Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY. AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. Thursday, April 20, 1882.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1063, 20 April 1882, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY . AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. Thursday, April 20, 1882.

Application has been made to Mr Justice Gillies by the AttorneyGeneral for a change of venue in the approaching trials of Te W hitt, Tohu, and Titokowabu. This is as it should be, and shows a disposition on the part of the Government to give at least a coloring of fair play to the matter. We say a coloring, and use the expression advisedly, for any man possessing ordinary knowledge of, and bearing ordinary respect for, that principle of fair play which is the very basis of English law must be lost in amazement at the extraordinary development of its elastic properties as exhibited in Mr Bryce’s bloodless campaign at Parihaka. To change the venue was right, for we very much doubt if a European jury could be found in the Province of Taranaki who woulk think any punishment an English court could mete out, severe enough for the Parihaka trio. This sentiment is freely expressed all over the West Coast, and over the major portion of the North Island; what, therefore, could be more indicative of a fine sense of the position and an honest desire to do justice than changing the venue to Christchurch, a place which has suffered nought from Maori fanaticism, and where, consequently, a jury can be empannelled whose feelings in regard to the Native race in general, and these three men in particular, are the more likely to be unbiassed or unprejudiced. So far so good. But what will be the surprise of the learned Judge before whom the eases are tried when the startling fact is laid before him that his functions have been usurped by the Native Minister, and the prisoners have, de facto, been punished before trial. Somehow or other the Parihaka campaign has not proved the brilliant success it was advertised to be. It savours too much of autocracy and flUrogord of the principles of »»«»»» and tuum. Mr Bryce being a law -maker might naturally be supposed to entertain a reverence for the established law even superior to that of ordinary mortals ; but supposition is not always verified, mpre especially in this instance, where the Native Minister destroys crops, confiscates lands, and imprisons Her Majesty’s subjects with all the wisdom of a Solon and the drastic authority of a Lycurgus, utterly ignoring the fact that he is thereby breaking the very laws which he as a Minister has probably helped to introduce, and should certainly be the last to infringe. Besides, the Parihaka campaign is strongly suggestive, to use a schoolboy phrase, of “ hitting a little ’un.” Te Whiti talks nonsense, sedition, and rubbish, and does nothing. Tawhiao talks nonsense, sedition, and rubbish, and does a great deal. Te Whiti is all talk, and Tawhiao is all action. Te Whiti could at any time have been arrested by an ordinary policeman. Tawhiao could and does defy Mr Bryce and all the Armed Constabulary—ergo, Te Whiti is arrested, punished, and committed for trial; Tawh i ao is petted, feasted, and fawned upon. If Te Whiti sheltered Hiroki, where are Te Koon and Winiata, and where the men who killed Moffatt ? If Te Whiti talked seditious treason, what are the utterances of Tawhiao ? If Te Whiti fenced across the roads at Parihaka, has not Tawhiao closed the road through the so-called “ King country ” to every one of Her Majesty's European subjects. Te Whiti, insanely and without hurt to anyone but himself, and those as mad as himself, called himself a prophet Tawhiao, to the infinite detriment of every Colonist of New Zealand, not only called himself a King, but arrogated to himself a country. Except as the son of Te Whero Whero he bears but little weight among Natives. Kewi Manga Noatiamaniapoto is the rightful ruler of the most influential Natives in that country resident, and he estimates Te Whiti’s title of Prophet, and Tawhiao’s title of King at much the same value. Why did not Mr Bryce make what was “ sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander?” In other words, why did he arrest the almost harmless old lunatic Te Whiti, harry his home, and confiscate his land, while he allows “ King ” Tawhiao to defy the laws, deride the Government, close up the country, and speak of Her Majesty the Queen as his equal, while basking generally in the grateful warmth of sunshiny favour ? Mr Bryce would probably say “ policy ” induced him to this line of reasoning. May be that it did, but if we remember right we had another name for this “ policy ” at I school. We called it “cowardice.”! The Native Minister has only one ex-

cuse to offer, and that is a very bad excuse in any civilized country, and will be of little avail should a civil action be laid against the responsible authors of the Parihaka campaign. The travesty of justice in thus applying for change of venue as a means of fair play seems mean and shallow when we reflect that these three men have been illegally dealt with from beginning to end of the whole matter, and net the least so in being allowed to remain six or eight months in prison, after committal, without being brought to trial. Not so very long ago, a Government officer was assisting at the ceremonies observed by the Natives at Te Whiti’s monthly meetings at Parihaka, and it will be found on reference to Treasury vouchers that no inconsiderable amount of Government money has found its road in the same direction. If, as report says, Mr Stout is retained for the defence of these prisoners, we may anticipate a mauvais quart d'heure for the Government. In all probability his first step will be to ask for their discharge on the ground of the illegality of their arrest, and that failing, will call for such explanation of certain matters as officials will be thoroughly ashamed to give, and the Ministry ashamed to acknowledge having authorised. Were Te Whiti, Tohu, and Titokowabu Europeans instead of Maoris, they would have such grounds for civil action against the Government as would monopolise the time of the Judges for weeks to come, and make glad the heart of the legal profession, and we greatly err if Mr Stout, or whoever may be employed by them in their defence, do not strenuously urge them towards this step. A change of venue cannot undo the injustice of past illegalities, although it may to an infinitesimal extent serve to cloak their existence, and gild them with the very faintest tinge of fair play. We expect to see the judicial curtain rise on a very interesting drama in which the Native Office will play a strikingly conspicuous part.

Thebe is no news of importance as regards the Ministerial crisis. We cannot expect to hear anything bearing weightily on the matter until after the arrival of Mr Whitaker in Wellington, which, we should imagine, would be about Sunday next. During that time we shall be left to our own conjectures. The idea so industriously circulated by all the southern, and many of the northern, papers, that the Governor, in sending for Sir George Grey, was acting unconstitutionally, is entirely erroneous. Sir Arthur Gordon was entirely within his rights. Sir George Grey was, despite the vociferous assertions of Ministerial papers to the contrary, and is now, the undoubted leader of his party. As such, and as me Premier of the preceding Ministry, who could be a more fitting person for his Excellency to seek in consultation ? Had he offered him the Premiership he would have been within his rights, surely he is more so when he seeks advice only frotn a tried and trusted colonist, Minister, and servant of the Crown. That that advice has been impartially and wisely given, and acted upon by his Excellency, seems to us sufficient to stop the insane howling of these insatiable idiots. Not content with maligning to the utmost, gentlemen and scholars whose mental capacity and sense of honour is as far above theirs as Heaven is from Hades, they seek to teach the Governor, the Ministry, and the Opposition leader, the first rudiments of constitutional etiquette. Sir Arthur Gordon sought advice, and got it, from the Ministerial leader, and the leader of the Opposition. If he had sought it elsewhere he would have shewn himself unfit to occupy the high and important post he now fills. Differing from Sir George Grey and from Sir Arthur Gordon in matters political, we cannot but cry shame when we witness the scurrilous and savage abuse to which they have both been subjected during the past ten days by many of the newspapers of the colony. Surely age, reputation, and past services might have urged some claim to consideration on behalf of at least one of these gentlemen ? That we are a thriving, go-a-head colony is an established fact; that we are an ungrateful one, and can bo very abusive when we choose, appears, to us, equally clear.