New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4539, 7 October 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7.

The terms of Mr. Sheehan’s motion, regarding certain laud transactions in Hawke’s Bay, which was discussed in the House of Representatives on Tuesday last, were such as invited defeat. The accusation was that of “ scandalous and “ dishonest dealings ” against certain Europeans, in connection with which dealings two high officers of the Government were named by Mr. Sheehan. The attack was pointed at Sir Donald McLean and Mr. Ormond. It was a twice-told tale, and possessed neither the charm of novelty, nor the merit of accuracy. Unhappily for the good name of the colony, and of Hawke’s Bay in particular, personal feeling has a great deal to do with this . matter. It is not taken up in the interest of public morality ; —not at all; public morality, or public interests, have nothing whatever to do with it. But. private feeling, and private interests have everything. We make no personal accusations when we say this. We simply state a fact, known to nearly every public man in the colony ; and it is to this unhappy circumstance that we owe the very painful and unpleasant discussion in question. Mr. Sheehan professed to have no feeling in the matter beyond a love of equity and justice. His desire was to protest against wrong doing. Well and good ; the desire is a laudable one, and we should be the first to assist him in exposing wrong doing where it exists, but here there is no proof of it. The transactions complained of were inquired into by an impartial and eminently qualified commission, and the report of that commission, which is part of the public records of the colony, exonerates the two gentlemen named from accusations which had been preferred against them, and which Mr. Sheehan so indiscreetly revived. This fact was demonstrated during the debate, but why was the duty of doing so forced upon Mr. Ormond 1 The evidence taken by the Royal Commission was in Mr. Sheehan’s hands, so was the report : it was not fair or right, therefore, to go behind that evidence and report except it was intended to impeach both. But Mr. Sheehan did not, on any material point, differ from the report of the Royal Commission. He contented himself with preferring the most serious charges against two gentlemen of high official standing in the colony, who are also members of the Legislature, upon inferences drawn from collateral circumstances, and which had no real bearing upon the merits of the case. His charges will be preserved in Mansard. True, so also will their refutation ; but the-report of the Royal Commission of 1873, which gave the result of a judicial inquiry into the transactions complained of, will not be generally accessible to readers of Mansard. For this reason, we say, the accused gentlemen have not had fair play. The accusation is set forth at large in the official report of New Zealand parliamentary debates, while their vindication is only partially stated. But apart altogether from the groundlessness of the charges, the tendency of Mr. Sheehan’s remarks is subversive of the very foundations of public morality. His argument led up to repudiation, by Maoris, of all engagements entered into with Europeans. Is this a just principle to inculcate ? Would its practical application not be a stain upon the name of the colony ? We invite Mr. Sheehan to reply. He is committed to the advocacy of a policy which would plunge the country into hopeless anarchy, were it attempted to be carried into effect. It will not do to stop short with the deprivation of Sir Donald McLlean and Mr. Ormond of their fairly-acquired, and honestly paid for estates. That might satisfy those with whom Mr. : Sheehan is identified in this matter, but it would not satisfy the Maoris, who would not stop when certain pakehas had gratified their feelings of personal reveng’d. By ho means; tHe very same policy which would denude the Native Minister and the Superintendent of Hawke’s Bay of their private properties, would denude their enemies, as well as those who are innocent of all knowledge of the local antipathies of Hawke’s Bay. In this way, it will be seen that Mr. Sheehan places himself in a very anomalous position, for while he professes to be actuated by the very purest motives of public policy, he is in reality inculcating principles of an entirely opposite character. The House showed its appreciation of the charges by negativing the motion on the voices, and Mr. Sheehan displayed his usual acuteness when he declined calling for a division. It is a pity that so much time should have been wasted in debating long exploded charges against Sir Donald McLean and Mr. Ormond ; but it is a far greater pity that so much ingenuity, ability, and industry should have been so grossly misapplied. There is a fair prospect before Mr. Sheehan in the field of politics, if ho only battles fairly. Let him boar this in mind, and remember that by his present conduct he is doing his utmost to impair his usefulness, and by consequence, his influence in the House.

In conclusion, wo may say that wo entirely sympathise with the gentlemen who were exposed to Mr. Sheehan’s lash on

Tuesday last. They have deserved well of the public and of the House, and it was too bad to put them in a very painful position before the House, without the slightest grounds for impugning their personal honor or veracity. There has been a great deal too much of this kind of thing during the present session. The tone of the House is lowered by it; the respect in which the Legislature has been held abroad stands in danger of being jeapordised; and all for what ?—to gratify some of the worst feelings of human nature. Where there is any substantial ground for supposing that thex - e has been anything like corruption or abuse of office, we shall be the first to expose it, but we must utterly condemn wanton attacks upon public men after an impartial tribunal has pronounced them free from blame.