A REPLY TO “CRUSHER.”

Cromwell Argus, Volume IV, Issue 180, 22 April 1873, Page 5

A REPLY TO “CRUSHER.”

To (he Editor of the Cromwell Argus. Sir,- I observe in your issue of the Bth April, a letter signed “ Crusher,” commenting on the feeble manner in which the delegates at the late Conference represented existing abuses, kc. 1 have read the report of the Conference, and can see little cnise for either regret or disappointment. The delegates evidently, from the intimation they received from Mr Waterhouse to the effect that the Government would bo glad to receive and entertain any suggestion f »r the new Gold-fields Bill, seem to have confined themselves mainly to attempting to afford information that would prove valuable to its framers. 1 consider “ Crusher” might have wai ed until the new Gold-fields Bill made its appearance, before he ventured to make sucha mischievous statement as that '‘ the attempts made by the delegates to call the attention of the Government to existing abuses avid certainly prove abortive from the excessively feeble manner in which they have been represented.” Feeble manner, forsooth! Did “Crusher” expect a Mining Delegate to be possessed of the debating powers of a Julius Vogel ? or the persuasive eloquen -e of a Macandrew? The horny-handed sons of toil are not generally endowed with such gifts ; but shrewd common sense an I a fair acqn untancc with the defects of our mining laws I exnectel to see represented at the Conference, and my expectation have not been misplace I The report of the Conference and the new Gohl-fields Bill are inseparably conneore I : when it appears, we will bo able to see how far the framers of the latter have made use of the former. For the present, permit me to quote for “Crusher’s” benefit nn old Scotch proverb : “ Fools and bairns should never see things half done.”-1 am &c. ■ G. W. , Cardroua, 13th April, 1373.