ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume II, Issue 108, 12 August 1846, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. Sir, — A sense of justice induces me to ask ". space in your valuable columns to answer two , c letters signed "A. M'Donald," published in your papers of the Ist and Bth August. Tbe * former attacking the character of the native s chief Puaha, and the latter reiterating " every word as a simple statement of facts/ 1 feel myself fully justified in coming forward . on this subject, from the information I have carefully collected from theresidents in Cloudy Bay, both native and European, during my vat rious visits to that place since the Wairau massacre, especially as it is to defend the character r of one of the most amiable natives in this colony, 3 whose ignorance of our language prevents his defending himself, or even becoming acquainted • with the attacks published to his prejudice. Previously to making any remark, I beg to state that I do so with the most perfect good feeling towards Mr. M'Donald, who, I am fully persuaded, would not put forth any statement he did not believe to be strictly correct ; and who, I believe, is now led into error by miiinformation and ignorance of the character of Puaha. We find in the letter published in your paper of the first of August, no lew than six poiitive allegations against Puaha, viz.— Ist, That he is a villain of leas magnitude than Rauparaha. 2d, That his hands are still red with the blood of our countrymen. 3d, That he was the resident native of Cloudy Bay who invited Rauparaha and Rangihaeata to come over to prevent the surveys of the Wairau. 4th, That he pretended to wish for peace, and inveigled the sufferers at Wairau to the convenient spot where the massacre took place. sth*, That he held the Bible in his hands to prevent strife, but when the first shot was fired, dashed it to the ground, and was one of the principal Wairau murderers. 6th, That this monster has since acknowledged and boasted of the fact. In reply, Mr. Editor, I feel myself fully justified in recording a most unconditional contradiction to every one 6f these allegations, and I defy Mr. M'Donald to the proof. I should not do Puaha the justice his uninterrupted good conduct merits, were I to stop here. I shall, therefore, make a few remarks on each allegation, taking them seriatim. Ist, There are parties in Wellington who have known Puaha for terms varying from twentytwo years to shorter periods — myself six years; and they all concur with me in stating, that he is, without exception, the best native on the whole coast — particularly mild and pacific in disposition, and of s high sense of justice. He is universally spoken well of by those who know him, and called the white man's friend, in contradistinction to Rauparaha, who is designated "the old serpent," and Rangihaeata " the old savage." 1 defy any person to prove him a " villain." 2d, I have never been able to learn from either native or white man who were present at the Wairau, that Puaha imbrued his. hands in blood; btit, on the contrary, that he did all he could to prevent the conflict, and after the catastrophe there, prevented those sanguinary wretches, Rauparaha and Rangihaeata, from murdering all the whaleis in Cloudy Bay and Queen Charlotte Sound. " I have it from several witnesses who were present, that he reasoned with them on the impropriety of these intentions for a period of two hours, and finding reason unavailing, concluded by saying — "These are my white men, and if you hurt them, you hurt me; and before you hurt them, you shall kill me." 3rd. I have always understood that Charley, not Puaha, invited Rauparaha and his associates oveJ to prevent the surveys of the Wairau; and this I shall believe until proof ia furnished to the contrary. 4th. Who can say Puaha's overtures for peace were "pretended?" Does not his whole life, which has been an example of mildness and moderation, rather prove that he was sincere in wishing for peace? Or who can prove that he "inveigled the victims to a convenient place for the massacre?" does not the evidence of the Wairau survivors prove, that Puaha told them that the warrant would not be- executed without bloodshed ? Would he have told them of danger if he wished to inveigle them ? sth. If Mr. M'Donald consults his information again, I think he will find that the Bible was knocked out of Puaha's hand — not " dashed to the ground." None of the published Wairau evidence* {and we were led to believe that all taken at Nelson was published,) informs us that Puaha took part in the fight; and my information goes to shew that he not only took no part in the fight, but' that he was unarmed (that is, had no gun), and there was no tbma-hawking until the massacre commenced : and lam prepared to prove conclusively that He took no part in the massacre. 6th, Mr. M'Donald has given Mr. T. Fitzgerald as his authority for this; but there are two ways of telling a story. I have seen Mr". Fitzgerald, and he' says, Puaha told him (not boasted to him) that he was at the fight at Wairau. This we all knew before ; but does this prove him a "monster ?'' I trow not. And even had Mr. Fitzgerald said more than he told me, what authority is he on such a subject? he knows little of the native language now, and must have known less three years ago, when he 3ays he heard it. He, therefore, had a whaler's interpretation ; and many of them understand Maori as well as Paddy understood French. Thus far, Mr. Editor, I think I have established Puaha-'s innocence, at least as to some of the allegations : and unless proof can befurnished, I contend he ought to be- wholly acquitted in Jihe .public mind- Lfear we have been too ready t6-"allo\#* our prejudice to- get the better of our judgment, and condemn him unheard, because he is a Maori. But I would impress upon your readers the. justice of giving Maories fair play as well as their^feirer brethren. If one of our countrymen, who had borne an unimpeachable character for twenty two years, were attacked, we should not be ready to take assertion for proof, and allow his reputation to be blasted without hearing'any thing in defence. Am I then asking too much when I seek the, same consideration for a " savage?'*

What would have been done had one of our countrymen been the means of saving one hundred lives ? Why, we should have raised sub- , scriptions, presented him with testimonials, eulogized him through the press, and done everything in ourpower to evince our gratitude. But what has been done for poor Puaha, who ■was the means of saving at least that number ? He has been attacked through the press, called " villain, murderer, monster," and other agreeable epithets. Is this just? Even now while we are abusing him, what return is he making? He is risking his life for vs — behaving in such a gallant manner as to win for him the approbation of all who witness his heroic bravery — I have it from two gentlemen who have arrived from Porirua during the week, that in the late engagement with the rebels, he and his men distinguished themselves beyond all others for their bravery ; they stood in the thickest of the enemy's fire after the others had' drawn off, and did their opponents such damage that Rangihaeata himself appeared, and cried to them, " Ngatitoa ! Ngatitoa ! What areyou doing? You are destroying your own people." I am, Sir, Your most obedient servant, John Wade.