COLONEL RUSSELL AND HIS APOLOGIST.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 57, 31 July 1862, Page 6 (Supplement)

COLONEL RUSSELL AND HIS APOLOGIST.

To the 'Editor of the Hawke's Bay Times. Sie, —The proceedings instituted against Mr. Colenso appear to have caused no small excitement in Napier lately, and the conduct of, and the decision given by the “ person” who constituted “ the Court” on that occasion have been the subject of severe criticism. The case is nothing worse, according to my notions of right, than that of the “Shirleys versus Paora Kaiwhatu and others” adjudicated at Puketapu some time ago, but perhaps the different station of the “ sufferer” may account for the greater exhibition of public feeling on this occasion. Certainly the decision in the Awapuni ease was not more contrary to law than the Puketapu one, while the constitution of the Court in the latter case was directly contrary to the first principles of justice, two “ gentlemen” on the Bench being directly interested in the causes they sat to adjudicate. That illegality, at least, has been avoided in Mr. Colenso’s case, as I am not aware that any one has yet charged the Civil Commissioner with being interested in the Awapuni Station. Amid the crowd of commentators on this case, only one appears to have defended the conduct and decision of the presiding magistrate, Colonel Bussell. In a letter signed “Justus” in the Herald of the 12th instant, it is proved (at least to the satisfaction of the writer himself) that everything was right and fair, and nobody wrong except Mr. Colenso! The letter in question is too good to pass unnoticed, and although Justus states “ that he does not wish to enter into any argument as to Mr. Colenso’s having been proved to have been guilty of the offence for which ho was fined,” (for that appears to be the meaning of the first portion of his epistle,) I will take the liberty of commenting on both the Colonel and his defender, hirst let me remind Justus that, however convenient it might be to him to bo allowed to mislead the public, and then decline to support his case by argument, he may rest assurred that he will fail in his object, if he does not bring more proof to bear on the question than he has yet done. To assert a case is sufficient when it is generally known and admitted to be correct; but to assert is not enough when the assei'tion is opposed to general opinion and common sense. Justus states that there are three parties to the case—the Maories, the Church Mission, and Mr. Colenso. Let me inform him that there is a fourth party, whoso right to have a voice in the question he appears to ignore altogether. The European portion of the community have certain rights on the subject. Yes, the “ Pakeha” as a body ought not to be left out of the question. The Pakeha is called on to subscribe large sums of money to be given to the Maori, or expended for his benefit. Mills, vessels, horses, agricultural implements, seeds, and cash have been lavished on the Maori, at the expense ot the Pakeha. Eoads and bridges, where such works exist, have been constructed at the expense of the Pakeha, the Maori avoiding the cost ■while sharing the benefit. Last, but not least, large sums of Pakeha money are applied to the education of the Maori youth. Even here in Heretaunga, while the Maori retains two-thirds (in value) of the country, with the advantages enumerated, he seeks to squeeze more out of his co-inheritor on every opportunity. To repudiate old bargains, and bully' the Government out of more cash is a settled course with the Maori. He finds it a paying game, but will play it once too often, or human nature is changed. But Justus may say, what has all this to do with Mr. Coleuso’s case ? We will sec. The Maori is fond of resuming possession of land which has been alienated in year’s gone by. If the land so resumed has been improved by the Pakeha, so much the better. There is nothing like playing for a high stake when you are about it, particularly when you are sure to win, or at any rate not to lose anything. A Pakeha house, garden, or woolshed is a capital thing to get hold of gratis. No wonder the Awapuni few acres has long been on eyesore to the Maori. According to public report, (for having never been on the premises, I cannot speak from personal knowledge,) the garden and orchard there were something worth having, if not exactly worth coveting. The ten acres of “ waste land” alienated some score years ago had become a snug little homestead, wrapt in “ Pakeha” trees. Where is the man who would not desire to obtain such a property gratis I The • Maori passes it, and contrasts the delightful homestead of the Pakeha with the tens of thousands of acres of Maori land lying waste, the Maori being too indolent, and too few in number, to till it themselves, and unwilling for others to have it. (The command to replenish the earth, and subdue it, does not appear to have been addressed to the Sons of Maui.) Instead of the Maori endeavouring to follow the example of his white neighbour, he sets about scheming how he can obtain the advantages without the labour and trouble. To assert that the boundary has been mistaken is the most usual method. In many cases this serves the purpose. The Government may stand out a while, but must eventually yield, or fight, and Britons now-a-days will rather bow their shoulders to the yoke than maintain their rights ; but even “ tribute-paying” will not save them from the alternative, although the evil day may be deferred awhile. But there are peculiar features in the Awapuni case. There could bo no mistake about the boundary. The deeds, too, appear to have been without a flaw, or Maori ingenuity would have discovered it. If O’Connell could drive a coach through any Act of Parliament, a Maori when smitten with rirau * would at least be equally successful in driving his mere through an old conveyance, as scores of cases already readjusted prove. Tims the Awapuni improvements were rather difficult of resumption. Bullying was also a failure, and there was but one way to get possession, the good old law of might. This law, however, would implicate others besides Mr. Colenso. The other Pakehas might interfere if violence were done to him. The difficulty hung on long, but eventually a path is discovered that it is hoped will lead out of it. Some of the Church Mission • Anglicr, Covetousness.

trustees are Maori sympathisers, men who endeavour to bring their countrymen under the yoke of the Sons of Moui. They can argue that rebellion is innocence, that violence should be submitted to, and murder is excuseable. Of course such men can have no scruples of conscience about helping the Maori to appropriate the fruits of the Pakeha’s industry. The drivers of the “ responsible coach” are their allies, so a plan is arranged, and a tool chosen for the operation. He appears quite ready to perform his part of the business, feo he ought to bo, or for what does he draw his salary ! His duty is to obey orders, and ask no questions. What odds that he is a breaker of the very law he undertakes to administer against others. No doubt his spiritual advisers can satisfy bis conscience, on the principle (a la loyola) that it will all tend to the advancement of the cause on which they have set their minds and to which they have piuned their faith. To set the Maori above the Pakeha in all things is an object worthy the talents of a Selwyn! Can there he any doubt, then, of the propriety of the lesser rights of the ecclesiastical party following the example of their head ? or that the lay brother is right iu helping on the work ? Yours, &c., Ahuriri, IGth July, 1862. A SAXON.