Port Denison Times, 5 June 1869, p2

SHALL WE ADMIT THE BLACKS

To the Editor of the Port Denison Times.

SIR--In his No. 3 communication Mr. Crow characterises my former letter as "anonymous," "scurrilous," and "ungrammatical." These are hackneyed terms with all newspaper correspondents, and being wholly used as taunt and devoid of argument.

With regard to the first of these, I would ask what the term he applies to his publications if they are not "anonymous". He says, "the name of the writer of these papers is no secret," &c. Now I venture to differ from him, and also to assert that on the appearance of his No. 2 no three persons in this part of the Kennedy know the real author. As to the second charge of "scurrility," I would ask the same question. He has denounced (virtually) every station resident of the Kennedy as murderers and ravishers. He makes no distinction. They are indiscriminately accused of the worst crimes in our penal code —accused of "murdering the blacks and violating their wives," "tying two gins together, so that one bullet would kill both," &c., &c.; and these, too, on the authority (!!!) of "discharged hands" and "hospital patients." Doubtless from the same source he has acquired the use of the word "He." Granted that grammatical errors may exist in my letter, his opportunities of acquiring correctly the English tongue may have been greater than mine; nevertheless that does not strengthen his position or weaken mine.

In his No. 3 article Mr. Crow wishes it to appear that his object on the whole has been a desire to educate the aboriginal children. Had he done so in the first place he would have made many friends, able and willing to give him every assistance in that work. Now, I ask, has he done so? Is there a word in either the first or second article to lead the public to believe that his object? Are they not, on the contrary, a constant tirade of abuse against the squatters and the Native Police?

It is not locally we must look for the evil consequences of these publications. Here all those interested in the welfare of the North and having large stakes therein are fully aware of the facts, far more so than the promulgator of the calumnia derived from such a questionable source as "discharged hands," &c. It is from a distance the effects are to be apprehended. We want capital and capitalists to save us from impending ruin. The question is, therefore, will capitalists embark their cash or join a community such as we are represented, and that too by one whose calling would point him out as a reliable authority!

Admitting that blacks have been shot by the squatters and others, but only so far as to protect their property and make them masters of the soil—which to a great extent is admitted as justifiable by the other side—I will proceed to furnish a few instances wherein the blacks have merited their punishment. Between Port Mackay and Cleveland Bay there are some twenty cattle and two or three sheep stations. These latter have not suffered in the same rate as the former from the inroads of the blacks, if I except the Ben Lomond station; the shepherd murdered there, and the subsequent wanton destruction of 400 sheep, is too fresh in the memory of your readers to require further comment. The other sheep stations have also lost shepherds and sheep by the same ruthless hands. Some of the cattle stations too have suffered more than others, and I will assert without fear of contradiction that fifteen out of these twenty cattle stations have lost equivalent to their annual increase, and some even more. One station in this district lost in numbers actually counted two hundred head in one year. I have known as many as twenty-seven head killed in one night by one party of blacks, and I have frequently known from six to fourteen head of cattle killed by one mob of blacks in twenty-four hours. The estimated loss on one of our largest stations was over one thousand last year. This is not all the injury sustained by these "murderers," &c. From the constant harassing the cattle were driven off their proper runs, and it was a work of months to collect them, and then only to be driven off again; the consequence was that the cattle became poor, were neither fit for the butcher, the boiling pot, nor even for station use. Need I dwell on these calamities? Need I point out those who have been ruined by these disasters? And need I attempt further to justify the squatters in the steps taken to stay these outrages? To say that the blacks were driven to these acts from "starvation" is simply untrue. A visit to any of their encampments will show that their natural food is immeasurably abundant, not withstanding that since the "letting in" movement was commenced the blacks are confined to far more limited hunting grounds than they possessed prior to the present year.

Having said so much for the squatters I may be allowed to say a few words in be

half of the Native Police, the more so that the same channel is not open to them for their vindication which is used by their traducer. I am not singular in the opinion that had it not been for this force the greater part of the northern territory would have been abandoned long since. Their inefficiency is mainly attributable to their paucity of numbers. Had there been more of them the calamities to the squatters and the punishment of the blacks would not have now to be deplored. They are, however, responsible to the Government for their actions, and are, moreover, entitled to some consideration when subjected to the "three fires, the Government, the Press and the public."

Yours, &c., WITHIN 100 MILES OF BURDEKIN June 1, 1899.