Untitled

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3111, 31 January 1871, Page 2

It is always a sign, of conscious guilt when a person enters upon a defence of his actions be/ore those actions have been impugned. Mr Travers' defence of himself' in connexion with the Manawatu question is a striking case in point. Had that astute lawyer. been guile satisfied that his sayings and doings upon this question were beyond reproach, he would not have thought it necessary to enter into sj wordy an explanation of his conduct, as appears in the supplement issued by our evening contemporary. Up to the present time, t no public accusation has been made against Mr Travers in connexion with this matter, but doubtless Mr Travers felt that he had a very weak defence, so he judged it prudent to attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the Wellington electors by publishing the effusion which has appeiired in the columns of the " Post." And after all to what does this defence amount? Just this — that Mr Travers tried to entrap the Govern meht into a course of action which might be twisted into an interference with the decision of the Native Lands C.mrt ; and having signally failed in this, he (as usual) became petulant and angry, and pretended to " wipe his hands of the affair and of all responsibility arising out of it." Had Mr Travers been so pure in this matter as he would wish the public to believe, he would have published all the correspondence between Mr M 'Donald and himself, instead of merely a carefully culled selection. The electors of Wellington, however, scarcely need to be reminded that Mr Travers was the legal adviser of the natives, when they disputed the decision of a lawfully constituted Court, chosen by themselves; or that Mr M'Donald was the party who was convicted by the bench of Magistrates at Wanganui, for inciting the natives to a forcible stoppage of" the survey. It cannot be necessary to point out to such a legal luminary as Mr Travers, that in law a man is held to intend the natural consequences of his acts. And it is most just that it should be so. Now, if the natural consequences of his acts were to incite the natives to dispute the just decision of a legal tribunal, and to resort to force to prevent effect being given to that decision, then we say that such must have been Mr Travers' inten tions, anything it may suit him now to say to the contrary notwithstanding. Upon a careful review of all tho circumstances, it is clear that Mr Travers' conduct has been extremely injurious to the province, subversive of good order, and damaging to the cause of peace — a cause so essential to the well-being of us all. It behoves the electors to treasure these facts in their minds, and not to be led away by the " stump oratory " in which it is Mr Travers' pleasure now to indulge.