DOINGS OF THE MINING CONFERENCE.

Cromwell Argus, Volume IV, Issue 179, 15 April 1873, Page 6

DOINGS OF THE MINING CONFERENCE.

To the Editor of the Cromwklt, Argus.

g IBj —F or me to attempt to prove the correctness of my former explanation may appear like attempting to stem the tide with a pitchfork, seeing that against it there is the written record of the reporter, and Mr Crombie flatly contradicting it; and for aught I know the other nine members will follow suit. However, the circumstances which surrounds the affair, which I now propose to draw attention to, will to any unbiassed mind show that the balance is yet a long way in my favour. Before proceeding, let me first dispose of a few preliminaries that has gathered round it. I am sorry Mr Crombie had not other reasons for disputing my explanation than to do justice to the chairman and to himself. If anything I have said may be construed to be an injustice to the chairman, I will be most willing to apologise. Most people are aware that too much formality in meetings such as the Mining Conference does not accelerate business, and that a little licence was sometimes allowed by Mr Miller for that purpose I do not think he will dispute ; and I think T will be able to show that I was doing Mr Crombie more justice than he has done himself. It is satisfactory for me to know that no dependent member of the Tuapeka Times staff will suffer by my calling in question the report, as it was the proprietor himself who was taking the minutes at the time. Printed reports of that day's proceedings were not in the hands of mem-

bers until the morning they left Lawrenee, or attention might have been drawn to the error, as was with one or two others, which to their credit was very few, and which was duly rectified. As to the circumstances I was to refer to. How is it to be accounted for there is no mention of this resolution in the report, which was intended to embrace all particular objects, while the other which I said was carried in its stead finds a place there? Surely a motion which strikes at the root of a very important scheme should have been mentioned. Either the subcommittee appointed to draw out the report must have wilfully left it out, or been ignorant of its being carried. The report, though it may have more particularly been in the hands of a few, it was looked upon by all as the most important part of the proceedings, and it was subject to a close scrutiny by all the members before it was unanimously passed. Surely it was doing Mr Crombie more justice to affirm the motion was not carried, than for he to say it was, and then allow it to be trampled over in this manner. For anyone interested in such a resolution to affirm now it wa.s carried when three days after they must have lost all recollection of it, is more fitting of the term of " Consistency Exemplified" than was its origin. I have been more personal than I could have desired ; but in attempting to defend a body whom I highly respect from unmerited calumny, 1 bring odium on myself, and from a quarter I least expected : I cannot be blamed if I retaliate. Before I leave the subject for good, I desire to state the real facts; and I should have done so before had I ever thought it would have been disputed. The motion which 1 said was carried instead of the original was an amendment; and it was not the ■first amendment proposed either. Mr Morrison proposed au amendment which was not supported, part of which wa3 then embraced in the one proposed by myself, and which he agreed to second. It was carried, as is stated, six voting for and one against. Who were the members that voted for, I could not undertake to say ; bub Mr Shaw was the member who voted against it. The motion of Mr Crombie was never put to the vote of the meeting, as the amendment was carried. Such is the true facts, gainsay it that chooses. As I have put the reporter into further errors, a certain circumstance which occurred at the time, which I intend to draw his private attention to. and which if he can recollect I have no doubt he will agree with what I have stated. T am, &c, J. Alexander. Clyde, April 11, 1873. P.S.—One remark in your comment on my explanation : that surely I must allow that two such resolutions being both carried was fitting food either for censure or ridicule. All I have to say, if consideration had been given to the qualifying statement in the report regarding a Minister of Mines, and the non-appearance of anything respecting the other, that there was in my opinion equal food for an explanation as for ridicule, had thedesire for such been so balanced.