ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealander, Volume 9, Issue 770, 31 August 1853, Page 3

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of tbe New-Zealander. g IR —ln tbe two columns of remarks, in which your "ulain and bonest tale is briefly told," nothing that 1 stated has been contradicted, nor has any fact inconsistent with my statement been brought forward, t-eitber, indeed, was impossible. My " explanation and indication," for the appearance of which you are Ileased to say I was so " nervously anxious," might therefore be fairly left to tell its own tale, but I cannot allow you to obscure by a cloud of words the serious cbarees which it has suited your purpose to level vminst me, acting in no public, but in a strictly private CiP la your leading article of the 20th, in allusion to my delay in delivering the letter, you say, "it is not strange that Mr. lirown and his friends (the italics are your own) felt anxious to postpone as long as possible the publication of Mr. Morgan's letter, &c." From your article of the 24th,1 select the following allusions to myself,—the Rev. John Morgan "being absent, and beiug evidently mistaken in his confidence, &c. We might ask how has the Cross obtained such accurate knowledge of that gentleman's opinion V* " How came it to pass that that gentleman instead of complying with therccuest of his reverend correspondent by forwarding to ua oim letter, held a conference with the party whose misstatements the letter was designed to contradict, the re- u.it of which was tbe conclusion that both copies of tie letter—that to the Cross and that tc the New-Zealandee should be kept back. Was tbe decision arrived at in connection with any central or particular deliberation on the best modes by which the liberty of the press might he restricted when its exercise might be 'damaging' to Mr. brown's interests! For obvious reasons we do not follow out this enquiry just now." ... Your last assertion to which I call attention is that my client " has been so badly treated from the firs'.." Your article of the 27th attempts to support these quotations by reasoning, which is of such a character that I would at once pass it by.but that hasty resders may mistake sophistry for sound argument, and erroneously conclude that because no answer is offered, therefore that no answer can be giten. With tbe delay, I have already shown, you have nothing to do. 1 refer you to my last letter, and to your own words that " with this Mr. Morgan has more to do than you have." Nevertheless, delay is the single fact of which you have to complain ; I am indebted to you for an obvious and sufficient answer. You ask " what instructions'!" you cannot but know that on this ground I cannot fight, my hands are tied. Your taunts shall not tempt me into a betrayal of a trust. I may, however, say without impropriety thus much, that the course pointed out was inconsistent with publication, alone a sufficient reason for my wishing to delay it How tbe Cross obtained the knowledge, you assert it possessed of what never existed, I am unable to say. I know not even who invented that principal luminary, tile "opinion" itself, but you at least take to yourself the merit of adding its satellites, tbe "inverted commas," with which it now so prominently appears. You meet my distinct denial of the " opinion" by quoting, apparently as conclusive, an authority, which passing by all question of its relevancy, you have long pledged your credit to being the very worst. Did it not strike you that, if you meant to prove anything, it was at least incumbent on you to shew, not assert that my deliberate word was an authority less to be relied on than one to whom you say it is sufficient to answer, " Tush, It's only the Cross." You proceed to show that the word "conference" may be made to mean what I have stated took place on tbe occasion alluded to. I will not deny it; but this was not the question. Was that the sense in which the word was used by you ? You say it was, and if so I bave no cause to complain, and accept your explanation. The passage, however, has been very generally read differently. Your next argument, if it means anything to the purpose, amounts to this:—that Mr. Whitaker kept the Fetter in bis possession from publication, Mr. Brown kept his letter from publication, therefore they must have "conferred" and resolved on a "conclusion" from the same motives, They did the same thing argues the New-Zealander therefore, they, must have conferred and come to a concluiion to do it. Change the word " conclusion" in the latter part of your paragraph to the word "decision," the sense, in which you first used it, and there will be no difficulty in forming a fair estimate of tbe validity of the argument. The " farther proof is equally good, because, says the NewZealander Mr. Whitaker endeavoured to effect a given object, therefore, he and Mr. Brown must have come to a " conclusion" (determination) to do it. A new work on logic by tbe collective talent of the NewZealander would be worth something as a curiosity. But after all tbe really important point is the connection of the conclusion with "any .general and particular deliberation as to tbe best mode by which the liberty of the Press" &c. I have looked with care through the 6 two columns" for some allusion to this, but unsuc cessfully, as this wa3 tbe gravamen of the insinuation, the search you muat admit should have been attended with a different result. You then leave much to be inferred by stating that " for obvious reasons you do not follow out this enquiry just now." I refer you to the very next paragraph of the very same article from which this quotation is taken to prove, I trust to your satisfaction,how "deeply censurable" is this mode of insinuation. To be sure that is when employed by tbe Southern Cross. Does the use of this weapon become less " censurable" in the hands of the New-Zealander that it is wielded with so much freedom in that paper's attack ou my private character. I now come to the object for which I have set out the quotations in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of this letter. I read those sentences as .imputing improper and corrupt motives and conduct to me as a professional man. I read them with the context as obviously intended to impute that I " delayed," with a view to serve Mr. Brown's interest, and not Mr. Morgan's,— that the " opinion" was an improper disclosure to an opponent—that tbe object of the conference was to serve Mr. Brown at Mr. Morgan's expense, and that the conclusion was come to for tbe 6ame purpose. The charges of " mistaken confidence" and bad treatment shut out all questions as to tbe intention ; and surely it must be clear that any other meaning would render all the allusions to me only idle verbiage. I say the attack on me was personal, not even on a political opponent, but upon the private character of a private person ia the management of bis private business. Sophistry and the quibbling with words clearly tvaa not tbe manner in which my distinct denial of the charges would have been met by a respectable newspaper. Honesty of purpose I should bave thought would have dictated a candid confession of error, or a production of proof; the fact of the delay in delivering the tetter (which was fight or wrong according as the motive was good or bad) was the single fact you were in possession of, all the rest could only have been earmise founded on this. I defy the production of a lungle/acf inconsistent with this assertion. Not being aware that tbe performance of duties strictly professional bad rendered me so obnoxious to Ibe New-Zealander I might bave been at a loss to conceive the motive for persecution, but for the solution to which you call my especial attention, I presume as a ' Beware" for future occasions.

TltetftirJ reprint of the sentence that " i happened just tuen to be conducting legal proceedings taken by Mr. B-own against a public journal (the New-Zealandek) for the boldness of its strictures on bis unfitness for the Superin tendency." 1 canuot but admit is uninistakaeble. 1 would gladly have overlooked this quotation, but you &re determined, it appears, not to permit me to do so. I Under the great provocation, I was conscious I had received, 1 nertrtbelesa answered not by reioits and

I the imputation of objects and motives, however obI viously I might have done so, but by simply Mating and i showing that ihe imputations against me ware " wholly destitute of the slightest foundation of truth," —that , they were '* calumnious" and " pure fabrications." I j wrote as I felt, and 1 felt as a man whose private cha- '■ Meter had been most unfairly and unjustly maligned. ! Upon further reflection, I am fully satisfied that not only what I wrote was quite warranted, but that even stronger terms would not have been unfitted to the occasion. I regret that your bint of the jury is late. I should have much preferred (thehint coining from you) that mode of dealing with your slander. Having, however, so far vindicated myself I can have but little claim on the law for what has passed. If the sole object in commencing this controversy was to elicit truth, I presume the sunj-ci. is exhausted, and you may now take credit, for what I inn sure no one will dispute with you ; the introduction of two new correspondents to the readers of the New-Zea-lander —bow far the Rev. Mr. Morgan will thank you for making him one of the principal figures in a virulent election controversy, which be might have avoided, hut for your mineable assistance, I am unable to say ; and the question, low far the cause of Christianity itself is served by " dragging" " Christian Ministers" into such controversies, I leave to the calm reflection of sincere and thoughtful christians. 1 regret, not less on Mr. Morgan's account than ray own, the course you have adopted ;—on my own account, not because of any Bting in your insinuation of facts, originating in your own imagination, or in the inconclusive reasoning you have deduced from them, but because from the foundation of Auckland till now, I had kept the resolution not to become a newspaper correspond! Nt—you have forced me into breaking it for the first time.

I thank you at all events, for the hint conveyed by the proverb of the "sweep,"—l take warning, and decline further correspondence. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, Fred. Whitaker. Auckland, 29th August, 1853. [We insert the foregoing letter at considerable inconvenience—owing to its length, and the circumstance of its haying reached us only yesterday at an hour when most of our arrangements for this day's paper were in forward progress. We need not, however, further trespass on our crowded space by any detailed commentary on it. The facts as we before stated them, are not shaken—nay, are once more confirmed —by Mr. Whitaker's angry efforts to escape their force. lie did keep back a copy of a letter which the Rev, Mr. Morgan had written in his own defence, and instructed him to forward to us so soon as he had read it, until we had publicly (in sell-vindication) called attention to its not having reached us. He did communicate with Mr. Brown, —the party against whose "attack" on tbe reverend writer the letter was a protest,—and the result of that communication was t\\nt Mr. Whitaker's "expressed wish" was acted upon by " delaying the publication" of Mr. Morgan's letter,—-Mr. Brown taking care to keep hack the copy in his possession,—(surely not with the purpose of promoting Mr. Morgan's interests or aiding Mr. Whitaker to carry out that gentleman's "instructions") We have already adduced sufficient reason for believing that Mr. Morgan had given Mr. Whitaker no discretionary power as to sending or withholding our letter ; hut we have now conclusive proof of this in a subsequent note from Mr. Morgan (dated the 22nd inst.) in which he explains the cause of his having enclosed our copy to Mr. Whitaker at all, by stating that, having been " unable from a press of duties to send Mr. Whitaker a copy of my reply to the Cross" he had enclosed our copy to him, "requesting him to read and then seal and forward it." Mr. Morgan further says that " he feels no doubt that long ere this it has reached" the New-Zea-lander. This we take to be quite decisive on one of the most important points at issue. Mr. Whitaker, moreover, did not even let us know that he had received a letter addressed to us, until after the letter had appeared in the Cross. Had he done so, and told us that he judged it best for Mr. Morgan's interests to postpone its publication, we should have given his views the most respectful consideration. We are not about, however, to re-argue a case in which, —Mr. Whitaker himself being, however rcluctantby, our witness as to facts —we have acted rightly and justly. There is much indeed in Mr. Whitaker's letter which, —although he did not think it beneath him to pen it, we should think it beneath us to answer. We shall only add that in our censure of what we considered prejudicial to Mr. Morgan, we disclaim having bad any intention to "slander" Mr. Whitaker's "professional" or "private" character. — Ed. N. Z."|