Untitled

New Zealand Mail, Issue 772, 17 December 1886, Page 22

Possibly some of our readers may recollect that during last session a tremendous fuss was made about what was then known as "the Owhaoko scandal,” a somewhat intricate dispute relative to Native lands, in itself barely intelligible and distinctly uninteresting to-the general public. brought the matter into special prominence was a trenchant memorandum by the Premier, in which he made some rather strong remarks upon the conduct of Judge Fenton and Dr (now Sir Walter) Buffer. The affair was referred to a Select Committee, who in their report entirely exonerated Judge Fenton, but added —“ Several serious charges have been made against Dr. Buffer in the course of the inquiry, as to which, that gentleman being absent and unrepresented,the Committe offer no opinion." On receiving a copy of this report, Sir Walter Buffer prepared a statement, which he has addressed to the Premier, with a request that it may be laid on the table of the House of Representatives next session, and of which he has forwarded to us a copy by the English mail, which arrived last evening. Sir Walter Buffer says that the "charges” against him resolve themselves into three. First comes a direct accusation of falsehood brought by Mr Fenton himself. Sir Walter has telegraphed : "Mr Fenton had advised Studholme to make terms with a view to withdrawal.” Mr Fenton, in his evidence, asserted that he had a perfectly distinct recollection of the circumstances. and that he had not done what Dr Buffer alleged, adding that he deemed the statement “ an impertinence on the part of Dr Buffer.” On this Sir Robert Stout made the following observations : I do not wish to jump at conclusions, as Mr Fenton mav have excuses to offer to my satisfaction. For instance to-day he says Dr Buller’s statement in the telegram to Mr Dickey is untrue. I assumed in my memorandum that what Dr Buller said was true, but Mr Fenton says it is not true. I have no prejudice or bias in the matter, and if Mr Fenton can explain other things in the same way I shall be the first to acknowledge it. He says Dr Buller stated what was untrue, and I shall believe him, and shall assume that Dr Buller has wired to the Clerk of the Native Land Court an untruth.

Sir Walter Buller remarks, “ The accusation here is clear and distinct,”

and he quotes the observation of Mr Bell, counsel for Mr Fenton :

The writer of the memorandum knew that Dr. Buller was absent from the Colony, and the comments upon this telegram • drove us into what has been a very unpleasant position —the contradiction of statements made by an absent man who is not here to meet that contradiction. . \

But now comes a very curious incident. Mr Fenton gave his evidence on the Ist July. On the Bth July he wrote to Mr Studholme, then in London, what Sir W. Buller justly styles “ a remarkable letter.” In that letter Mr Fenton says My object in writing to you is simply this : Don’t you or Buller write or say anything to anybody at present. lam doing the best X can for all of us, and you or B. might take a line which would destroy everything and be extremely disastrous. You know Buller’s impetuosity, and how he might be writing something which would put all the fat in the fire. Pray see him at once, and tell him to write nothing. I can see what is best much better than you or he can away from the place. So pray take seme trouble in insisting that noth* fng shall be. said or written by either of you. Conflict would be destruction. I think there is a disposition to protect the European interests. Stout, however, is mad on the subject of the Natives. You will understand, I hope, the importance of silence, at present, on the part of yourself and Buller. On this Sir Walter . remarks that, had the Committee adopted Sir Robert Stout’s suggestion to cable to him an inquiry if the statement were’< true, they would have received an immediate answer in the affirmative. This would have introduced the " conflict of evidence ” deprecated by Mr Fenton in his letter,‘but as it was, his evidence remained uncontradicted; he was exonerated, and the stigma of alleged falsehood was left on Sir Walter Buffer, who says i

While vindicating me from the imputation of unprofessional conduct, as Mr Fenton was of course bound to do, he formulates himself an odious charge never even suggested in Sir Robert Stout’s memorandum ; and. this is what he calls “ doing the best I can for all of us!”. 1 would have been prepared at any time to give a circumstantial account of-the whole matter, so : far as I was concerned, and I am utterly at a loss to understand Mr Fenton’s dread of my “writing something that would put all the fat in the fire j’’ After receiving Mr Fenton’s printed evidence, I appealed to Mr Studholme for a verification of my telegram of 28th July, 1880. I append my letter and his reply. It is perhaps only natural that, in the face of Mr Fenton’s emphatic denial, Mr Studholme should, after a lapse of six years, hesitate about being quite positive. But when Sir R. Stout's memorandum arrived in some three months ago, I read it over with Mr Studholme, and he did not then take any exception to the accuracy of my statement in the telegram. My own recollection of the matter is quite distinct, and had not such a communication been made to me by Mr Studholme it would have been quite impossible for me to send the telegram in question. This I did in perfect good faith, giving it as a reason why Mr Dickey should supply the information asked for.

He argues from Mr Studholme’s statement and some admissions by Mr Fenton that circumstantial evidence goes strongly to prove the probability that the latter acted as he (Sir Walter) had asserted, and he remarks that it is curious Mr Fenton should never have mentioned to him, during the five years after he (Mr Fenton) became aware of the telegram, that he believed Dr Buffer guilty of such a deception. Sir R. Stout, too, remarks on the neglect of Mr Fenton to complain to Dr Buffer of his conduct in sending an incorrect telegram to the Clerk of the Court. Sir Walter explains that Mr Fenton’s, letter (of the Bth July) to Mr Studholme was placed at his disposal without any restriction, and was not marked " private.” Mr Studholme, in a note appended, says :

"My memory is not quite clear as to Mr Fenton having recommended me to come to terms with the Natives for the withdrawal. I have underlined the part I am not quite positive about. I can vouch for the accuracy of all the rest of your statements in this letter.” [The words underlined are "And he had advised you to come to terms with the applicants, with a view to withdrawal.”]

The second charge repelled by Sir W. Buffer- is that of paying certain sums to Natives to withdraw. H© points out that this rests on mere hearsay, and he gives it a flat denial. The third charge is conveyed by implication, Sir Robert Stout having animadverted on the " impropriety of a solicitor or counsel accepting terms from both sides,” and argued that Dr Buffer appeared both for plaintiff and defendant, and for Messrs Studholme as well, the effect (Sir Walter remarks) being, as epitomised in a New Zealand paper, "Thrice happy Dr Buffer, to be trebly retained and three times paid!” Sir Walter complains that Sir Robert Stout had not the courtesy to send ,him a copy of his memorandum, although it impugned by implication his (Sir Walter’s) professional honour, and states that Mr Manteff, M.L.C., kindly sent him a copy for the sake of fair play. He explains that the interests of the three parties were not antagonistic, but virtually tended in one and the same direction ; that he appeared for them all by their mutual consent; that his coats were exclusively paid by Mr Studholme with the knowledge and ap-

proval of both the other parties ; and •that the “ withdrawal ” was made by the Natives with the fullest understanding of the circumstances, and altogether voluntarily. Such is the general purport of Sir "Walter -Buller’s vindication, and we feel bound to say that if his recollection be not at fault as to the facts, he has made >out a very good case on his own behalf, and has completely repelled the imputation which had been cast upon his conduct.