MR. PEARSON'S PAMPHLET. REPLY TO DR. MENZIES.

Southland Times, Volume VI, Issue 495, 15 June 1866, Page 3

MR. PEARSON'S PAMPHLET. REPLY TO DR. MENZIES.

(TO THE EDITOR OF THE SOTJTHT/A2TD TIMES.) Sib, — When I wrote my last letter ifc was not my intention to continue this controversy, but Dr. Menzies' effusion of the 11th inst., renders it necessary that I should answer one or two points, on which he builds his mighty fabric of quibble. In his letter of the 11th, Dr. Menzies says, referring to the delegation of powers under the " "Waste Lands Acts " — " a delegation which he leads the public to believe was in operation in August 1564." This is quibbling on a typographical error, which was corrected in a subsequent issue, that of the Weekly Times, of the 9th inst., where it is correctly stated as 1862. That cause must be sound indeed which has recourse to typographical errors to sustain it. I congratulate Dr. Menzies on the use of such an argument. ISText as to the mistake I made in reference to the delegation of powers. I was not aware till to-day that the original delegation had ever been revoked ; had I been, I would not have been so foolish as to have referred to it. The fact is that in the Index of the JSFew Zealand G-azette for 1862, the revocation of the old and reissuing of a fresh delegation does not appear, at any rate I cannot find it ; perhaps Dr. Menzies will. Under the head of " Southland," Province of, there-appears " Waste Lands Act," certain powers under delegated to " J. E. Menzies ;" this refers to the delegation I quoted. After considerable search in the Gazette this morning I find the revocation and fresh delegation in the Gazette of 6th September, 18(52, jS"o. 33. A change of Grovernment at head-quarters had taken place, Mr Eox having resigned, which may, perhaps, account for it. I deny Dr Menzie's assertion that I was familiar with the transactions in reference to this delegation ; had I been, it is not very propabie I would have committed myself to an assertion which could so easily have been refuted. I have no need like the Doctor to try to mislead the public; my facts are incontrovertible. That I was a member of the Executive, and yet ignorant of this correspondence, is not surprising to any one acquainted with Dr Menzie's peculiar reticence of character. Documents being in the Superintendent's office are of very little use, if one does not know they are there. Dr Menzies states that had I the audacity of asserting my independence when he offered me the alternative of resigning politics or my commissionership, he would have given me an unpleasant practical .lesson. As I said in my former letter, so say I now, he had no power to dismiss me. Granted that the powers under the fresh delegation were more comprehensive, provineially he was incapacitated from exercising them. Under the land regulations then in force in the Province, viz., those of Otago, all the officers in the Land Department could be appointed and removed "by the Superintendent with the advice and consent of his Executive Council. jNfow he had no Executive. Mr Tarlton had informed the Provincial Council a few days previous to Dr Menzie's pleasant alternative -to myself, that he had resigned, , and held office only till the appointment of his successor ; no successor was appointed, for Dr Menzies declined taking an Executive palatable to the Provincial Council. Even supposing Dr M. considered Mr Tarlton still a member of the Executive, yet the Executive Council Ordinance then in force in the Province necessitated there being three. Under any circumstance he was precluded from carrying his threat into execution. As regards the little matter of figures. I have, since writing my last letter, ascertained from the Inspector of Boads, that the cnlumn in the Eoad Engineer's Eeport, referring to the amount expended in d.iy labor on roads since the 30th September, 1863, amounting in all ta £6,503, wa3 included in the £25,000 odd stated in my pamphlet. This explains the discrepaucis. As the Eoad Inspector furnished both statements, that appended to the Eoad Engineer's Eeport, and the one I made in the debate, it is not unnatural to suppose he is better informed on the subject than either Dr Menzies or myself. I again affirm, my figures are correct, and that the money was expended, when we were hopelessly insolvent. Dr Menzies states that in the pledge 1 gave him to abstain from politics, he holds that it was absolute, so long as I remained Chief Commissioner ; well, I hold that it was not, but only so long as he was Superintendent. And there we are again. I hold also that every educated impartial critic will agree w'th me in my interpretation of this pledge. I flatter myself, lam as able to form an opinion on such a subject, as Dr Menzies. Not being of co autocratic a turn, possibly better. He forgets that the Superictendency was not a permanency, and that he had no business to find his successor, by pledges extorted, when he was himself in office. Dr Menzies is Bappy in his quotation from Maeaulay, Jj pthilig could possibly ba niore applicable to himself j he Ims &egui>e.d, not merely a Provincial b.ut a Cranial ¥$;pi>tsfii<m,' fpr the qualities ffc« wsxk 'em&s \rM\\ftpmil. $hR amusing

part of the business is, that while Dr Menzies spends time and labor to disembowel trifles, such as a typographical error, or a mistake as to whether a delegation of powers under an Act, was or was not revoked, he carefully abstains from noticing any of the graver charges I brought against him in the debate. Supposing he is correct in the little fact, how about the big principle ? Whether he could or could not dismiss me from the Chief Commissionership, has nothing to do with the " Causes which led to the financial embarrassments of the Province of Southland." He is simply drawing a herring scross the scent, and trying to divert public attention. He has been weighed, and found wanting at headquarters. There is the Colonial Secretary's letter of 7th May, 1864, to be refuted. He has been branded with the Colonial brand, not the Provincial mark : it is not what we think here, but what is thought of us, by those wielding a superior power. Dr Menzies. in desiring to shift the blame of his mismanagement on the shoulders of the Greneral Grovernment, is sacrificing the Province in the endeavor to shield himself. It is very well for the burly " Neapolitan Beggar" to hold out one hand for alms, and with the other flourish a big stick. But if the almsgiver happens to be the biggest of the two, and have the stick besides, it is judicious, to say the ieast of it, not to bully. The Doctor appears to have neither the judgment to appreciate the position, or good sense to adopt it. To return to my pamphlet. The strongest argument I have, is the - miserable, impotent defence made in the debate by Dr Menzies. He may say he was taken by surprise; if so, why did he not ask for tune ? which I would, with pleasure, have conceded. With some men, mental incubation is a slow process ; just as the physical action is., with some of the inferior order of creation. In the concluding paragraph of his letter Dr. Menzies insinuates mischief. I do not doubt but that he will do his best to effect that through others he is impotent to do himself. And as he will have the opportunity of traducing one who is not present, he will have an advantage which to a chivalrous spirit will be acceptable. My nervous system is however not seriously deranged by such a possibility. lam sorry to think nevertheless that he should labor under feelings which may be characterised as unchristian. I am not going to trouble myself any further in following Dr. Menzies in his various shiftings and windings to get out of an unpleasant perdicament. This paper war, initiated by himself, for the purpose of " drawing a herring across the scent," is closed, so far as I am concerned. I have unmasked the true cause of our embarrassments in the debate ; I have made them public in the pamphlet. When any of the grave charges are challenged, I shall be prepared to substantiate them.I now bid Dr. Menzies " a long goodnight," with the earnest recommendation that he would carefully peruse the simple but affecting lines of Dr. Watt — "Children you should never let Your angry passions rise." Yours, &c, * Waiter H. Pparson. Invercargill, 12th June, 1566.