THE "Wellington Independent." Wednesday, September 12, 1849.

Wellington Independent, Volume X, Issue 409, 12 September 1849, Page 2

THE "Wellington Independent." Wednesday, September 12, 1849.

" The best friend of his enemies/ , our coteraporary of the Wellington Spectator, has again been doing his utmost to promote the cause of self-government by venturing into the lists in opposition to the Resolutions of the Constitutional Association which we published a fortnight ago. " Save us from our friends." Sir George Grey and the Nominees have no adversary half so formidable as their own organ and defender. He never approaches the subject without damaging their cause, and we only regret that°the wholesale fear of castigation which he entertains prevents . his approaching it oftener. If he would only write once or twice a week in opposition to Responsible Government, our chance of defeating Sir George Grey's machinations, and being restored to our rights, would be increased fourfold ; for there is no better omen of success, nothing more conducive to it, than a display by our adversary of the weakness of the cause he supports. For these reasons we never attempt to refute any of the arguments which our cotemporary occasionally puts forth; we like to leave them to themselves to produce their full effect on the public mind. His facts, however, are usually so unfounded, and so generally affect the character of individuals, that we are compelled occasionally to expose them.

Ail instance occurs in his loading , lu'ticlo of last Saturday, which thus requires our interposition. One of the lie-solutions referred too, commenting on the hypocritical pretences put forward by Sir George Grey of the special anxiety of the Local Government to promote the interests of the natives, states the fact, that "a high official, (Mr. St. Hill) already in receipt of a salary of £300 a year, had been allowed by the Government to pockot tho whole proceeds of the native reserves, amounting to nearly £400, as a commission for the bare act of receiving it." In attempting to reply to the statement, our cotemporary asserts that " after the death of Mr. Thompson, (tho previous Trustee at Nelson), Mr. M'Donald was appointed his successor, and has, since the new arrangement for the management of the native reserves, received a compensation precisely in the same way and after the same rate that Mr. St. Hill has donoIn the resolution no mention is inado of Mr. M'Donald," says our contemporay, "for obvious reasons." Now, there is no mistake about the meaning of this assertion. We aro told that Mr. M'Donald has actually received remuneration, for acting as manager of the nativo reserves at Nelson, —that ho received it precisely in the same way, and after exactly the same rate as Mr. St. Hill. But that for obvious reasons the < fact has been suppressed by the framers of the resolutions. Of course, coming from the Government organ, whose Editor has the confidence of the officials, and access to authentic information all this must bo true. He would never have hazarded such a statement unless he knew it to be so. If the least doubt existed as to the correctness of what he states so precisely he would ask the officials who could authenticate the facts. No doubt he did so. What will our readers say, when we tell them that there is not a single syllable of truth in the statement; that it is a simple unadorned calumny, the pure invention of the not very fertile brain of our contemporary.

After the death of Mr. Thompson in 1843, Mr. M'Donald, at the request of the Bishop, undertook the management of tlie native reserves at Nelson, his Lordship offering him as a salary all rents up to £.100; beyond that and up to £200, 25 per cent, on all rents; and if the rents amounted to more, 5 per cent on all receipts till the salary should amount to £300 a-year. This "offer Mr. M'Donald refused, not considering it right to take such remuneration from the native trust for comparatively light duties; but he accepted the office of manager without salary, and acted without any till January, 1845, when the Bishop retiring from the Trust, Mr. M'Donald surrendered his charge into the hands of Government. But this is not all. Not only did Mr. M'Donald never accept or ask a farthing for his management of the reserves, not only did he refuse it when offered, but having at the time of the transfer of the trust to government a considerable sum of money, (received as rents) in his possession, he handed it over to Government, without the smallest deduction. And the Bishop addressed a letter to Mr. M'Donald conveying in the strongest possible terms the high sense of the value of the services which Mr. M'Donald had gratuitously rendered. Now compare this with Mr St. Hill's conduct, with which our co temporary says it was identical. Mr. St. Hill having a similar offer from the Bishop accepted it, without having we believe any more important duties to perform than fell to the lot of Mr. M'Donald. He acted not only while the Bishop who appointed him continued as a Trustee, but stuck to the berth till a few months since; and when the office was handed over to Government, he retained about £400 of rents received by him, in the name of salary, but in fact as little else than a commission for receiving it. Is it possible to conceive a course of conduct more completely the reverse in every particular of that of Mr. M'Donald ? Is it possible to offer a more damnatory proof of the utter worthlessness of our cotemporary's assertions ?

His personal dislike of our late respected , Manager of the Union Bank has on this . occasion led him into a similar scrape to j that into which he fell when he attacked Mr. M'Donald in March last, and when ; the whole of the principal merchants in . the place put their names to a document refuting his charges, and " expressing their firm conviction of their utter false-

hood." Soo our paper of tho 7th Mare? last. Wo should huvp thought that tho warning ho recoivod on that occasion from so many respectable parties, '(sovo ral of whom followed up their defence of Mr. M'Donald by tho withdrawal of their advertising custom and subscription to our cotomporary), might havo prevented such rash ebullitions on his part for the future. But your dull ass will not nioud his paoe for beating; and we greatly fe ar that our contemporary is not , to be mended by correction.