The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, The Morning News and The Echo. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1880.

Auckland Star, Volume XI, Issue 3235, 2 December 1880, Page 2

The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, The Morning News and The Echo.

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1880.

For the cause that lacks assistance, For the wrong that needs resistance, For the future in the distance, And the Rood that we can do.

The sickening sycophancy -with -which the " Herald," like a dog returning to his vomit, this morning again beslavers Sir Arthur Gordon, and traduces the settlers of Fiji, will disgust every reader of the article who retains a spark of manlines^and self-respect. Sir Arthur Gordon, before leaving Fiji, made a speech at Nasova, as a kind of farewell to his subjects, and this deliverance we are told by the obsequious panderer to his Excellency, was everything that is "manly, earnest, resolute, able, candid, and sincere." "To this colony," prattles Jeames, "its significance consists in the proofs it offers of the speaker's undoubted ability, his strong sense of duty, and his inflexible determination to do it;" and the " steadfast courage with which he has faced unpopularity." "Unless the speech justifies this laudatory language," continues the wretched toad-eater, "the reference is hyperbolic, and the speech appears elsewhere to speak for itself." We accept the implied invitation and take the fawning admirer of Sir Arthur himself as interpreter of His Excellency's meaning. He says :— " Sir Arthur Gordon was at the pains in his speech to show the whites of Fiji that they would not be permitted to control public policy, that they need not expect it, and why. He conveyed to his hearers, as clearly as was possible without being offensive, that if the whites had power the natives would not have much justice, and only those will pretend to doubt the truth of his remark who want to be complaisant to, to curry favour with the men of their own race, and choose to forget all that occurred in Fiji before the late Governor's advent, and the almost invari able conduct of whites to coloured races whenever they have bean able to give a rein to their prejudices and contempt." " Fiji is not a white man's land, but that of the natives, for whose protection the British Government have assumed control." The first thing which Jeames finds admirable in Sir Arthur Gordon's deliverance, therefore, is a positive intimation that the whites are usurpers and intruders in the country, and "shall not be permitted to control public policy," because being innately bad, as well as intruders, the native population could expect very little justice at their hands

Verily ono gasps for breath after tins Btartling proposition. Is Sir Arthur, then, a man of colour, and ruling for the king of Tongatabu; or does he rule in tho name and by the authority of white men 1 Does he own nothing to the settlers who made the colony, who have paid his salary and support his Government, who are his countrymen, and who are, by his own admission, gentlemen and a very fine body of men 1 Have they no rights—ro feelings, that he should first tyrannise over them as Governor and then insult them as men. But let us inquire for a moment what justification His Excellency offered for this novel view of Fiji as a placo for Fijians and not for Englishmen. Tie says that before annexation there existed a strong native Government — implying of course that these were the legitimate rulers, and that he as their successor became the holder of their delegated powers. This is untrue. There was not a strong native Government in operation when Fiji was annexed. Thero was a usurpation of whites ruling in Cakabau's name without a legislature, and in defiauco of the constitution by virtue of an armed force maintained by a loan for which the settlers were responsible. The settlers could have easily upset it, but wero restrained bj the interference of English men-of-war, wiio could not allow them to fight, as thoy were British subjeots. It was this interferanco that really caused tho annexation. We are told by His Excellency of " educated Fijian gentlemen " for whom this paternal sympathy and protection is so necessary. Where are they 1 Can one worthy of the name bo produced 1 The few who have received a smattering of education havo been coined and created to get English sympathies in their behalf, and to enable Governor and officials to build up a reputation as tlioir protectors—the protectors of 120,000 against 2000 men entirely iv thoir power and answerablo to their own Governments, and to the civilized world if they do wrong to the natives. Sir Arthur Gordon referred to tho condition of Fiji before annexation. It was an unfortunate allusion for his oase. The settlers can turn back to thut time, too, and with Borrow, for it brings recolleo tions of plantations phmdered,and families ruthlessly butchered, and others driven ruined and heart-broken from their homes. Where, then, wero the atrocities by white men upou Fijians which Sir A rthur Gordon is so anxious to prevent. We defy him to point out a single instance against all the array of butcheries which for a timo brought Fijian colonisation to a standstill. Sir Arthur Gordon brings forward just one specific allegation against tho settlors to justify his suspicions. Ho says " ferocity pf feeling existed during the Colo war towards tho natives." We have it on tho authority of Fiji colonists who are in a much better position to judge of this than Sir Arthur Gordon, that the accusation is quite untrue. Tho Colos are mountaineers. Their savage atrocities and cannibalism, no doubt, did create great ferocity of feeling towards thorn, but it was on the part of the coaßt natives who were tho principal sufferers, more than on the party of the whites. And did not Sir Arthur cause twenty or twenty-fivo of their principal chiefs whom he had captured to be shot and bung for these atrocities 1 Would it be fair to assume that ferocity of feeling was the inspiring motive with his Excellency ? Tho allusion in the speech to Lieutenant Chippendale, who was tried and acquitted, yet upon whom his Excellency still casts discredit, was in very bad taste. Quite as much so as tho flippancy with which the " Herald " treats the refusal of the right oi" trial by jury to the colonists as a " sentimental grievance." We confess that we havo read both the speeoh and the effusion of its apologist with very great pain. It would be an exceeedsngly unfortunate thing for Auckland, and the maintenance of cordial private and business relations if the settlers of Fiji got tho idea that the "Herald" gives expression to the general feeling of the people of Auckland towards them and their cause. They may rest assured that thero are many here—some of whom remember a similar struggle in New Zealand for popular rights against kindred allegations—who sympathise heartily with the Fiji colonists. There cannot be two opiniond among these about Sir Arthur Gordon's speech at Nasova. Its whole tone is exceedingly bad. He has no right to attribute selfish motives to the settlers, and to claim nothing but tho highest motives for himself and for the people about him. As a matter of fact his course lends countenance to the charge that he is extremely selfish, caring only for the Colonial Office, on which his promotion depends, and nothing for the settlers who are forced to pay him, and without whom there would be no more a colony for him to govern at this moment than there is at the New Hebrides or Soloman Islands. Callousness to unpopularity —which, in other words, means indifference to the good opinion of his fellow men—when displayed in such a cause and for such motives would neither be dignified nor meritorious.