THE STANDARD. SATURDAY FEBRUARY 8, 1873.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume 1, Issue 25, 8 February 1873, Page 2

THE STANDARD.

SATURDAY FEBRUARY 8, 1873.

“ We shall sell to no man justice or right: We shall deny to no man justice or right: We shall defer to no man justice or right.”

AVe have great pleasure in affording. Mr. Poynter an opportunity to make such explanations as he has considered necessary on the subject of the recent case of poisoning at his homestead. That explanation will be found in this morning’s issue; and, although we desire to assist him in allaying the indignation his conduct has caused, we cannot but think that he has immensely overreached himself, and taken more pains to state his own callous indifference to public opinion as to his share in a calamity which all rightly-balanced minds will deplore, and to give his individual opinion about ourselves, than to clear himself from the “ rule ” laid down in the rider to the verdict of the jury at the inquest. Mr. Poynter is an adept at evasiveness and irrelevance. He has displayed much ingenuity in his tortuous navigation of the real facts of the case; but as his own evidence furnishes a Scylla for every Charybdis, we shall have no occasion to travel beyond what he stated before the Coroner to expose the animus which has guided his pen, in the composition of his present letter. Beadily complying with Mr. Poynter’s request for space to reply to our remarks of Saturday last, and to enable our readers, and his, to * judge of the fairness of the deductions” we have reprinted the whole matter this morning, so as to give them a better opportunity of doing so. Mr. Poynter, attempts to explain away what lie calls our assertion that Ae “ had more regard for the lives of sheep,

than for those of men.” We opened our remarks by drawing attention to the lesson taught us in the fact that the reckless and indiscriminate use of drugs on sheep-farms generally (of which Constable Hart’s death was the latest melancholy illustration) was so near akin to criminality that it proclaims us, as a people, open to that charge. We pointed the moral by a direct reference to the case “before us, and Mr. Poynter, by implication, came within the swoop of censure. It is a habit of.the country, which custom has familiarized to the minds of those whose duty it is to employ such deadly agents in their business; and in the sense of an universal deprecation of it, as a disgrace to humanity, we averred that Mr. Poynter was culpable: this we repeat. If, however, it is any satisfaction to him, we have no hesitation in saying that we think he is no more so than others whom the law, (we could almost write) a Haws to send people out of the world with impunity ; but we impale Mr., Poynter on the horns of his own assertion, and not on ours. He said clearly “ the reason, the cask is kept covered is to prevent ‘ stock ’ from drinking out of it,” not one of the reasons ; and, so that his meaning should not be misunderstood, the word “ stock ” was, to our surprise, quoted in evidence, in inverted commas! This sole reason is corroborated, too, in Mr. Poynter’s letter to day. He says again, “ the object of my'warning with regard to the cask was to prevent its contents being used for the washing of dishes, or the persons of men." He cared not whether it could be “mistaken for ordinary drinking-water ” or he would have had some other ‘ object ’ in giving the warning ; but as the proprietor of this vast life-taking commodity he conceives his duty is done by seeing that the men don’t wash themselves Or their dishes in it! He, a Magistrate, holding a Commission in the Militia of the Colony, allows a detachlnent of Her Majesty’s Military forces to encamp on his premises where, as he says “ Every- “ thing is poisonous.” What sane man could hope to escape ? We are taken to task, too, for suggesting that the Constabulary officers might have done so and so. Had “so and so” been done we probably might have learnt whether it is usual when the force camp out that they have all the freedom of a cricketing party, under canvas for the enjoyment of the thing; or whether the usual guards, and complement of discipline were kept up. Lacking that knowledge it is our peculiar function aud duty to supplement the inquiry of the jury, and ask “ can these be, without our special •“ wonder ? ” If we have “ accused” Mr. Poynter of malversation, he has furnished us with evidence in support of it. For convenience sake, we pass on to the 4th paragraph of Mr. Poynter’s letter. He says our reference to his “ direct testimony on oath is equivalent to stating that, had he not been on oath he would have misrepresented the matter, and that our discovery of a “ strange inconsistency ” in his evidence is, in effect, saying that he had misrepresented it. Nothing of the kind. Was he not “on his oath,” in the second instance as well as in the first ? It is quaint logic to let us off at halfprice in that way; but Mr, Poynter may be easy on that score; we have not so poor opinion of him as to believe that he wilfully misrepresented anything. No, we bore down on the “ testimony on oath,” to show the hardihood of the man who, morally culpable through admitted carelessness, had the effrontery to look “ twelve intelligent men” in the face, and calling h’is God to witness, depose to facts which should have possessed him rather with a humble contrition, than with a vainglorious defence and justification of his own blameworthy conduct. We alluded to it to shew the importance of the evidence, being “on oath,” and that its value should, be taken in the exact proportion to the means that had been secured to prevent the death of deceased, and not solely with a view to clear Mr Poynter from accusation and its consequences. Mr Poynter professes not to see a “ strange inconsistency ” in his con-

duct. If it had not occurred to him that the arsenic could be mistaken for drinking-water, why did he ** particularly point out the cask,” and say that the “contents might be mistaken for

ordinary water as it was clear.”? Why did he go twice to the tent to warn the men ? Why did he also warn the Sergeant, and “ one of the constabulary,” pointing out the cask, unless he thought an accident would happen from, mistaking its contents? If we grant him that there is no “inconsistency,” Mr. Poynter must allow that he merely warned the men for fear that they might assoil the liquid with either their “ dishes ” or their “•persons,” and not that they might drink of it. Either horn fixes him.

Mr Poynter says we “ imply ” that he said “ no more ” to Captain Bichardson than “ that arsenic was a dangerous thing.” Mr. Poynter should quote from his own evidence correctly. His words are, “ I warned Captain Bichardson of the danger to be incurred from arsenic no more; no less. Whether Mr Poynter takes any merit himself in so warning Captain Bichardson, or whether Capt. Bichardson saw anything meritorious in the information, it does not alter the fact that he merely stated what all the world knows. ~ If he did say anything further, whqfe is the record of it ?

Mr Poynter asserts that we “ damn him with faint praise.” Well, we are very sorry for it; it is quite unintentional on our part to do either. The one we dare not; the other we cannot do ; besides, we think his own devices are quite sufficient for either purpose. But- what a telling commentary he passes on his own jurisprudent knowledge, in stating that while we acquit him of any “criminal design” in this matter, it is “almost equivalent to stating that he committed a deliberate murder! ” Comparisons are odious ; but, certainly, the “intelligence" of the jury, in not attempting to under value the weight of testimony, against Mr. Poynter, shines out in brilliant contrast to his darkened ignorance of the law he professes to dispense. Mr. Poynter soothes himself with the cold comfort of the jury’q rider, but we defy him to prove the construction of it, which he quotes as “ the verdict,” for a purpose. They do not say what he imputes, in their verdict, and in the rider they merely say that they “ are of opinion that Mr Poynter took sufficient means to caution the men against using any of the vessels” which were known to be poisonous ; and that “ as a rule sufficient precautions are not taken to prevent accidents: ” to this “ rule” the Waeranga-a-hika tragedy forms no exception ; would that it did. They do not say, as Mr. Poynter would make us believe they did, that he gave “ sufficient warning ” about the cask and its contents, or took sufficient means to guarantee against mishap; they leave that an open question with a generous desire to let him down tenderly. In this state it comes into our hands, and therefore it is in Consonance with their opinion and not “ in the face of it,” as he states, that we say Mr Poynter was, to use his own words, “ grossly careless and blamable ” ; but his “ disgust compelled” him to say something, and a pretty mess he’s made,of it! Mr. Poynter’s opinion of the value of our sympathy we accept with thanks. Every man is entitled to his opinion, and we have ours of Mr. Poynter: With reference to the concluding irrelevant portion of his letter there is little to say. If, however, —as Mr. Poynter has expressed so much “ disgust,” principally because these pages are read where they will have the desired effect—he thinks that a gratuitous ruination of this journal is likely to follow his displeasure, he has overshot the mark. We can easily understand why he wishes it to be considered useful only “ as a medium of advertisement” Mr. Poynter is A capital specimen of that great army who consider their self-imposed greatness sufficient to place them above criticism. He is a true representative of that class, whose aim is to gag the press, and trample under foot the rights of conscience and personal opinion. He is the very prototype of that (not by any means “ considerable”) section of the community who fear an honest but-spoken expression of public sentiment ; who, seeing their time was fully come When they could no longer ear-wig subordinate officials of the Government .for their own exparte purposes and aggrandisement, endeavoured to clog the freedom of this journal with conditions of surveiUance and espionage beneath con-

tempt. Whatever section of the community entertain the Mine opinions as Mr. Povnter, we are sure it is not “ considerable” in either numbers, wealth, or intelligence, therefore our “ withers are unwrung and if Mir. Poynter thinks that this late melancholly occurrence will be lessened in the weight of culpability which has fastened itself upon him, by contemptuous expression of his lilliputian opinion of ourselves, he is verv much mistaken ; if he fancies that he has totally obliterated the Standard by unmeaning postulates, and by declaiming against it for having presumed to question his conduct, —or if he concludes that the potency of his great name “ down south,” or elsewhere, is sufficient to deter us from again breaking the choice commandment of his decalogue, we have only to reply, that where it is necessary for our voice to be heard,

“ For the cause that lacks assistance, For the wrong .that needs resistance.” —neither he nor all his hierarchal descendants, from the time of William the Conqueror to the massacre at Poverty Bay, will deter us from our purpose.