took the very best course to defeat his object.

Whatever Rutherford's object may have been, and whether he deceived the
author and publisher of "The New Zealanders," or merely erred through
ignorance and lack of observation, there is no doubt that he spent some
years with the Maoris in the northern part of New Zealand. His tattooed
face is sufficient evidence of that. The pattern is the Maori "moko."
The tattooing on his breast, stomach, and arms, however, is not the work
of Maoris; that was done, probably, by natives at some of the islands,
or by sailors. I hardly think that those who read the narrative will
agree with Bishop Williams's opinion that it is "a mere romance." It is
more like the story of an ignorant, unobservant, careless sailor, who
entertained no idea that any importance would be attached to his
statements. Many mistakes were probably made in the work of dictating
the narrative to a fellow-sailor. If Rutherford had been bent upon
making a romantic story, he would have told it in a different form.
There is no straining after effect in the manuscript reproduced by
Craik. The faults are inaccuracies, not exaggerations. Some excuse may
be found for Rutherford's mistakes in the description of the battle Te
Ika-a-rangi-nui in the fact that modern Maori scholars cannot agree on
important details, there being differences of opinion in regard to
even the year in which the battle was fought.

[Illustration: A Maori's shoulder mat _Christchurch Museum_.]

It is felt that, with all its blemishes, the story has a good claim to
be included in the list of New Zealand works that are now being
reprinted by Messrs. Whitcombe and Tombs, to whom the people of New
Zealand are deeply indebted. When Mr. Whitcombe first asked me to edit
Rutherford's story for his firm, I proposed to take it alone, leaving