The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.) SATURDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1876.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 423, 28 October 1876, Page 2

The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.)

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1876.

“ 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 Editor of the Herald does not, seemingly, know how to “ agree to differ.” It appears to be an impossible thing for him to discuss public questions in a public spirit. Tu quoque is the only kind of argument he uses. When likely to be beaten he abandons his position in the open, and takes shelter in small bickerings, and “you’re another” style of writing. Unable to refute facts, or to justify his conduct when it meets with public disapproval, he goes at one stride from principle to expedience, and affects an indifference to the pungency of our pen, which we know well lashes him into a fury, and punctures his thin skin, like “ thorns in the flesh ” in a manner he labors hard to conceal, but cannot. The remarks in the Herald yesterday morning, are a sufficient proof of this. What we have written in reprehension of the publication of Mr Commissioner Wilson’s report, is not attempted to be disproved ; but the Editor, instead of showing where we were wrong, and where he was right, attempts to pooh pooh the matter, as being “ fair samples ” of our “ style,” “ calm, yet classical, and dignified,” and which “ will be estimated at its true worth.” Well, we are very sorry the Editor of the Herald never gave us a like opportunity to offer him our congratulations, in this respect. But the Commissioners are not likely to be dissuaded from their duty by this off-hand disposal of the subject by the Herald. It is all very well for that journal to sum up the matter as to how Mr Wilson’s report came before the public “in a very few wordsbut, if we mistake not, its flippant Editor, Mr Cooper, and the myth G. Ames, will have to say a few more words on oath before the Commissioners, when Mr G. Ames will find that his signature has been appended, to a letter which states things not exactly correct; and if Mr G. Ames dares to repeat on oath that Mr Cooper supplied the Herald with the report—<well, in the present state of the case, we withhold our opinion as to -what should follow. It is well known who did furnish it, and, when the proper time comes we believe it will not be denied. We shall then see what reliance can be placed on G. Ames’ assertion. We have said before, it was a most undesirable act to publish even the pith, as it is called, of the report; and we repeat that now. We also say again that certain persons, through the agency of G. Ames’ signature, have been very unwise in attempting to shift the responsibility of the publicity of the report from Judge Rogan’s shoulders to those of Mr Cooper,— a perfectly irresponsible person; because, while endeavoring to do Judge Rogan a pretended good turn, it, in fact, suggests a more thorough system of corruption, between certain members of the Civil Service and the public, than at first appeared, and, as the statement has been so unblushingly made, it demands the authority of the Commissioners to have it either substantiated or withdrawn.

The Editor of the Herald tries to throw dust in the eyes of the Commissioners, by a valiant challenge to anyone to “ show ” that the publication of the report has been prejudicial to either side. Queer logic, and worse philosophy this. He is quite safe in his defiance, and therefore he defies ; for it is the most difficult thing in the world for a person to be convinced of his prejudices, and to acknowledge them is expecting too much of human nature to do. This we do know, and can “ show ” easily, namely, that no man (not excepting the Editor of the Herald') ever says, or does, or writes any thing unless he has some object in doing so, however unworthy that object may be. And, without wishing to take the Editor of the Herald beyond his depth, we should like to know—the public, and the Commissioners would like to know—why Mr Wilson’s report was made publie, unless with the avowed object of affording means for the creation of prejudices, and of pre-judging the case either one way or the other ? The public had no right to know, as our contemporary puts it, “ the details of “ accusations levelled by Mr Wilson “ against Judge Rogan,” unless Judge Rogan’s charges against Mr Wilson, which were then in the bands of the Government, had been made public also. In fairness this should have been done, although unjustifiable, and its exclusion shows the motive, the effect of which, we unhesitatingly state, was prejudicial. For it must be remembered that the charges were not, as stated by the Herald, “ con- “ tained in a paper laid before the “House by Mr J. A. Wilson.” It was no part of Mr Wilson’s duty to lay his report before the House, but before the Government, through the

Native Minister, which he did ; and Sir Donald M'Lean having declined, in justice to all concerned, to make it public in a proper, constitutional way, its appearance in the public papers was an act of gross insubordination, and contempt for authority, by some one, and who that is the Commissioners will, doubtless, find out in examination. We can well understand Judge Rogan’s supreme indifference to consequences. He is a man who has borne with the iniquities of the Native Department, doubtless, too long ; and his years and position have, probably, wrought a change in his temperament, and created a desire to disengage himself from the shackles of espionage, and official serfdom, which do not sit so lightly as in former days, and which may, in a measure, account for the course he has adopted. Nevertheless, we cannot but think that it would have been better if these charges had not been precipitated before the public in the way they have.