ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. Wellington, June 23, 1848.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 303, 24 June 1848, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. Wellington, June 23, 1848.

Sir, — A place like Wellington, as i dare say you occasionally find, does not afford a constant supply of interesting topics for the entertainment of the readers of newspapers ; but the absence of these hardly authorises an editor in admitting into his paper communications attacking the characters of public officers, while he himself admits that he cannot vouch for their accuracy. What is this but to pander to the depraved tastes of a certain class of readers? For, other readers look to him to arbitrate in these matters, and not to throw the onus on correspondents of whom they knownothing : they expect him to supply them with information, for which they pay, not to leave them to the conflicting statements of, perhaps interested, correspondents; -T - The English constitution, indeed, presupposes and requires on the part of the people a watchful jealousy of all public officers. But such afeeling is very different from that morbid suspicion which would represent every public servant as an enemy to liberty, and deficient in integrity and honesty. The indiscriminate censure of the deserving and undeserving public servant defeats the end of all censure, which is useful only when it is administered with justice : if both alike are involved in one common lot — if censure and abuse are indiscriminately levelled at all, there will be but little encouragement held out to men of honour and integrity to engage in the public service, which will be left as an open field for needy and designing rogues., I would venture to suggest that editors of public journals should occupy higher grounds, and endeavour to lead public opinion, freely and even severely censuring where censure is needed, at the same time boldly defending public men in the honest performance of their duties from attacks dictated only by malice .or private pique. A correspondence has appeared in the Independent, to which I now allude. It was commenced by a writer who signs himself O, and who attacks the Resident Magistrate's private character, as well as his capacity for the discharge of public business. With respect to the former charge no one who has the pleasure of knowing the Resident Magistrate would offer him such an insult as to suppose for one mo ment that he stood in need of any defence from

the charges of an anonymous libeller. And with regard to the latter, I shall only say that the proceedings of the Resident Magistrate's court are no hole-and-corner proceedings, nor conducted at a distance from public observation or the inspection, of higher authorities; and that the Resident Magistrate's reputation is not likely to suffer from O's glaring misrepresentations and distortions of facts. Moreover O's admission in his second letter precludes the necessity of any defence on either head, for he distinctly admits the contrary of what he had previously stated— he effectually eats his own words;— he says — " Serious as were the errors in these and some other cases, which have occurred, the statement of them does not in any manner impugn the integrity or the humanity of the magistrate, nor, necessarily, his fitness for the office." It is to the credit of the Resident Magistrate that he has shown his contempt of O's calumnies by refraining from making any reply to them. When it was once ascertained who the author of theletter signed O really was, all mystery as to the motive of the attack was at an end. A lawyer with a restricted sphere of practice — one at least belonging to the lowest species of the genus, — and a rejected applicant for the abolished office of Commissioner of the Court of Requests, is just the person one might have expected to have written such a letter. In his first letter he dealt largely in insinuations against the private character of the Resident Magistrate ; in the second he seems to have discovered his error— lo have perceived that he had broken ground in a wrong direction — that his attack was likely to prove a failure; he has therefore indulged more in generalities, and directed his attack rather against the ordinance which gave existence to the Resident Magistrate's court. It is perhaps to be regretted, for his own sake at least, that he had not previous|y made up his mind as to what was the real grievance he had to complain of, the public might then have been more inclined to trust to his judgment, and place confidence in his statements : such initability of purpose seems to imply any thing but singleness of mind. But it has been said that there is a reason in everything; and in his case he may as well have the benefit of it. In his first letter he was writing anonymously, and dealt largely in false insinuations and assertions: in his second, which was written after he had been compelled to give up .his name, he moderated his tone on that score, and has turned indignant patriot, venting his abuse in the usual terminology and cant of the class. But his patriotism seems to have been an after-thought, and to have about as much connection with the subject he first commenced with, as his own motives in writing may be supposed to have with the public weal. I may, however, appear to be wronging him, for he professes to be ovei flowing with zeal for his clients. He says, "The right belongs to the client not to the counsel." But if it be fair to judge from his present animus what his zeal for his client really was in the case which he conducted, but which he now alludes to contemptuously as " the unfortunate action," it would appear that his zeal for the interests of clients in the abstract, was greater than for those of a real one; and that in the passage just cited above there was one word for the client and two for the lawyer. I must now notice an extraordinary production in the same paper — a letter signed A. The writer is very vehement in inveighing against the Resident Magistrate's incapacity for his orhce. He talk 9 \ery big of administering justice to "an enlightened community." Iji is a pity that such men have no means of obtaining an estimate of their own qualification for the office of public cens>or before they venture to assume the office, and deliver their own decrees with a dogmatism which nothing short of infallibility could warrant. I will onlj trouble your readers with one extract from this notable performance, which actually beggars description, and is quite worthy of being preseived for insertion in some future New Zealand " Curiosities of Literature." "While the plaintiff was in quest of Mr. Strang, some matters transpired that proved to the Court that Luke Harris was an inmate with deceased at the lime of his death, and availed that opportunity to keep what property he could belonging to the deceased, in addition to which he has taken a gun and other- property that belongs to William Jaikson, (now in goal on a charge of insanity.) At the time of deceased's death he was indebted to Charles Radford about six pounds, in consequence of which he detained two goats, but the Maories have taken the canoe, and in consequence of having taken deceased's property, been compelled to contribute some ten or twelve shillings towards paying for the coffin, which seems to be the assumed ground for plain tiff bringing a charge of £2 :ss. against the defendant." Such a passage defies analysis: I will only allude to a few of the most glaring blunders. What does "belongs" agree with?" — To whom does "he" refer? "deceased" or "Charlesßadford"? — What does "but" connect? " been" has no real connection with any part of the sentence; but what did the writer intend it to refer to— "deceased", "Charles Radford", or "the maories"? — What does "which" refer to — " having taken deceased's property", or " hay- j ing taken the canoe"? — But enough. j Now I ask on what grounds does the man "who can deliberately pen such a passage as this j claim a hearing from "an enlightened commu- | nity"?— Does he think that either the plaintiff or the defendant in a cause could benefit by any ; - light — original or reflected — which he could cast j upon a subject ? If he thinks that he is called to be an enlightener of the public — 1 venture to tell him plainly that he has mistaken his vocation. He affects to sneer at the Resident Magistrate ; and asserts that "he is utterly incapable of filling his situation", — that he had better " limit himself to cattle dealing, as more suited to his capacity." But what position ■would " an enlightened community" deem suitable to this writer's abilities? At what point above zero would it assign him a place ? Certainly according to his own showing he must be onsidered unqualified for a cattle dealer. W ould pig-driver be too high ? I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, B.