The Star. FRIDAY, APRIL 9, 1869.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 282, 9 April 1869, Page 2

The Star. FRIDAY, APRIL 9, 1869.

* It is usual, when a man feels aggrieved at any statements made in a uewspaper, or when he feels that the opinions it advances ought to be questioned, to write to that newspaper and request the insertion of his complaint, defence, or opinions. We say this is usual, but we do not say that it has been always adhered to. And, speaking generally, the recognised etiquette among well conducted newspapers has been that no journal should insert .letters commenting on the opinious expressed by another journal, unless these letters had been refused insertion in the paper to which they allude. Mr J. Cracroft Wilson, C.8., M.H.E., aud the Press have departed from these recognised rules iv respect to the Star, and the public will not, we daresay, feel surprised, because they know the relations which exist between Mr Wilson and our contemporary. However, we da not wish to lay any stress on a mere question of etiquette, and we mention it simply that we may remind the public of what has always appeared to us a very salutary rule. Mr Wilson begins his letter to the Press by a mis-statement. He says that, in an article which appeared in our columns ou Wednesday, we held up "to public execration all those " members of the House of Kepresen- " tatives, and particularly those rew turned by the province of Canter- " bury, who happen to differ," from our opinions. If Mr Wilson will read the article again, calmly and dispassionately, he will, we think, do us and himself the justice to say that we did not do what he states we did. We held no man, or body of men, far less the representatives of Canterbury iv the G-eneral Assembly, up to " public execration." The general public, whose interests it is the highest privilege of the Press at all times to guard and advance, will acquit us of the charge which — we think unadvisedly and in heat — Mr Wilson has seen fit to bring against us. The sole object of the article from which Mr Wilson quotes, and of which he excitedly complains, was to show that the real interests of the Middle Island are not represented in

the General Assembly owing to certain facts which cannot be gainsaid and certain influences which cannot be ignored. That we happened, as appears from his letter in the Press, to tread on Mr Wilson's corns, is perhaps, a misfortune; not, however, if the thorough ventilation of a very important subject should be the result. Before going on to notice the principal portion of Mr Wilson's letter, it is necessary that we should allude to what we must be permitted to characterise as a disingenuous attempt on his part to make it appear that we attacked Mr Alfred Cox, late member for Timaru, in the General Assembly. Mr Wilson does not, in so many words, say that we have attacked Mr Cox, but he insinuates that we have done so, adding, which is, we thick, perfectly unnecessary, that Mr Cox "is " absent some 100 miles off." Mr Wilson is, no doubt, correct in his statement as to Mr Cox's whereabouts; but, as we did not impute any blame to that gentleman, or question for one moment his honourable conduct, it follows that the insinuation of having attacked an absent man is gratuitous — a mere figment of Mr Wilson's own creation. Regarding the locality of Mr Cox's run in the North Island, we made no positive assertion. We knew, in general terms, that he had a run either in Hawke's Bay or Auckland, and it was publicly announced, not very long ago, that the overseer had thought it necessary to plant the sheep under his charge in a safe place while he himself took refuge in the settled districts of Hawke's Bay. Having cleared the way, as it were, we may now proceed to notice the more important part pf Mr Wilson's letter. We were aware of the return to which Mr Wilson has kindly drawn our attention, and we also noted, which Mr Wilson seems not to have done, that about seven years have elapsed since the return was made. It was this not unimportant point which suggested to us the propriety of asking for a new return, aud we are glad to observe that Mr Wilson conditionally promises to call for it in his place in the Assembly. We venture to say that the people of Canterbury will be grateful to him if he succeeds in getting the information which such a return ought to give. As Mr Wil son says, we are " aware that the leas"ing, under certain .conditions, of " lands from the Natives was legalised "in the session of 1862." We accused no one of entering clandestinely or illegally into a lease with the Natives. But we know, and Mr Wilson knows, that the law to which he refers was passed for the express purpose of legalising a number of illegal acts. The evil thing had been done extensively, and when it became so notorious that it could be no longer ignored, a law was passed declaring it to be legal, though ifc was ostentatiously paraded as a law for protecting the interests of Native and European alike. By whose influence was that law passed ? By the influence of that interest which, we repeat it, is vitally opposed to the interests of the great body of the people, and the overwhelming presence of which in the General Assembly it was our object to point out. We say advisedly that the holding of such runs as would be, or ought to be, included in the return which Mr Wilson has offered fco call for, constantly endangers our relations with fche Natives and provokes war. If a confirmation of our opinion, fchafc the holding of certain runs in the North Island endangers our relations with the Natives, were required, ifc is to be found in the terms iv which, according to Mr Wilson's letter, Mr Cox's lease is made out. He tells us that " there is a clause in the " lease to the effect that in the event "of any disturbance being caused by " the lessors, the rent shall cease and " determine afc once." That clause would not have been introduced at all, we think, if the probability of disturbances had nofc been very prominently in the mind of one of the contracting par ties. The principle on which all our remarks on this subject have been based is as old as the world, and as generally recognised as the rising and setting of the sun. It is simply this — that nine men out of ten will look after their own interests in preference to those of the general public when the two clash. Let us put the issues very plainly, for the

public cannot be too often told what they are. If A. B. C. and D. hold certain runs in the North Island, and if it becomes a question whether the colony shall give up the couutry included in these, in order to prevent a war which its resources forbid to it carry on, is ifc nofc reasonable fco suppose that A. B. C. and D. will vote against such a course ? Aud is it not also reasonable to suppose that all who may sympathise with their position, or who may have a pecuniary interest in ifc, will aid them by their votes and influence ? We think, without; imputing dishonorable motives,_thafc the auswer to these questions must be iv fche affirmative. Again, if E. P. G. andH., enjoying the lease of certain waste lands in the Middle Island, become convinced that a condition of things in which the colony would be in a position to devote its energies to the introduction of population and the spread of colonisation; would be detrimental to their individual interests, is ifc probable fchafc fchey would actively endeavour to bring this condition of things about ? Is it not, on the contrary, reasonable to infer that they would give themselves the benefit of any doubts that might arise and of their own votes ? We think this view of the case is not only reasonable but absolutely inevitable from the premises. That there are notable exceptions to this rule, we most gladly acknowledge. Thero are representatives who, recognising that their own interests are not opposed to but bound up with, the interests of fche public generally and the advancement of the colony, act accordingly. We respect the public for whose instruction we write; we firmly and conscientiously believe in the justice and great importance of the principles we advocate ; we will not, therefore, descend to bandy personalities with Mr Wilson or with any other man who may differ from us. Let the question be argued calmly and honestly. BmKmManußßmmßmmmKmmmmmmaaamßaumammmmamßmMmaMMm,