THE BLACK PAMPHLET.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 990, 3 December 1910, Page 7

THE BLACK PAMPHLET.

MR. BRAUND PROTESTS. [To tho Editor.] Sir, —Your article of this morning, intended as ciistigation for Mr. T. E. Taylor, M.P., also hits me pretty hard — unintentionally, no doubt, on your part. Before defending myself, I would like to say a few words in mitigation of the offence which you charge Mr. Taylor with—of having taken the chair at a meeting in Wellington, "convened by a. person who. was advertised to make certain exposures. concerning the Colonial Bank and Sir Joseph Ward." Everybody who was in Wellington at the timo my meetings were being held knows that their object was to protest against, and prevent, if possible, the destruction, of tho Colonial Bank books and records, as well as to denounce tho action of the Government in refusing to comply with tho recommendations of Parliamentary Committee after Parliamentary Com; mittoe to hold an inquiry into the ■ management of the liquidation of the Colonial Bank, and as to how such enormous losses had been sustained. My efforts were successful, and the destruction of the books was postponed. i . Mr. Taylor l certainly did presido over my meeting, but it was not by arrange- . ment. The very naturp of my address was, necessarily such. as precluded my ; asking any business man to take tho chair. What happened was this. Be- ; fore commencing my address I asked . the audience whether any gentleman present would volunteer to fill tho chair. ; I.said that I did not-need any support, [ but it would 'be more in owler if there , were a chairman. After considerable : pause, Mr. Taylor called out from the , body of the hall, "Do you really want a chairman?" He seemed to doubt whe- , ther I was sincere in asking for a chair- , man. Upon my replying that I would prefer one, Mr. Taylor was .courageous enough to volunteer, and, in doing so, he displayed manhood that won the admiration not only of myself, but of . .the meeting, which applauded his act ' in unmistakable manner. This was the I first occasion on which Mr. Taylor and I met, bub I have never forgotten the incident, and I am sorry that ho should [ now be tlio subject of attack by your paper because ho Refused to see me, as ho thought, at a disadvantage for the ' want of a chairman. Now, it is a ' little : singular that your pen should ! have denounced or rebuked Mr. Taylor for assisting me to preserve order at my meeting, because ' at. that particular time you were acting-editor. of the "Evening' Post," • in. which an- article . appeared dealing ■ with this meeting, 1 from which the. following is. an extract:—' [Extract from Leading Article.] "Now, we are not concerned to , defend Mji\ Braund for anything he . may have .said, still less , to attack Sir Joseph Ward, -but so far as ' anything alleged by tho former had any reference to tho inquiry for T which certain shareholders of the Colonial Bank have recently petitioned Parliament, we say that tho 'Minister and Parliament had'the e remedy entirely' in their' own hands !- by granting the inquiry asked for. t To say this does not imply that tho statements' in question were .accurg ate in their allegations of . fact or 0 fair ill their inferences, for nothing e is- cominoner than to see the refusal s of a reasonable demand resented by s -violent and unreasonable methods." ii Here, surely, is comment which sugr . gests that- there was' at least good ground. for public protest in tho fact a that "Parliament had the remedy enr . tirely in their own hands by granting 1 the inquiry asked for," and that it was y but natural "to sco tlio refusal of a reasonable demand resented by violent o and unreasonable methods.". So much | e on boliall of Mr Taylor. Now for my e own defence. In tho course of your [- castigation of that gentleman you quote [1 from tho utterances of Sir Joseph Ward o in the new famous speech of Criminal d Code, No. 2 session, as follows:— The ' honourable member for . Christchurcli City has referred to s me this afternoon on the floor of 4 tho House. -Why did lie proffer his , ■ services ■ when no decent person in " tho city of Wellington who attended would preside over the meeting to ' which ho referred? Was it mere I. accident? Does the honourable member think it was; a proper | e action for a brother member of Par--0 liament to voluntarily offer to go on V . to. tho . platform and preside over the meeting of a man who has at- • tempted to blackmail mo and whom IT I have refused to pay to withholdhis filthy, foul implications? a . You ought to have continued the quoie tation, thus— • e He held in his possession, he 16 said, a letter bearing the signature of a creature who had been emr-. ployed for - nine years to damage | n him—a blackguardly, cowardly, ■ scoundrel, who had been trying to stab '.him in the back. You then, in order to be fair to me, ought to have stated that to your knowledge, as late acting-editor of tho "Evening Post," a copy of tho alleged blackmailing, letter ..had been handed by me to you, whilst occupying tho ■ editorial chair, and that you had inserted it,in the "Evening Post" in the same issue as that in which tho utterances of Sir Joseph Ward appeared, and that it was accompanied by a letter from; mo to you, as editor of the j."' "Post" which also appeared in tho same •'. issue, and of which tho following is a s' ™W--n- ' Mr. i Braund .in Reply. Tho Letter to Sir Joseph Ward. (To the Editor "Evening Post.") k- Sir,—A. few words in reply to Sir j"- Joseph Ward's violent-attack upon . myself in the House last night. I , es shall have more to say later upon ' tho public platforms. The statemeut,, in the first instance, that I referred to any members of Sir ri Joseph Ward's family at cither of my three public meetings is absoier lutely without foundation, as every. ? w ' one of the 1300 people present at " e those meetings could testify. Sec- ; n " ondly, I have written no letter to Sir Joseph Ward other than the letter, a copy of which I enclose, and which was sent with the ap- . proval of my solicitor. Tho public I? will correctly judgo my action, notJ withstanding the violent tactics of p ono who dares not proceed against 7 mo in any court of law, and dares not, moreover, ropeat his charges on a public platform, preferring to coyer himself with Parliamentary privilege.—l am, etc., St. V. M. BRAUND. no- Wellington, October 20, 1905. To stop short as you did, and leavi " e °j tho charge of blackmailing standing „ e . unrefutbd, although it.was surely witliii ith J'°nr recollection that it had been com ted plotely disposed of, was, I think, vor; ng- unfair to me. I do not bolievo tlia you have intentled" to injuro me, ant his y°u will, no doubt, assure mo on thi; oso P"int by inserting this letter and tell nig your readers that you remcnibo the publication of the letters in tli "Post," and that nothing moro wa 5 " heard from Sir Joseph Ward conccrniui them after their appearance.—l am ° (1 ; etc., osi- "A MAN CALLED BRAUND." a ,P (Vido Dominion, December 1, Mi 'ore Massey's.'specoh.) icu- . [Certain questions are raised by Mi Braund's letter which perhaps call fo ord answers. (1) Wo did not mention Mi ;ob- Braund's name in our article. (2)Wedi not blame Mr.-Taylor for-presiding a

Sir. Braund's meeting. (3) Wo mentioned the fact that he presided in conjunction. with the further fact of liis speech in the House on Wednesday last in order that the public might appreciate the true value of Mr. Taylor's political utterances. (4) What Mr. Braund states about having contradicted Sir Joseph AYard through tlio columns of the "Evening Post" is correct, and can'bo seen in tho columns of the "Post" itself.]