EXPLANATIONS.

Cromwell Argus, Volume V, Issue 224, 24 February 1874, Page 6

EXPLANATIONS.

To the Editor of the Cromweli, Argus. Sir, —In reply to a letter sent by me to Mr Colclough, contained in last week’s Argus, and which was intended to be a private one, the statements therein you say have been denied by Mr O’Neill. Now, I would ask what purpose would it serve me to Avrite anything but the truth, and by what means did the committee of the Bannockburn and Garrick Range Miners’ Association come to pass a minute in their books requesting the Secretary to write the Warden, to name a day, &c., after the Warden had distinctly stated in Court that he would give sufficient notice when he would visit the ground in dispute ? On account of the minute being sent to the Warden, it became necessary to explain to Mr Colclough why such had been done, he having conducted the case hitherto, and the meeting still desiring his assistance, their writing the Warden under the circumstances was equivalent to taking the case out of Mr Colclough’s hands. Mr O’Neill would probably never have made the statements he did make, nor would I have written in the exact words I did write, if the letter bad been intended for publication ; but under .all the circumstances of the case I maintain I was quite justified in writing what I did write in connection with or about the matter.—l am, &c., James Aitchison.

To the Editor of the. Cromwell Argus. Sir,—Allow me the- opportunity to state, in reference to the letter that appeared in last week's Argus from the Secretary of the Bannockburn Association to me, that I did not authorise its pnblica+ion, nor was T aware that there was any intention on Mr MacKellar's part to do so. I do not think that two opinions exist about the motive of the publisher, and I cannot compliment him upon his good taste in publishing a private letter without authority. . On the subject matter of the letter, I leave Mr O'Neill to explain himself: with that I have no concern.—l am, &c., Ohas. Colclough.

To the Editor of the Cromwell Argus. Sir,—■■ Referring to the letter which you took the liberty to publish in last week's Argus, 1 think you will hardly deny me space to defend myself. 1 wish you and the Warden to understand that I did attend a committee meeting of the Bannockburn and Carrick Range Miners' Association. My statement was one of facts,, not of opinions, and was as follows .-—That the Warden and MacKellar would have been out to inspect the ground without giving the miners interested sufficient notice beforehand, were it not for Mr Colokmgh's presence in Court, and objecting to the visit without due notice. I may add that Mr Colc'ough has been.shown the above, and he assured me he would testify to its correctness. It must be patent to all reasonable, impartial readers that I must have heea a medium spiritualist, to be able to state the inclinations of either party. Readers will see the improbability of the statement imputed to me. I will conclude with a word to you, Mr Editor, who unjustifiably retained possession of the letter and published it. I must remind him that there are some things which are looked upon as dishonourable, and this act is amongst them, even by a class of people who are not credited with such nice power of distinction as the Editor of the Cromwell Argus would lay claim to. My explanation having been known to the Editor before publication, it looks as if he wanted to irritate the Warden in giving publicity to the letter.—l am, &c, Owen O'Neill^ Bannockburn, Feb 20, 1874.