THE NAPIER LIBERAL REFORM ASSOCIATION.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 4127, 14 October 1884, Page 3

THE NAPIER LIBERAL REFORM ASSOCIATION.

[To the Editor of tiie Daily Telegraph. ] Sir,— Although it may not be strictly in accordance with etiquette for a third person to take notice of the effusion in your last issue addressed by Mr McAneny to Mr J. P. Ward, still I hope I may be pardoned for my apparent intrusion. This becomes all the more necessary owing to the gross misrepresentations and palpable untruths contained in tho letter alluded to ; indeed if it were not for these, Mr McAneny s wild assertions and vapid innuendoes would be beneath notice. It is said that <' fools rush in where angels fear to tread,' and Mr McAneny's rashness in rushing into print in the manner ho has done is a complete exemplification of the old adage. 1 may state here that if posterity is to be guaged by Mr McAneny's sense of Avhat is right and fitting, then I pity posterity. But to come to the point Mr McAneny states that he was under the impression that members clearly understood that lie withdrew from the Association _on *ho night of the 3rd instant, and then gives his reasons. Mr McAneny's impressions must be of a very light and hazy character indeed, for, so far from such being tho case, the first intimation of the loss of Air McAneny's valuable services to the Association was contained in the effusion in J' 01 . 11 ' last issue. So much for Mr McAneny s impressions, now for facts l.r.st, he Napier press was not excluded from tl,c meetings, for the simple reason that prosß representatives never attended About th_ reports forwarded to tho Watchman I know nothing, for I have not seen them. The second reason is quite correct, and 1 contend that the members had a perfect right to do so if they thought proper, as they did. The members are not possessed of the deep wisdom and erudition of Mr McAneny, and therefore, I presume, aro content to " hide their shining li'/hts under a bushel. _ Ihe third reason about the maladministration of funds is an absolute untruth. If Mr McAneny will refer to rules 2, G, and 24 of the laws of the Association he will find that his allegation is incorrect, and perfectly unwarrantable. The fourth reason Ido not understand; it must bo another impression of Mr McAneny's. The mandates of a ringis simple nonsense ; there is no such thing, as any member of the Association can testify. As to being "notoriously the various political questions of the day," perhaps we are, but I may point out in extenuation that wo arc not all possessed oi the vast learning, deep research, and wide experience of Mr McAneny. The members ought to feel deeply thankful to Mr McAneny for shoAving them their failings, and I am convinced that if Mr McAneny were to publicly enlighten this community with his views on the political questions of the day iv his well-known vigorous style tho present generation and posterity would owe him an everlasting debt of gratitude. Sir, it is terrible to realise our ignorance, and lioav magnanimous of Mr McAneny to inform us of tho fact. By Mr McAneny's Secession the Liberal Association has received a serious blow, and I am certain that another gentleman of the same calibre will not bo found to fill his place—l am, &c., One op the Ignorant. October 14, 18S4.