SULLIVAN’S MURDER.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 118, 19 July 1873, Page 4

SULLIVAN’S MURDER.

I [lndependent.] : We learn from our telegrams from the I Waikato that a meeting was held at 1 Cambridge on Saturday, to take into consideration the action of the Government with respect to the murder of the man Sullivan, at which resolutions were passed affirming—first, a demand that “ British law be enforced through the length and breadth of New Zealand ; ” second, expressing regret that the Government do not regard the murder of Sullivan as having grave political significance; and third, insisting that in all cases where Crown grants have been issued for purchases of land the Government is bound to protect, at all risks, the lives and property of the purchasers. It is also intimated, as a source of dissatisfaction, that the Government will not grant protection to settlers upon land outside the confiscated boundary. We are strongly of opinion that this meeting has been got up for no other purpose than to create embarrassment to the Government. We have very good authority for stating that the bulk of the “ settlers” in the Waikato —the actual proprietors and cultivators of land in that district —are now fully convinced that the course pursued by the Government has been the wisest. Naturally, immediately after the murder of Sullivan great excitement prevailed in the frontier districts, which was intensified by the sensational comments of the Auckland press. But when sober sense took the place of unreasoning panic, the reaction was entirely in the direction of approval of the policy pursued by the Government. The present attempt to excite popular feeling is fostered only by a few who have, with the full knowledge of the risks they would have to incur, purchased or leased lands on favorable terms from the natives outside the confiscated boundary. The settlers proper—those who occupy small farms within the limits of the confiscated land —may have been alarmed,but they are now becoming confident that they have little to fear except from the intemperate action of a discontented section. It is worth while to analyse the resolutions said to have been passed at the Cambridge meeting. First, the ad captcmdum demand that “British law be enforced through the length and breadth of New Zealand.” We have heard this demand or opinion expressed hundreds of times ever since the first difficulty with the native race. But all sober-minded and sensible persons must know that its fulfilment is for the time practically impossible. No one knows this better than the settlers themselves. What would the attempt to accomplish such a result —desirable, no doubt—involve ? A long and disastrous war, which we are not in a position to undertake; the obliteration of our outlying settlements, the stoppage of immigration, and general disaster —excepting always the benefits which grog sellers and others interested in the expenditure of money upon military purposes would enjoy. This first resolution would do very well in a young men’s debating society, but coming from those who would be the first to suffer if practical effect were sought to be given to it, is bombast and nonsense. The second resolution affirms that of which no proof has been given. Referring to Sullivan’s murder, it declares that “ the natives themselves acknowledge it as premeditated and solely political, and that Purukntu was instructed by the King to commit some outrage for the purpose of provoking hostilities.” Who do the Cambridge meeting mean by “ the natives” ? It is beyond dispute that large and important tribes of much more real practical consequence than the “ King party,” as it is called, have voluntarily denounced Sullivan’s murder as a “ crime” alike opposed to European and Maori laws, and would, if invited, be as ready as the Waikato settlers to exact restitution. But apart from this, the whole of the circumstances antecedent to the murder of Sullivan prove that it arose simply out of a dispute about land. And the proprietors of the land - on which the offence was com-

mitted were fully aware that in occupying ground outside the confiscated boundary, however good their title might be, they were incurring a certain amount of risk. And yet the Cambridge meeting goes so far as to demand that the

colony at large shall at all cost protect them. A more untenable position could not be taken up. If persons choose to locate themselves in positions probably dangerous, with a full knowledge of the risk they run, they have no right to ex. pect that the whole • machinery of Government shall follow them. Those who have purchased land outside the confiscated boundary were thoroughly cognisant of the conditions under which they must occupy it, and they have no more right to demand what they ask than miners who may choose to search for gold in distant and inhospitable regions have to expect that the Government will feed them.