LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 429, 11 February 1909, Page 9

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

'•'.'A CRITIC CRITICISED. , >// : Sir,—l'am/little disposed at- any time-to take' serious /notice o£ ■ a tissuo of' lies. spun by an anonymous" correspondent, v If : ;this: niatter oonoernod mo -personally,/ L should not move in it. But- the 'malignant balderdash ', you published 'yesterday overtho pseudonym of ./'Casual", was : plainly,. written, by somq person, who made of your so notorious openness of mind a weapon/with which/to stab in; the back. ; : I/dprt't suppose-that the gentleman concerned, felt, the wound, .but I protest in'thb name of .decency and common-, sense.;; 1/was- present on 'the occasion 'to which • "Casual", i refers. ■'.; I can. assure you that tho gentlemaji criticised recited admirably, arid, was most cordially received.,/ .That, of course, "Casual", could .not.know; for;it is - perfectly -impossible to '.';,'believe'' that "Casual": was thcro.; Had ho'/been there, liow could ho speak now of "foreign" accent" ? r—how could he pretend that the performer's articulation was defective? '. The faot is .that. Mr.; ——, 'being/a graduate' of'an English univorsity, speak.? his mother-tongue, with; no accent 'at■ allr-^not;even-'a'New.-Zealand accent../'.Further/-1 know,-no man articulates (enunciates P) -nigra : clearly./:;!; can "also give you'/my. wprd that the reciter's/gestures wero' natural' and apt, and } that .his" recitation .'won- .him;, hearty,': congratulations from all. parts/of the liali.

. But why say,'more ? It is, plain' that the Dominion has -been jhood-wiuked and .vilely used..by,:, some'.'unworthy person ; whose-sole aim was,:to- -injurs, and'-anrioy. one/person. I do. riot believe/that '''Casual" was present at, the; recital .of/.which' ho-writes! and/I think that' yoii;, sir, can. easily/ establish his 1 alibi.:.'. My. traditions'arc-English;, and/if. I err; you must/correct;.me. ;;/But/:to/ : mpr;it does- seem ,'that ;where: a.correspdiident/at-' tacks (imonymously)' any private l individual .through a -public : print; the Editor would in no wayvi'olatetherules of reputable jpurnal--ism;if ho tested the bona fides of-his cbrres-, pondent..' ; 'This: letter you made public 1 yes-, terdayi, establishes :a, record for malevolent mendacity,, so far as' my, N'ew-..-.Zealahd/'.os--' perience ik;Concerned.;'lt is true that;l havo: 'only been; bore/a "few. years.—l am,; etc.,- '•' / :,/. ; /V;./: / :. t //'-CHARLES''N.;WORSLEy:-// February-10.;':-i/;/ .•'.'V^'"/'!/////[We have omitted'from:pur. correspondent's ■letter the namd/bf-the gentleman/whose.efforts were/criticised.'; He ■ is/; mistaken- as'.-.'tb' the bona fides of our previous correspondent;]