MR LOUDON EXPLAINS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1093, 6 November 1883, Page 2

MR LOUDON EXPLAINS.

To the Editor. Sir, —Tu your leading article of the 26th ult., you attack the proprietor of the Ashburton Mail for the report he gave of the few words spoken by me at the Methven Ploughing 'Hatch Dinner, in proposing Mr Wason’s health. The report of the same that appeared in the Mail, althought not exactly a verbatim report of what I said, was not in any sense misleading. How your reporter omld possibly construe the conversation he had with me to warrant the article in question, I am at a loss to understand. Hoping you will insert the above, 1 am etc, John Loudon. Lauriaton, Nov. 2nd. [We have published Mr Loudon’s letter, as requested, but in order that our readers may value it at its true worth

a word or two of explanation is necessary. When our contemporary s report of the dinner appeared and we were assured, not only by our own reporter but by perfectly independent people who were present, that what was ascribed to Mr Loudon was not what he said, we wrote to that gentleman asking him to contradict it. This letter was never answered, but when we interviewed him at the time of the Scotch concert, he asked us not to say anything about the matter, adding, however, that the Mail’s report was incorrect. Thus we have on the one side the following facts: Mr Loudon’s speech was understood by several impartial people to refer to the WaEanui seat; when he is asked to say whether the report of the Mail was correct or not, he remains silent, and subsequently asks us to take no notice of it; and finally if our contemporary’s report was “ not in any sense misleading ” then Mr

Loudon nr.’st have been talking absolute nonsense. On the other aide we have simply the present denial, which is an entire contradiction of what was said to us by the writer when we met him in Ashburton. The natural conclusion we should think most people would come to is that if the Mail had reported Mr Loudon’s speech correctly that gentleman would not have delayed in answering our letter on the subject. As to his being at a loss to understand that the conversation we had with him warranted our article, that ia plainly hia own fault, for we can assure our readers that we simply took Mr Loudon to mean what he said, namely that he did not say what our comtempor ry’s report made him say. ; Perhaps it will be well for him in future to bo quite certain of what he does mean when he speaks at public dinners, -rEd, (?.]