Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume II, Issue 129, 31 January 1874, Page 2

We are sorry to see that ,Mr. Saunders, or 'some- one for him, has taken the remarks of our Ormond correspondent, relative to the late prosecutions for grass seed stealing, personally to himself. We have had no communication with our correspondent, and we merely give our own version of the matter when we repudiate any implication of Mr. Saundebs’ name in the letter referred to. In Mr. Saunders’ interest the letter was guardedly and carefully read and re-read, we being particularly solicitous that the very thing should not happen, of which we are now accused—viz., the expression of anything calculated to influence or bias the judicial investigation of the charge. But we cannot see how the construction of the sentence, selected for publication in the Herald, can be twisted to allude to Mr. Saundeb.® We will vouch that no one can honestly call him a “ lazy rascal,” and he has not been accused of “plundering” any one. The plural number is used and intended throughout to allude to the natives, many of whom, as is wellknown, are “ lazy rascals, too idle to work for an honest living,” and who in this case, were the “ plunderers.” The most that can be said in support of Mr. Saunders’ complaint is that the “ individual ” named must be intended to mean him. This we saw at the time, but we read it in a limited sense, as drawing a moral from his misfortune, not expressing an opinion as to his guilt. Our correspondent says;—“We devoutly hope that out of this particular evil to an individual ” (alluding to the accusation merely) “ may come the lasting good to the “ community of the final extinction of these “ petty thieves #c.” The correct intention of which is that although it be an innocent settler who suffers from an unjust charge, “ the good to the community,” of letting “petty thieves ” see that detection must overtake them, —thus aiding in finally extinguishing them —is a cheap purchase. The allusion to the conduct of the hotel has still less any reference to: the charge still pending. Supposing our correspondent to be correct, is it to be held as good logic or good law, that any and all complaints which there may be good grounds for making against the Warenga-a-hika Hotel ought not to be so made, on account of this charge, but must stand over until after the sittings of the Supreme Court in June next? We cannot endorse such a doctrine, although we do not, of ourselves, know that the house either is, or has been, conducted in a disorderly manner. We hope Mr. Saunders, for his own sake, will let the matter drop, and not permit others to call us hard names which are not true.