To the Editor of the Otago Witness.

Otago Witness, Issue 489, 13 April 1861, Page 5

To the Editor of the Otago Witness.

Sir,— lt appears to me that there is a strange inclination on the part of our Local Government to repudiate all reaponsibility for certain acts of our late Superintendent, on the ground that they were done without their knowledge or consent. Now, sir, if this plea be good for anything, it will invalidate' every transaction done in that way ; and on the same principle, if they sanction one such action,-

111 1 necessarily involves the sanction of the whole. But sir, who but themselves had any means of knowing whether any transaction was done with their sanction or without it ? And if they, knowing that such things were done every day, never interfeied or endeavoured to put a stop to the practice, do they not theieby identify themselves with every such transaction, and become responsible for it as if it had been their own deliberate act ? In the case of the Clutha Railway Plant, for instance, the Goveinment obtain a document from Messrs. Paterson and Co. for certain purposes, and upon certain con> ditions, plainly stated in the letter of the-Superin-tendent. Whether all the members of the Government were cognizant of the transaction, Messrs. Paterson and Co> had no means of knowing, and had no right to enquire! They dealt with the Superintendent as the head and representative of the Government. And when this document, thus obtained, was used to draw a sum of money from the Provincial Treasurer, it was done under warrant signed by the Superintendent, and paid by the Banker into the hands of the confidential servant of the Government. There, however, it disappears, and no further trace can be obtained of it. Who then is responsible for it ? Who but the Govern* ment, into whose hands it is thus fairly and legiti-' mately traced, and who are therefore bound to. account for it by every principle either of honour or equity. And it appears to me, and I think will do so to every one taking an unbiassed view of the matter, that any attempt, by process of law, to involve Messrs. Paterson and Co. in responsibility, or extort from them the missing money on any plea whatever, would be more reprehensible and unjust than even the original abstraction, inasmuch, as it would be a mean attempt to do under cover of late what the original perpetrator had at least the hardihood to do at his own risk in defiance of all law and justice.

I am, sir, &c,

A Merchant.

Correspondent's argument would be per* fectly sound had Messrs. Paterson & Ce. actpd in a strictly business manner, instead of which they gave a receipt for money-- which they allege was not intended to be paid to them. Had they not given the receipt, the money could not have been drawrl from the Treasury ; and a nice question arioc-o, whether Mr. Macaudrew, in drawing the money, was not acting as the agent rather than as the head of the Government. — Ei>.]