A CRITIC'S APOLOGY.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1751, 16 May 1913, Page 3

A CRITIC'S APOLOGY.

. PUBLIC TRUST COMMISSION. FACTS AXD HEARSAY. (To the Editor.) Sir,—On May 3 a contribution appeared in tho Dunediu "Star" headed "Public Trust Office—A Vigorous Defence by J. A. M'Cullough." It was evidently not so much a question of defence—for as a matter of fact ilr. M'Cullourli's "vigorous" aid was not required—as it was a slanderous attack on the Commissioners. As to the imputations east, in so for as they concerned myself, I communicated with Mr. M'Cullough, anil this morning have his reply. The correspondence you may publish if you think fit. My colleague, Mr. Hosking, had previously vindicated himself by letter to the "Star" direct. Mr. M'Cullough, in correcting his statement, excuses himself in the way not infrequently taken by somo people when in a, difficulty, by passing the blame on to informants on whom ho relied for accuracy. On the subject of imputations on character, Mr. M'Cullough indulges in some peculiar reasoning. It would be interesting to know how a Court of Inquiry couhl sit in connection with an important State Department without passing severe strictures on methods and individuals, assuming such to bo necessary. It would certainly bo moro pleasant to avoid such a course, but how could tho truth be arrived at in tho face of a determination to do nothing beyond applying a liberal coating of whitewash? The Commissioners were not appointed to be "accusers," but to inquire into and report on matters as tliey found them.— I am, oto., A. MACINTOSH. Wellington, May 11, 1913. |"The correspondence referred to by our correspondent consists in tho first placo of a flat contradiction by Mr. Macintosh, dated May 7, of certain alleged facts given publicity to by Mr. M'Cullough, and a caustic denunciation of the action of Mr. M'Cullough for his reckless anil unjust imputations. To this letter, Mr. M'Cullough makes reply to the effect that lie has publicly contradicted his previous statement complained of by' Mr. Macintosh, and expressed his' regret for publishing same. Ho then continues:—"l again reiterate my sincere regret that my information was so misleading and untrue. Let me assure you that if jou knew tho source from which my information came you would agree, that I had not acted so recklessly as you assume. I did take somo pains to verify the statement, wthich was made to me by more than one Wellington citizen v;hose integrity and honour even now I am not prepared to doubt. I be-' lieve my informants were the innocent victims of circumstances not easily explained, and are as deeply sorry for any pain which you have been caused, as I am myself. Now, having admitted as candidly as I know how to do, my grave error, let me assure you that I had no other intention when writing my letter than to call public attention in as forcible a manner as possible to what I believed to be a wicked attempt by a small but influential section of the community to curtail, _if not destroy, the-influence of a splendid institution for their own selfish purposes." Mr. M'Cullough then indulges in a little levity, says lie can afford to smile at charges of "maligning character," "mud slinging," "being a calumniator," etc., and complains that the Public Trust Commissioners cast inipu'attions on officers of tho Public Trust Office which tliey could not reply to. Finally, he says he is content to incur S*..:iileasiire while doing his duty in the public interest. ' To this Mr. Macintosh, under date 14th inst., replied briefly as follows:— "I am this morning in receipt of yonr letter of the 10th instant, and tako the earliest opportunity of conveying my appreciation of tho prompt action taken by you to repair the injury that-might have been occasioncd by somo of the statements contained in your recent contribution to tho 'Star.' I follow with somo degree of. amusement your reasoning as regards tho criticisms of the Commissioners as applied in the case of individuals. No doubt, some parties may feel aggrieved, .but what would be the va'iuo of a report that did not 'condemn when condemnation was deemed to be necessary? You charge me with 'accusing' individuals of certain actions. Let me point out that I did not occupy the position of an accuser. I was appointed to inquire 'and report, not out of prejudice, or on hearsay, but on evidence. Possibly, the position may not have appealed to you in that light."