THE NATIVE DEPARTMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 4484, 28 March 1876, Page 3

THE NATIVE DEPARTMENT.

To the Editor of the Herald. ! SIK,—As I suppose I must consider myself one of the " cowardly assassins," who are either unable' or unwilling, to grasp the greatness of Sir Donald McLean's policy, spoken of in his print (the Bay of Plenty Times), kindly, permit, me .to ask Sir Donald the fol-. lowing'plain questions :—l. Can you cite one instance in modern constitutional history 1 where the Minister for fie time being at the head of a great department of State, has been permitted, without a protest from the people, 60 traffic for his own private benefit, in the power and' patronage of that department ? Your readers will understand that I am here uakirig no charge or insinuation against the Native Minister, but merely following up his own admission of .last session —namely, that he. did not see why he should not purchase lands from the natives as well as anyone else. What would England have said had Mr. Disraeli, for example, stated, from his place in Parliament, 'that he did not see why he should not speculate in Kgyptian bonds after he had decided to invest in the Suez Canal? The. cases are, I consider, parallel. For Sir Donald's information, I may cite further the recent cases amongst American statesmen. Mr. Delano, holding a similar position to himself as Secretary for War, has been deposed, and is to be impeached . by Congress for selling a political appointment to some friend. Gen. Schenck, again, theiAmerican Minister in London, has been recalled for soroo' shady transaction connected with the notorious Emma silver mine, which was launched as a company in London, and finally swamped so many confiding people. 2. If your policy " has been successful in a very high degree," what need is there of maintaining any longer a small army of Constabulary, not to speak of a large permanent staff of Volunteerofficials, ata cost to the country of over £150,000 ayear? 3. If, as your print states, your policy has only cost the country half a-million in six years, upon what department do you throw the £150,000 a-year already quoted? Are you not both Native and Defence Minister 1 I do not hesitate to say, on the other hand—and the unauthorised expenditure and secret service system of your policy alone prevents me proving it from the blue-books—that the so-called flour-and-sugar policy, directly and indirectly, hos cost the colony not half r a-million. in six years, but one million and a-half, or, at'tlie rate of one quarter of a million annually for that period. ,4. Now. that the borrowed money is expended, how do you proposeto act in future? It is true that in your late speech at Napier you hinted at farther taxation ; but, assuming that the people of the North'lsland positively refuse to,pay more taxation -while about'thirty millions of aeresof the Crown" lands still remain in the hands of the r-natives- and. Southern squatters, what then? "Even the ill-advised Treaty of Waitangi, you will admit, does not provide for the rebel chief being an accessory after

the fact to some 50 unpunished cokl-blooded murders. 5. How do yon account for Sir ■ Julius- VogDl making, no mention of -the TSatiVe-Sepaf stated to be "colonial,"-although somewhat incoherent,, address at Wanganui ? Might not this be accounted for by the fact thatftne entire independent Press of the JTortb; Island denounced his previously delivered eulogium upon your policy at the Wellington; lanquet ? And yon knpwrSir' Julius is hard, up just now_for_ allies as" well as for more loans. 6. If you humbly, and, perhaps, wisely admit, that all the' blessings of ipcace: irpnehsafedyunto us are " under Providence," althbugH to mortals seemingly dispensed by -your far-reaching arm, will you also joyfully, agree that, "Providence helps those who help themselves ?"—I am, &c, • > -".• '•'' ■'■; •' :' F. H. Teoot. ♦ .