THE STANDARD. SATURDAY, AUGUST 16, 1873.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 79, 16 August 1873, Page 2

THE STANDARD.

SATURDAY, AUGUST 16, 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.”

We are glad to be in a position in which we can state on authority that the Government do not intend to remove the restrictive condition on which native claimants to land under the Deed of Cession may become Grantees under the Crown; and it gives us great pleasure in being able to somewhat extenuate, and, if possible, to remove, the effect produced by the proceedings of the past tew days. Still we cannot see our way clear to so thoroughly exonerate the Government, as we could wish. The present effect, doubtless, may have much of the sting extracted by the firm and decided action of the authorities in the future, but the past cause still remains. The dilatory and undecided action of the Government {in not having all its administrative machinery in working order; and in not taking measures to counteract the .political action of its opponents, —who, under a quasi friendliness for the Natives are inciting them to a disregard for their own interests 3Sa"a hostility to our institutions) has, in a great measure, contributed to the success of the object the natives have in view ; whilst, as in all our dealings with them, we have lost ground by vacillation, uncertainty and delay. The timely arrival of Mr. Locke on Thursday morning has served to put a pleasanter phase on the state of affairs. He is accredited with the necessary authority to represent the Government, and to take such steps as, in the circumstances, may be advisable. One of the good results has been that which should have preceded the opening of the Commission, and not have been allowed to stand over as the fruitless product of a ten days’ failure. But, unfortunately for the peaceable settlement of this question,

the measure of Mr. Locke’s success, is the exact amount of reproof to be administered to the Government. The more successful he is in allaying the irritation caused at the initial proceedings of the Court, the more clearly does it indicate the proper course to have been taken at a much earlier date.

But with all these palliatives we have little hope of there being much business done by the Commission. The report in another column shews the direct aim the natives have been advised to take. The real grievances of which they complain, —such as the Joint Tenancy clause in their Crown Grants —they have been told over and over again, are to be removed ; still they keep harping on the same string, and conjuring up grievances that do not exist at all, at the same time disclosing their ulterior intentions of trying to get back their lands under the plea that they were paid for in goods and paper. Lay our complaints before Parliament, say they, and let Henare Matua take them there, while they turn a deaf ear to the fact that the Commission can give them all they require, at any rate quite as much (nay more) than Parliament is likely to do. Is not this a chapter out of the Book of the Revelations of Hawke’s Bay ? The “ John ” in this book has certainly not been dreaming during his stay on the Island; althongh his visions of things he hopes will come to pass in his day and generation, have a very doubtful inspiration.

Since the above was in type, we have had our doubts as to the results of work to be done by the Commission verified in a somewhat forcible manner. The Commission is virtually at an end and is now forced into the humiliating position of having to relinquish its functions at the instance of an irritated mob. The general opinion of those who know the Maori character pretty well, is that it would have been wise not to push matters to an extremity, but, in the present temper of the natives, for the Commissioners to have adjourned the Court until communication could have been opened up with the Government. As it is, the Commissioners have been insulted in open Court; resistance has been offered to our peace officers, and a lawless rabble have hurled defiance at all authority. In the meantime the question of peace or the reverse hangs by a very slender thread. We have, however, no occasion to fear any immediate outbreak, so long as the Commission does not sit; but should the Commissioners determine to investigate the claims of the peaceably-disposed, a collision would be unavoidable. We are far from saying that such a result would not be the best in the end. It not happening to-day, is no guarantee that it never will, as unless the Government do their duty, which the settlers are quite prepared to back them up in, the storm will burst when, perhaps, we may be equally unprepared for it,.

Did the address to the “ Ratepayers of “ the Poverty Bay Highway District,” signed by “ J. B. Poynter, Chairman ” of the Board—and which appears in our advertizing columns to-day—not contain untruths in reference to facts and figures we should deem it our duty to take no more notice of it than is usual with other favors from our customers, —but as it also comes through the channel, and with the stamp of, official authority, we should be extremely blameworthy in not putting the Ratepayers right with respect to it We may premise by saying that a more cowardly and fallacious document never sought its own condemnation. The first, because Mr. Poynter attempts, but does not&tteceed, ifi throwing the blame for the incorrectness and incompleteness of the Board’s documents upon the Auditors. The second, inasmuch as-he states without correctness, and asserts without proof. Mr. Poynter should know that it is no part of the Auditors’ duty to compile the Statement of Assets and Liabilities, nor the account of Receipts and Expenditure; and their non-preparation is the reason why they were not “ enquired ” into by them. Where was the Secretary that he had not done his work in time to prevent the necessity for the Auditors doing what and all they could only the “evening “ previous,” and that evening Sunday ? Does Mr. Poynter think the plea a good one that the papers being put into his hands “only a moment before being read” justified him in submitting them without ascertaining their correctness ? Does Mr. Poynter think he clothes himself

with much official honor when he says “ that no member of the Board was aware “of the error ” until a week after the Annual Meeting, and then through the columns of the Standard ? We say he ought to have known it sooner; and more, he ought to have known the reason why the Auditors had not signed the Statement in compliance with the Highways Act, which says that the accounts are to be “ du'y audited by the Auditors “ and signed by them and the Chairman ” before being submitted to the meeting. We defy Mr. Poynter to the proof of our having said “that the Statements “ were known to be false by the Board ” or that it palmed off a piece of “ toilful ” deception on the Ratepayers. We have no such opinion of the Board, or of Mr. Poynter ; but we do say that in not positively being able to vouch for the correctness of the accounts, and, seeing their incompleteness, he should not have submitted them as even believing them to be reliable ; and in doing so we repeat that the Board “ lent its aid in palming off a piece of ‘ official’ (not wilful) deception.”

Mt. Poynter is again at fault in both his quotations and his logic. We deny having asserted that the Board “ admit “ themselves to be rogues.” But Mr. Poynter seems to have half an idea of something of the sort himself as he says that to assert that the Board are all roguesis a “charitab’e invention” (sic) of our own. Does Mr. Poynter think then that in the exuberance of our kindlydisposed feeling we have drawn on our charity and invented a term less harsh than is really deserved ? His preference too, for “ infamous rascality,” as to what we were contented to term a “ little pro- “ ceeding ” of the Board, may well cause the members to exclaim, “ Save us from “our friend!” We feel that in being called on to rebut anything so monstrous, and so repugnant to our estimation of the men composing the Board, the most effective way of reproving the advertizer of such a calumny is simply to deny it, particularly as it is unsubstantiated by proof. The refusal and fear of the Secretary to allow us a further inspection of the documents, after having made an appointment to do so, place it out of our power to quote from them ; but as Mr. Poynter says that “ the Board has proved for “ its own satisfaction ” that the error in the printing account, quoted by us “ does not exist,” we challenge him to prove what he states ; and he forces an unwilling belief from us that if he does not immediately support his bald denial by proof, he is now “ palming off a piece oE wilful deception” on the Ratepayers.

In conclusion we can only say that we were about to publish the Statement when we found the errors complained of; and we think tbe Board are under an obligation to us for not having done so. We leave Mr. Poynter to his reflections, and the congratulations of the Ratepayers.