The Evening Mail. MONDAY, AUGUST 6, 1877.

Oamaru Mail, Volume II, Issue 397, 6 August 1877, Page 2

The Evening Mail. MONDAY, AUGUST 6, 1877.

Me. Ree.S is deserving of credit for tlie bold, outspoken manner in which he referred to the conduct of the Ministry in defending tl:e action for libel against the V/alca Maori. None but the most servile followers of the Government can for one moment attempt to uphold them in the course they are pursuing. The action of the Government is alike unconstitutional and degrading. In the lirst phice they have no right whatever to countenance the publication of this precious Maori newspaper. The House last session, by striking out of the Estimates the sum asked for by the Ministry to defray the cost of printing the Waha Maori, marked as strongiy as it possibly coxild its disapproval of the Government continuing its publication. This action was taken by the House in pure self-de-fence. When the Waha Maori was first established, the object sought to be achieved was one which could not well be found fault with. Its then purpose was to beget amongst the natives a desire to become acquainted, through its columns, with passing events. From that purpose, however, it was gradually but surely turned, until at hist it became nothing more nor ltss than a medium through which to siug the praises of the Ministry in general, and Sir Doxald M'Lean in particular, and for the abuse of anyone who chose to look at things in a different light from the heaven-born statesmen who have for some time past ruled the Colony. To such an extent was this prostitution of the Waka Mauri carried on, that the House was compelled to step-in and refuse to provide the wherewithal for the publication of the paper. The Ministry, however, were not easily to be deprived of their Maori organ ; and, under the pretext of some arrangement having been made for the publication of the paper at the cost of private individuals, it has continued to be printed at the Government Printing Office, with what result we all know. The most foul abuse has been heaped upon an opponent of the Ministry, who has been compelled to take proceedings against the Government printer for libel. Instead of allowing the " private individuals" at whose cost the paper is alleged to be published to defend the action themselves, the Ministry, with an amount of liberality only to be mot with where people are dealing with the money of other*, step into the breach and defend the case out of the public funds. A more disgraceful or dishonest proceeding could scarcely have been looked for even from the Ministry. We trust that the House of Representatives will not allow its action of last session to bo set at defiance, and that it will insist upon the members of the Ministry reaping the reward of their disobedience of the orders of Parliament by paying the costs of this libel case out of their well-lined private purses.