Answers to Correspondents.

Auckland Examiner, Volume 1, Issue 29, 2 July 1857, Page 1

Answers to Correspondents.

B.— Should trust less to others, more to self. Admirable was the spirit of that painter who said he would rather be an indifferent original than a good copy. In what genius consists it is hard to say ; but works of genius result rather from natuval bent and aptitude than from instruction. The phrase “ born poets" is just, and so are all phrases which imply that faculties cannot be put into a man. Our correspondent may be an an excellent orator; but unless Nature Tiaih endowed him with the oratoriofaculty, or what is expressed by the words gift of eloquence, his success as a speaker ■ ■cannot be secured by any amount of self, other than self', education. Learning some men to speak is like learning ducks to swim and birds to fly. IFe cannot find space for answers to all the interrogatories of our curious correspondent, but will merely assure him that in a speech as in a picture there should be light and shade. Eloquence itself soon tires if unrelieved. Our idea with regard to all sorts of excellence is well stated by Cowley, one of England’s most metaphysical poets, who truly said—'Tis cot to adorn and gild each part Which shows more taste than art; Many lights will not be seen If there be nothing else between ; Jewels at nose and lip but ill we wear Better than all things will let none appear ; Men doubt, because they stand so thick i’ the sky, If those be stars that paint the galaxy.

OP.— Judge Stephen speaks out. No judge more frank in speech. Listeners may think him occasionally more plain than prudent ; but with regard to his plainness there cannot be two opinions. That may safely be set down among “fixed facts." And perhaps the plainest of all his plain judgment-seat speeches was delivered a few days since,sin the Supreme Court when he spoke at persons then sworn in as Magistrates. “ The present occasion," said His Honor, “ seems to be a flitting one for offering a few remarks on the duties of Justices of the Peace, especially as it seems that very shortly you will be required to investigate the claims of persons to be placed on the Electoral Holl of the District, where it is supposed that several of the justices will sit merely to support their political friends, or to oppose those who were hostile to them. I think it right to remind all such that acting in this manner would be violation of their oath of office, and would be acting corruptly. Though 1 allude to the subject in your presence, I do not mean that my remarks should be considered as applicable to you any more than to the rest of the magistrates. I speak generally, and hope Mr. Williamson will see that my remarks are published in the “ New-Zealander.” No reader of these remarkable words can miss their meaning; but there appears to be some doubt as to the quarter against which they were directed. From the tone of an article by Editor Carleton, it might be inferred that Progress was annoyed by the plain speech of Judge Stephen. But Progress should be slow to wear a cap which,(flow ever good afitfit isnot creditable to wear. Our own impression is that the remarks were spoken at Peace Justices of both parties, but told most against Constitutionalists. Of the Jive just-sworn-in Justices four were Constitutionalist, and every one of these four seemed to be swornin for no other purpose than that of adjudicating in disputed Electoral claims-. Dr. Jonah has not hitherto shown much alacrity in the Peace Justice business. It was often a ease of *Jonah, you're wanted ;’’ but clerks in the Resident Magistrate’s Court found calling upon the unaccountable Doctor to take his scat on the Bench was profitless as “ calling spirits from the vasty deep.” Why he is now so anxious to sit side by side with, a certain Resident Magistrate, for whom he has the same sort of affection that Satan has for holy water, is clear enough. The “remarks" are a cap which flit him to a nicety ; and if custom “ have not so brazed the conscience" of Superintendent Williamson “ that it is proof and bulwark against sense, he ,oo mvsf; have felt rebuked by the “ remarks" which, though not to be considered applicable any of the then sworn justices more than to the rest of the magistrates," really did apply to him in rather remarkable manner. Many indecent acts are fairly chargeable upon incorruptible John; but we doubt whether the indecency of getting sworn in on purpose to sit in judgment upon what may be considered his own case, has ever been exceeded by any single act of his own indecent administration. In the conduct of Reader Gibson Wood, Joseph May, and Alexander Grange we see nothing mhich will justify a suspicion of unworthy motives; but Dr. Jonah and his scapegoat, rushing to the Bench for no other obvious purpose than that of securing votes for the coming election, are persons to whom the “remarks” specially apply and, therefore, persons for whom the judge-made cap is an exact Jit, though they may not choose to adorn their delicate heads withit. Our plain-spoken judge “hoping” Mr. Williamson would see that his remarks were published, in the “New-Zealander" was the “ unkindest cut of all,”-and a slap in the face that any manless magnanimous than incorruptible John would have resented. Some think the entire speech of His Honor the Judge quite uncalled-for, and insulting alike to both parties. But Judges are privileged persons ; and, no doubt, when Judge Stephen madehis cut-both-ways-at-once‘re-marks’ upon the strength of somebody or other’s supposition, “ that several of the justices would sit merely to support their political friends or to oppose those who were politically opposed to them, he pushed judicial privilege a little beyond the limits prescribed by respect for political conscience. Nervous —is afraid of Quizzicus, whose sketches, though to some amusing enough, are to others alarming. The few who have cause for trepidation conscience accuses and none save self or conscienceaccused citizens have aught to dread from Quizzicus, whose position between rival party politicians reminds us of Gar rich between comedy and tragedy On the one side he is tugged at by the “ Speak out,

Sir!” critic, who says, “Til tell you what, Mr. Quizzicus, some of your sketches are well enough ; but, like almost all other artists, you flatter your subjects. Your best portraits would be infinitely better if they were much worse Pardon the paradox, which means that you are too merciful, and do not act up to the “ Examiner" maxim—“ Who spares the had, hurts the good.” On the other side, Quizzicus is tuggedby respectable satirists who love to laugh at their neighbours, and have that sentimental affection for scandal which distinguished Joseph Surface. “ But," say they, “ Quizzicus lays it on rather too thick, and does’nt understand that the operation of shaving can be better performed with a light, sharp razor than a blunt, iron hoop. Clearly, then, the artistic idea of Garrick tugged at by comedy on the one hand and tragedy on the other may be imagined a prefigur ement of Quizzicus tugged at by “you-lay-it-on-too-thick” fastidiousness on the one side, and “ you-do-not-lay-it-on-half-thick-enough" grossness on the other. Parting company with all that is figurative, we say the sketches never were intended to satisfy everybody, and that Quizzicus knew very well that everybody is a personage not to be satisfied. In justice, however, to the famous “ peace-of-families' disturber,” we seize the occasion to asture Nervous— and through him the public—that many are the blessings showered upon the head of “dear Quizzicus” by wives, sons, and especially by daughters, who declare that his sketch of Father or Papa (as the case may be~) did said Father or Papa a world of good; that he had changed in a most remarkable manner, and so nery much for the better that they hardly knew him.

o.— The difference between brightest paste and purest diamond is not greater than the difference between our democratic ideal and democratic government as practically interpreted by the Jack Cades who now pretend to manage our affairs. An instance very recent will put their businesslike qualities in a very brilliant light. We allude to the way in which Mr. Brown, a Provincial Government appointed Clerk to the Returning Officer, was cheapened aud chaffered by Mr. Lusk, that “great arithmetician," to make way for whom Mr. Cunningham was smoked out of the Superintendent’s Office. It appears that the Provincial Government “great arithmetician" for the month of April paid Mr. Brown ten shillings per diem for every day in the month, but for the “ merry month of May" he refused to allow him for more than six days in each week. When Mr. Brown expressed somo surprise that during April he was pai d upon one principle, and during May upon another, great arithmotician Lusk said he had made a mistake in paying Mr. Brown for April Sundays, and that the “cheap" Government would only allow for week days. But Mr. Lusk did not demand from Mr. Brown the £2 too much received by that person. Was he ashamed to ask for it? Perhaps so. But if ashamed to do that he should not be ashamed to refund it out of his own pocket. If, on the other hand, when Government employes are paid by the day, it is usual, or in other words, selon les regies of all regular Government, to make no distinction of days, what shall be said of such mean infringement of those rules ? Unless Mr. Lusk is blind as the blindest bat, he must see that he has paid Mr. Brown too much or too little ; if too much, then should somebody refund; if too little, then the sooner he hands over to Mr. Brown what is due to him the better for all parties. We hear very much about the business qualities of “ poor men” patriots. Provincial Accountant Lusk seems a magnificent specimen of that class.