The Press. FRIDAY, MAY 19, 1865.

Press, Volume VII, Issue 797, 19 May 1865, Page 2

The Press. FRIDAY, MAY 19, 1865.

The Lyttelton Times, in a very moderate article, takes exception to the views we expressed the other day on the subject of the claims for compensation being made at Auckland, and to our strictures on the doctrines expressed by the Auckland newspaper. We will reply to the Lyttelton Times in the same spirit. First, we will take the case of Ihaka. The writer in the Lyttelton Times imagines that he settles the whole question by quoting Mr. Whitaker's and Mr. Eeader Wood's opinions from the Parliamentary papers. We might well object that we do not consider anything proved because the late Ministers assert it; but the facts proved by these quotations are these; —that lhaka and a party of Natives j were arrested by the military, and kept in prison until several of them died, in spite of an opinion twice given by the Attorney-General that they had committed no crime which could be proved against them. We do not think, and we cannot conceive, how any Englishman can call this by any other name than a deplorable " outrage." But Mr. Whitaker goes on to say that the papers referred to him as to Ihaka's conduct showed that he was a " dangerous person to have at large," but that tho only evidence against him could not be produced in a Civil Court, because it was given by persons who " furnished information secretly to the Grovernment, and whose lives, they say, depend upon secrecy being maintained." We sincerely thank the writer for reminding us of this evidence of the way in which this colony was entrapped into the Waikato war. Can any thing be more monstrous than that secret charges should be brought against men, on which they are imprisoned, and " done to death in prison" to use Charles Reade's words—and that the evidence shall not be forthcoming to be tested. If this is government, who is safe? What were all the English press and people raving at in the late Neapolitan government for years before its fall ? Why did we all rejoice over the fall of the Bourbons, in Italy ? Was not this the one great crime laid at the door of their government ?—Secret police ! Secret evidence! No trial I Men pining to death broken-hearted in prison! Is this a crime in Italy, and right in a British colony ? We know from many sources —reliable sources— the character of the reports which at that iime used to be poured into the ears of that detestable institution —the Native Department, and the utter worthlessness of most of them. That history will some day be written, when we Englishmen will be thoroughly ashamed of the manner in which we allowed ourselves to be terrified into the belief that the Natives were going to attack us, when they were themselves in mortal fear that we were going to attack them. We do not say Ihaka did not oppose the Grovernment. Of course we know that he did. Ihaka was the very man who carried to the Waikato tribes the news that the military redoubt was being constructed at Kohekohe. But is opposition to the Grovernment a crime ? We know Mr. Whitaker tried to make it so, and we know what came of it; that after getting his Suppression of Rebellion Bill he could not use it, and the bill was of the same utility to the cause of-order as the. scolding of an angry woman. Ihaka was an old friend and adherent of the Government ; we believe, indeed, he was at one time an assessor. He became a King Native ; and what harm in that, when Governor Brown told the Natives that he cared so little about the King movement he would not interfere to stop it . , Butvno evidence of any kind whatever; '4_a_ %eEm given to the public to prove that Ihaka was engaged in any treasonable practices, or in any acts contrary to law. If the Natives are to be governed by arresting all those who may be secretly denounced by private enemies, let us put down to bur account a thirty years war at once. If we were treated that way, we should all fight—the Editor of the Lyttelton Times as bravely as _ny man. Then why not the Natives.; If the Government violates all law, .fighting! is the only remedy.

But the Lyttelton Times says that this language is mischievous and dangerous. Yes ! to men who have no idea of governing the Natives except by bamboozling them, it is dangerous. If they are enemies, and are to continue as enemies, it is very dangerous. But suppose this recognition of their right to resist a violation ofthe law on the part of the British Government should turn out to be the secret of winning their acquiescence and confidence in r the justice ofthe English race—What then? The Southern Gross laid down as a principle that the

Natives were to be assumed to be guilty till they were proved to be innocent. It was against that doctrine we said we hoped they would fight. Not that we thought for a moment that any English lawyer, least of all Mr. Penton, would enunciate such a principle. The Lyttelton Times says that we threaten the Judge with general bloodshed if he " should decide upon the law of the case so as to differ in opinion with the writer in the Press." In passing, we may remark we were not speaking of the judge who did jnot, and will not propound the heresy, but of the Southern Cross which did. But how absurd to talk a3 if it were a matter of any' opinion or of an interpretation of the law. j We were speaking of a great maxim never doubted, denied, or disputed by any man. Are we to be told that it depends on the interpretation of a lawyer whether a man is to be assumed to be guilty until he is proved to be innocent ? It is not a question of opinion ; and it is strange indeed to find any intelligent writer speaking of the broadest and widest principles of justice as if they were on a level with matters of practice, or the interpretation of a statute. If by any contortion the statute could be given such a meaning as that propounded in tbe Southern Cross, we should confidently appeal against it to the Queen in Council, as " repugnant to the law of England," and so void under the Constitution.

But to put the matter in the broadest light, we must make up our minds to this — that if the Natives are to be governed at all,: it must be by the bold and unshrinking ap- j plication of those great maxims of justice which we pride ourselves upon as the corner stones of our own system of liberty and law. These principles we do not consider to be fashions, or dogmas, or artificial contrivances, but simply the expression in language, ofthe broad basis of right and justice which underlies all the relations between man and man. When we depart from these truths, society necessarily becomes disintegrated, and there is war and discord and commotion of all kinds, until we somehow get back to the truth again. Such is the .law of humanity ; and when a nation lies down tamely under the abnegation of all right and truth, we do not admire them for not fighting; we deplore it. The expression we used and repeat, was intended to place in the plainest terms before the Auckland press this fact, that they cannot make these disgraceful propositions to measure out to the Natives a sort of justice which, were it applied to Englishmen, would soon set the community in a flame, without having the opposite alternative stated also. If men are to be deemed guilty until they are proved innocent, we say, far better that they should fight. We should all of us fight, and why not the Natives ? And a little of this plain speaking to the Natives would do more to teach them what English law and liberty means, than all the sentiment and all the wheedling, or than all the thrashings which have on the one side or the other been so unsuccessfully attempted.