ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume III, Issue 181, 24 April 1847, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. Wellington, 23d April, 1847.Sir, — I must again heg permission to. be allowed to reply to a lettet ,froni m; "-Friend -to. | Faction," which has appeared in another paper, i cannot retract anything said by me in my last letter. There are no contradictions in it as this writer supposes; the statements which it contained were written deliberately; what I now write is — not explanatory of, but an addition to, it. I distinctly assert — that this writer told I me he did not know I had written the letter, — that he said be would not mention my being the wiiter, — that he has been the iirst to divulge it — with what motives he beat knows — by publishing the fact m a newspaper, — and, that inasmuch as the bearer of the letter, who isniw in Wellington, did not know who wrote it, he could not I have mentioned it. In reference to his absurd ! comment on my expression — actual writer, I must further add, that although I felt convinced the disclosure must ha.\e been made by himself, i could scarcely bring myself to believe that he could have been guilty of the additional meanness of having recourse to the shuffling trick of actually writing in the same controversy under two different signatures, and of asserting that he was not the writer of a previous letter written by himself, as he does when he says — " / admit," "and these four writers admit;" now these four writers were' those to whom I had rep ied, one of whom was himself. Can it, Sir, I ask, be worth while to defend one's character from the charges of such a writer as this ? Can censure and abuse coming from such a quarter — whether directed against the Governor, or yourself, or io insignificant an individual as myself, be viewed otheiwise than as praioe: malis tttsplicere laudur, est.

As 1 have been compelled to resume my pen, which 1 threw away in disgust, when 1 found what shuttling I had to contend with, 1 must beg your indulgence and that of your readers, while 1 reply to some statements contained in his iormer letter; since my neglect to do so, .seems to have been construed into inability. Does this writer, who attempts to discover an illogical conclusion in my lever, but who has entirely failed to do so, not perceive that a letter which may be utierly beneath notice as respects its stupidity, may nevertheless contain some mis-statements which it may be advisable to expose? — or, that when such a writer as " L." dares venture torth to strut, and crow and clap his wings as though victory were already achieved, and to talk of settling the whole question by the application of '• seven pennyworth of rope" it may not be time to show thai contempt has been mistaken toi fear? But had this writer attentively read my letter, before he attempted to answer it, he would have seen that I did not say, that the last and most stupid was most worthy of refutation, but that on its appearance it became " advisable to expose the fallacies which they" — i. c. the previous ones — " contained." Is this the fairness the Public is to expect from this writer? In another place he assumes that I justify the amount paid tor Otakou, although I have expressed no opiniou on the subject, and writes some nonsense about this being " a sample of my logic;" whereas 1 merely adduced it as a well authenticated fact, in order to refute the erroneous assertion' ol " Subscriber," that the Governor had given " ten times more than had previously been deemed sufficient: which he must have perceived, as there is no ambiguity in my expression, when he wrote this remark. - He blames me for not falsely assuming, as he does, that the whole of the Ngatitoas were concerned in -the Wairau, massacre, or implicated in the recent rebellion ; and that parties are guilty of treason before they are convicted of it; — for unless convicted, it would certainly puzzle him to show how they have foregone their civil rights. He denies that a legal conveyance of land is any guarantee for the settlement of a disputed claim ; and then proceeds to indulge in a trite commonplace about " uniformity of causation" and "similar causes producing similar effects ;" omitting, however, after the usual manner of sophists, to prove that the causes or circumstances are similar ; thus leaving the examples he adduces to stand without a foundation as they best can. I am charged by this writer with " suppressing" their assumption that the Commissioner gave his "decision without any investigation / wiih how much truth your readers may decide from my words, which were these — "and though jour correspondents object to that decision on hearsay evidence which they appear to possess, they can scarcely be serious in imagining that a Governor could act upon such information, even were he supposed to be in possession of it." But, by thfe way, this writer seems to have an odd notion of the meaning of the words " hearsay evidence." What I ask is — not whether Mr. Fox or Mr. Spain wrote letters in the newspapers upon this subject, — but whether any evidence of the Commissioner having failed to investigate the Company's claim to the Wairau district has ever been officially brought before the Governor? If not, it is palpably absurd to censure £he Governor for not having acted upon that which has never been officially brought under hii notice, — even on the supposition that he could, in any case, legally reverse the Commissioner's decision. But perhaps the oddest

thing in this letter is the illustration of a judge acting in certainly a very comical manner. I can only say that ihe forms of no English court of justice would admit of a judge acting in the manner he supposes; and thatif one attempted to do so, be would in all probability shortly find himself shut up in the company of persons who make use of theie fnnny illustrations. Jf I did not think he would be prejudiced against any advice coming from me, I would advise him to leave attempts at illustrations and arguments alone, and confine himself to that which is more within his ieach — virulent abuse. He seems also to think lhat the " decision" of a judge and a " verdict" are synonymous expressions. But however clear this question must now appear to most persons, I would not willingly leave even the shadow of an argument unanswered. There appear to be two grounds on which they rest the Company's claim to the Wairau, notwithstanding the adverse decision of the Commissioner. The first is, — that the districts of Wairau and Blind Bay being imludedin one and the came deed, the Commissioner's favourable decision in reference to the validity of the purchase of the latter, is a strong presumption in favour of the validity of the alleged purchase of the former. Now, if there be any force in this argument, it must depend on the two facts — that both districts were conveyed in one "deed (not two deeds on one parchment, which would 1 prove nothing). — and, that the Company's claim to Blind Bay was sufficiently and properly investigated; otherwise it would afford no presumption whatever in reference to the validity of their claim to the Wairau. The second is,-, lhat there has been no investigation whatever of the Company's claim to the Wairau district, and consequently that the Commissioner's decision thereon is, ipto facto, null and void. But this latter propositio . can only be maintained by denying the former one — by denying that the tw«< districts were conveyed by the tame deed ; for I appeal to any person at all conversant with questions of this kind to determine, whether it is possible that the Commissioner could so thoroughly investigate a deed of this nature, as to give a proper and satisfactory decision concerning one part of it, without at the same time obtaining so clear a perception of the whole subject involved in it, as to enable him to give a correct decision on the other part. Moreover it is indisputable, from the nature of his commissioii, that he was the only competent judge as to what amount of investigation would satisfy his own mind; it is, therefore, absurd to indulge in idle analogies taken from the proceedings ot the courts of law. These two propositions are evidently inconsistent and contradictory ; they are however contained in their writings, and have been repeatedly brought before the public. These writers, therefore, are reduced to this dilemma of acknowledging that the Company's claim to the Wairau district has been investigated, or of denying, what they have already allowed, that there has been no investigation of the claim to Blind Bay: for according to their own statements, the claims to the two districts are contained in one and the tame de»d. Of course this will be called "logic," ai-d "special pleading." In reference to that part of his letter wherein he endeavours by a clumsy sophism to mystify what I had made perfectly clear, namely, that the legality of the warrant, which was the ground of the expedition, had no necessary connection with the question of land*— whatever confusion may have existed in the minds of Captain Fitzroy and others upon this subject — I shall say nothing, because he admits that Captain Fiizr y's calumny was founded upon the assumption that it was a land question, — the otily assumption on whicV a talumny could be founded: but that it was a land question is what these writers are now endeavouring indirectly to establish, when they blame Captain Giey for purchasing the district, and accuse him of casting a stigma on the memory of the dead: — the absurdity of which accusation I proved to demonstration in my last letter. This writei charges me with jumbling together letters from different writers, and ''manufacturing propositions not contained in any of them: 1 ' had I really done so, it would be somewhat difficult to account for his elaborate but abortive attempts, contained in a long lettei, to refute them. * But waiving that objection, is the intellect, I ask, of this writer to be taken as the measure of th« intellects of- the community? Beer use he cannot perceive that they aie contained in the letters to which I replied, does it therefore follow that they really are not contained in them ? Or, because be is incapable of generalization, and always dwells on particulars — the '"Aoto.and wA«t, and toAere, " am Ito assume that your readers are equally incapable — that they are deficient in one main faculty of the human intellect? Though a rather trite remark I repeat it — a controversialist is bound to furnish arguments, but not brains. Instead of wandering to subjects altogether foreign to the question, if they wished to weaken $c, force of my first letter, these writers ought to have disproved some of the facts on which my reasoning rested, or to have invalidated some step in my arguments; or, in common fairness, to have admitted the truth of the conclusions deduced. They have not disproved any of the facts adduced, which are all notoriously true ; they -have not succeeded in invalidating fine of my arguments ; but still they deny the conclusions. Can such writers be worth reasoning with? Can the public place any confidence whatever in men, who are unable to see even the proximate consequences deducible from the statements they make; and who cannot even perceive them when they are pointed out ? I must now conclude by saying that I am quite willing to bear any odium that I may incur, for having come forward alone on a former occasion to call attention to what, in my opinion, was the ill/gal condemnation of even notorious criminals; or for having now exposed ihe trickery of a faction which has attempted to disturb the unanimity of the community, and to injure a deservedly popular Governor. I sincerely apologise, to you, Sir, and to your readers for having now done, what I had no intention of doing, — troubled you again on this question. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, An Enemy to Faction.