WHIRLWIND CASE.

Auckland Examiner, Volume IV, Issue 275, 23 June 1860, Page 3

WHIRLWIND CASE.

(_To Editor of Auckland Examiner.}

$ lRi The General Government refuse all responsibility and refer me to the Superintendent. The Superintendent never ventures to deny his responsibility, but he evades by insisting repeatedly that it is “ the province of the General Government to see the provisions of the Passengers Act enforced,’’ and when further pressed states, that “ it is the province of the Immigration agent, and as no complaint has been preferred by him against the proi f e ssional gentleman who assisted him on the occasion to which you refer—there appears to be no sufficent ground for any interference on the part of the Provincial Government.” Now, that agent never acted. But the Collector of Customs acted “ under the directions of the Superintendent,” and when I rem'nd H s Honor of this and some other facts—he returns me my letter contemptuously. The case now, therefore, seems to be resolved into ■this, namely, that the General Government, acting for your Excellency, having commanded the Collector of Customs to take directions from th?

Superintendent (for which there is no authority in the Statute), and the Superintendent having not only prevented the Collector from obtaining justice and even a hearing for the passengers- but also contemptuously refused all redress —the passengers are necessitated to fall back on your Excellency and seek that which, if their special statute had been enforced in the unmistakeable manner rendered imperative in its provisions—they would have obtained six months ago ; and this too at the expense of a few shillings only, instead of the many pounds which it has cost me besides the sums it has cost other passengers, to reach even this very unsatisfactory and disagreeable stage—disagreeable because bringing me into an unenviable and undesireable collision with colonial authorities. It would appear that there is no provision in the Passengers Act to the effect that passengers shall suffer from the mistakes of officials, far less from what I am prepared to prove was the deliberate perversion of the statute by His Honor the Superintendent, through the agency oPMr. Merriman the Provincial Law Officer. Trusting.your Excellencj 7 will give the above a candid unprejudiced attention and eonsiderat-’on. I have the honor, &c. T. Turnrbull..

N.B.—For Collector of Customs understand always Mr. Shirly Hill, because the latter was subsequently appointed to act in the absence of the Collector, (who is the statutory officer ex-officio-,) and to conform himself to the directions formerly given to the Collector. 1 had used “ Collector ”in writing to the Governor, inadvertently. On the 10th of February I again wrote as follows : — I would respectfully crave leave to remind your Excellency, that I had the honor of addressing you on the ISth of January last, on a subject of great importance which has met with many delays ; and to remark that others besides myself have become exceedingly desirous o’ a final reply to our request for redress. His Excellency’s Secretary replied TTth February —stating that my letter of 18th January had been, and my letter of lO.h February would be, forwarded to the Attorney-Gi n ;ra’—ad ling the following sentence—- “ You must be aware that under the form of Responsible Government His Excellency has no'power of acting personally in the matter of your complaint.” 0 i the 18th February I wrote’as follows : — I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your Excellency’s Private Secretary’s letter of ITth instant, informing me, &c. If 1 understand the latter quoted sentence, it means that I am to- look to> the Ministers of the Colonial Government for redress, and not to your Excellency, of the provisions of the Passengers Act. I would beg leave to inform your Excellency that I do not expect any com muni catron- either from the Attorney-Genera! or from any other official of the Colonial Ministry, because Mr. Stafford has already . informed me-that power to act had been delegated to the Superintendent of the Province and that—“the Provincial Government cannot be made responsible to the General- Government for action taken by it, or bj' counsel on its behalf, with respect to the proaeetttierr of the- master of the “ Whirl win cL” I would beg to recall your Excellency’s attention to the statements in my letter of 18th January, and to, remark that I am not seeking redress under a Colonial, but under an Imperial statute ; and that if your Excellency had power to depute to your Ministers the authority intrusted to you by that statute called the Passengers Act, permit me to say that surely you have power to cause those Ministers account to you for the manner in which they have exercised that authority. I feel constrained further tojrrmark r and hope to do so without offence, that it seems to me superlatively strange that in case so clear and evident as to be undeniable (and undenied) by anyone—every official in the colony to whom I have made application should refuse responsibility and continually refer me to some other official, while there is no one mentioned rn the Imperial statute to whom I am to apply with the exception of the *“ Governor.” If your Excellency from any cause whatsoever really cannot give redress, I would entreat that I should be informed of the fact at the earliest convenience. I received the following in reply to these from the Attorney-General dated Feb. 251 h : — 1 have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letters of IB<h January and JOth instant, addressed to his Excellency the Governor, on the subject of certain complaints made against the master °f the ship “ Whirlwind,” by some o< the passengers of that vessel, in which you state that-the charges above referred to were not fully prosecuted, causing thereby a failure of justice— In reply I am directed by the Attorney-General Io inform you that the Government consider they have discharged their duly under the Passenger Act, and even if they had the power to re-open the case, it would be .very injudicious to interfere with the exercise of a discretion vested by the act in the statut ry < fficer, u dess very clear proofs of incompetency or corruption are brought against him, and that in the case under consideration no such proofs have been brought. Moreover, th? Government considers that you had ample power under the act to see for yourself “-and to guard your own rights and remedy your own grievances. (Signed) Fenton.

Assistant Law Officer Knowing that the statutory officer was not allowcdjthe “ exeicise of the discretion” mentioned •J’ the Attorney-General, and feeling highly indigat the whole tenor of his would-be-clever Inter, I wrote to the Governor on the 28 th February, follows

I had the honor of addressing your Excellency on the 18th instant, to which I would crave reference.

to day I have received a letter from the Attorney eneral of which I beg to annex a copy, and to express niy unbounded surprise at itscon’cnts. would crave leave to remark with reference to letter, that I have not made any complaint a gatnst the statutory' officer. In few words, the complaint is, that your Excellency’s Ministers actin your name and authority subjected the stautory officer (Collector of Customs) to the direc*mis, and hence control, of the Superintendent, foi *ch there is no authority in the statute, and that lhe Superintendent through the agency of the Pro'incial Law Officer deliberately perverted the staHR; so that were deprived of an

opportunity of obtaining even a hearing of their case ; and were also—by a deception practised—- " prevented from taking action, each at his own instance,” in accordance with the provisions of the statute, as stated to your Excellency in my first letter dated 22nd November, 1859. lam, Sir, Yours truly, Thos. Turnbull. Onehunga, 14th June, 1860.