the result of which was the conclusion that both copies of the letter—that to the Cross and that to the New Zealandcr. should be kept back ? Was the decision arrived at in connection with any general or particular deliberation on the best modes by which the "Liberty of the Press" might be restricted when its exercise might be "damaging" to Mr. Brown's interests? For obvious reasons we do not follow out this inquiry just now. The most characteristic as well as the most deeply censurable sentence in our contemporary's article, however, is the following,—The italics are his own :'--- " We could have made a very much worse c^se-against (hat gentleman (Mr."Morgan), had we been so disposed, for he has not (old the whole." This, we say, is characteristic. It will at once remind the reader of the inuendoes, —

the masked assaults on private reputatj on " the" Bewares"—the dark insinuations abn7> what ihe Cross could tell if it would o 1 tell it as to what people were or did athom or what a correspondence would disclose > the Cross only would publish it.-r-and m j[ of the same kind of covert stabbing w|,-j) was so recklessly employed. during\be <• lest for the Superintendency. Mr. MoS?" is not present to make the demand for if self, and we, of course, are not in anvrwT sition to make it on his behalf; but we hj not the slightest doubt that if he were hj he would promptly call upon his assaih to "tell the whole," and,—in-the conscio? ness of his rectitude throughout this aflV in which he has been so badly treated f the first—would defy him to do' his wbm^ It is mainly because Mr. Morgan is abs* that we have devoted so many words't subject which we should have prefer?*! leaving, like many other things from I? same quarter, to be dealt with by thesunf mary sentence with which it »snowbeconS very usual to dismiss all thought of porary's attacks,-"Tush! It i s St Cross!" * **