THE BULLERS AGAIN!

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume XII, Issue 1283, 18 November 1857, Page 2

THE BULLERS AGAIN!

We print a letter from Mr. Walter Buller. tho Interpreter to the Police Court, which is written in the exact stylo of his father, the Revd. James Buller, the political preacher of the Wesleyan Chapel in Manners-street. It contains the same abundance of words between commas and underlined words where there is no stress to lay,—the same attachment to s nips of doubtful Latin, —with occasional intervals of more doubtful English,—the same disposition to wriggle by means of shallow, quibbling excuses, out of the consequences of wrong doing. As to our associating the names of the father and son together in politics, it is clear that they are tarred with the same brush. The fitlher, during his journey to Whanganui and back, left more than ono “ footprint on she sands of time” to identify him with tho eleetio'’.'’:'ring tricks of his son the Interpreter. On hi- return, he took care that there should be no mistake about it, by preaching his political sermon against Radicals, and in favor of lite then existing powers. What does the Interpreter mean by asking us why we do not “ disclaim against reverend gentlemen. X’c. ?” Is this some of the father’s bad Latin, interpreted into the son’s worse English ? Or is tlie word " disclaim” Maori for ” divl.-tiiti” or “ Arclaim ?” We can hardly imagine anything to excel the. impudence of Mr. Walter Buller’s explanation that the appendage of the word “Interpreter” to his signature was not his official designation, lint simply used to distinguish hint from his father. At that rate, if Mr. Henry St Hill had wished to distinguish him.silf from his brother Ashton, the candidate, lie would have appended " Resident Magistrate’ to hi- name, and that would not have been his official designation ! If any officer of Government bears the same surname as any other man in the Province, he is not to distinguish himself by his Christian name, because (if we are to believe Mr. Walter Buller) that is not usual in writing signatures in Maori, but he is to do so by adding the name of his office, which is therefore not to bo considered official! Are the public to be gulled out of their senses by any such Jesuitical legerdemain of words? The assertion itself is entirely without foundation. Wo have seen many letters, written recently by both mnories and white people, in which the Christian name is used in the signature. We need only instance “ Henry Taratoa,” to whom Mr. Buller wrote the letter; who is distinguished from his father, the Chief Taratoa, by his Christian name, and not by the appendage of his pursuit as a Schoolmaster. We have no doubt but that Mr. Walter Buller can easily interpret his own Christian name into perfectly intelligible maori: and we are as well aware as he is, that he could perfectly have made the natives understand that the letter was from the son, without appending his official designation to his name. We repeat our impression, that the Council is bound to inquire into the matter; and to make stringent provisions against the repetition of so flagrant an abuse of an official capacity, for mere party purposes, by the holder of it. We know that evidence can be adduced, to shew that the effect, on some of the natives, of a letter so signed, if they had not been disabused of it, would have been oven to make them believe that they would render themselves liable to a summons from the ResiA dent Magistrate s Court if they should not comply with it. Let Mr. BuUer feel quite sure that, however impudently he may defy inquiry into the subject of his conduct, he will neither convince us that we do wrong in calling public attention to it, nor deter the newly elected Councillors from doing t/ie/r duty to the public with regard to it. The time is gone by, when a majority cf Dr. Featherston's pup. pets and obedient servants in tho Council would shield any.of Dr. Featherston's officials, lor shewing their ‘-personal independence” by using their official influence to canvass for Dr. I- eatlierston. I- or as to the Interpreter’s closing crow about *‘ not having surrendered his personal independence in accepting a situ- • nion under Government,”—let him only look ’ll the, consequences, in the case of his brother offi.-i.-tl. Major D Aroy, of daring to be troubled with any share of such an absurd article as •’ per-.-ma) independence”!