THE STANDARD. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1873.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume II, Issue 95, 11 October 1873, Page 2

THE STANDARD.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 11, 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.”

The Resident Magistrate lias recently given a decision on a very important matter, bearing upon the relation the settlers occupy in regard to what we cannot but designate a 44 social evil,” and to which we have on more than one occasion ealled public attention. We allude to the scandalous impunity with which persons of the native race are not only allowed to behave in our streets in a wav which is calculated to set all law at defiance, but who have also the protection of that law, (to a certain extent), and now the authority of one of its administrators —in trampling it under foot, in utter disregard to the feelings of the community. Dr. Nesbitt has recorded his opinion (on an information laid by the police against a Maori for uttering blasphemous aud obscene language in the streets) “ that proceedings should hot be taken “ against natives for using obscene lan--44 guage, as in most cases they do not “ know* the meaning of the words they “ make use of,” to which we take exception as embodying a most dangerous principle. We have no doubt that the Resident Magistrate has good and sufficient reasons to satisfy his own mind as to this being a proper and convenient method of relieving himself and the police from the performance of a dis-

agreeable duty, and that it is better to err on the side to which all legislation, affecting the natives, leans; but to our view this is incorrect. The Resident Magistrate bases his opinion upon the possibility of the natives not knowing the meaning of the words they utter; and, that they do not, in their habits, hold the common decencies of life in the same estimation as their white brethren do. The former is decidedly erroneous ; and the latter, if correct, will not be bettered by the way in which we deal with the Maoris. The native against whom the information was laid, speaks English with an unpleasant fluency. Each word that he utters while in a state of drunkenness is accompanied by some fearful oath, or expression of obscenity of the coarsest and most brutal kind. I'or long hours during the day, far into the wntches of the night, are these drunken hybrid brawlers heard yelling and blaspheming with strings of adjectives which are choice of their kind. And is it sufficient—is it right—as we have asked before—not to interfere in such cases, and make them amenable to authority ? A European having respect for decency, may be provoked into saying something in reply which he might regret, but which would instantly attach him to the consequences of an outraged, and a very proper, law.

There is no doubt that all the Acts relating to natives bristle with loopholes of escape. There is generally some flaw, or means of widening the margin of latitude in their favor ; but it can never be intended to so glaringly patronize the evil habits of these men, as to ascribe to them an ignorance of the use of the words forming the language they speak. Ordinarily, we are not supposed to converse in a tongue we have not learnt; or to employ words of which we do not know the meaning, in conveying our thoughts to each other. And this is particularly exemplified in the fact that most Maoris who can stammer a few words of English, always have recourse to them in the facile production of oaths. Even amongst themselves—native to native —they will dress up their profanity in as pure Saxon as they have been accustomed to • hear. In the instance now under consideration the native talked in Maori until he required expletives whoso relative expressiveness could net be found in his own language. He then proceeds in English. Does not this fact suggest the desire by which he was actuated in making himself understood beyond the possibility of doubt ? We are not sufficiently acquainted with the capabilities of the Maori vocabulary as to say how far it is able to give forcible expression to offensive epithets ; but we, in justice, condemn the man who offends in the same measure in any other language. It certainly seems to be a strange plea to set up that an offence is not an offence because the chief elements of its structure are not known to the person or persons by whom it has been committed. According to this a man may make experiment in the public streets with an 44 infernal machine,” ( or something as dangerous to life and limb as oaths are to morals) and be excused because he did not know the effect it would produce, and was ignorant of its 44 meaning.” Besides if obscenity be a fault, the 44 language ” in which it is uttered should be no excuse. We are not punished or rewarded for “means” that are employed; it is the object, the end, and aim we have in view—it is the effect of our actions which constitutes their guerdon, or the reverse. The 44 effect ” of the language used by these natives is an offence against the moral susceptibilities of all right thinking persons ; and we hope that the Resident Magistrate will reconsider his decision and protect the community from this wide-spread pestilence, so far as he is able to do.