ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE

Dunstan Times, Issue 551, 8 November 1872, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE

We do not identify • ourselves with the opinions that may ho expressed by our correspondents. ]

—o — Sir, —As 1 am aware that a good many %i* yoUr realora see the Tuapeka Times, L feel bound in justice to myself to say a few words in regard to the abusive attack upon me that appearo 1 in the leading article of last week’s issue of that pacer.' I do n6t intend this letter as a defence against the imputation of falsehood and misrepresentation so liberally showered upon me, as, I (latter myself, whatever my short-comings ma\ be, very few residents in this district will believe, even on the high authority of the Tuapeka Times, that 1 would be will fully guilty of such conduct to gain any end. As regards those who do not know me, I nm quie satisfied to let lime, and a fuller knowledge of tfce si.l Ject discussed at the meeUng, shew with whom, the charge of falsehood and misrepresentation ought to lie The article in question however, as any ore [who has lead it, can see, does not touch the subject at issue, viz , which line of railway would be of most service to the residents in the interior of this Province It has been written, solely with the view of drawing a red herring across the scent, — Fiistby hf aping abuse on a squatter, a course which the writer doubtless (but perhaps erroneous?) imagines will be acceptable to a great number of people, and secondly, by represei ting me as favoring the Waipahi Line, solely in the interest of the runholders through whose properties it would pass. To the latter statement I give a most emphatic denial. I have advocated the construction of this line of railway, simply because I foresee the far greater advantages it will confer on the residents of the interior of tins Province, than the line by Tuapeka can possibly do. 1 have never advocated one line, to the exclusion of the other, but I have said, and I will say that to construct the Ine to Tuapeka, cn the plea that it will confer any material advantage on the residents of this district, is unfair to us. Lot Tuapeka have her line by all means but let us also have the line which will suit us best. To imagine, that the good folks of Tuapeka will willingly aid in having their line extended to the Teviot, a decided ignorance of human nature. To any person of observation, it must bo be evident that the writer of the article in the 'Tuapeka Times is piainfully aware of the superior advantages to us of the Waipahi Line, or he would have advanced some good sound arguments to show the fallacy of such au idea, : instead of oenliuing himself (always a certain sign of the weakness of a cause) to the abuse of those advocating the construction of that line. If it is any satisfaction to the Editor of .the Tuapeka 'Times, allow me to inform him that I uid not write the article in the Jjunstan Times, which seems to have incensed him so much. When that gentleman however, proceeds to say in reference to said article, “It is however a tissue of falsehood and nusrepi esentatu n from beginning to end, and in that respect Leais the stamp of the paper in wich it was published.” I wonder that it never occurred to loin as a matter of consistency to question the accuracy of the report of th. statements made at the meeting. As thegist’-Sir, of what I said, was pretty faithlully reported in your i aper. 1 did not think it worth whi.c after having read it ia print, to draw your attention to certain embellishments your reporter had imparted into my speech. Now, as most of those present at the meeting can testify, one of these embellishments is the very sentence the writer of the article in rho Tuapeka Times takes such exception, ta, as-coming fiom.me, viz., about “large tracts of country where now but a few cattle or sheep wore browsing, that would be thrown open for settlement. ” 1 never uttered such a remark at the meeting, i n if 1 had 1 should not be ashamed of it. Eowcccr, not having uttered it, what becomes of the attendant tiiade ; it is like a sermon without a text. I could not help being amused with the keen regard to the susceptibilities of the sovereign people that the writer of the article displays, I, who am only a squatter, an Ishmaelite, against whom, as a class, every man’s hand is supposed to be raised, may with impunity be charged with falsehood ; but mark the d‘float i distinction, Mr. Hazlert, a civic authority and one who is known to exercise (deservedly) great influence in the district, must be treated more tenderly, his statements, notwithstanding he endorsed evciything I said, are simply inaccurate. Whilst Mr, Patterson is let off easiest of all, by being informed that he is ignorant altogether of the subject he has presumed to discuss. There gone sentence in the article worth quoting, aye, and remembering. “ The people of Tuapeka are willing to aid the people of the Dunstan in being placed in ■ailway communication with the seaboard, but they are adopting a course which will make the Tuapeka people chary of doing so.” How very condescending and consider, ate ! Residents in the Dunstan district assist Tuapeka to get her railway, and all manner of good things will fall to your share—after the cream has been taken off ; but if you presume to follow the example set you by Tuapeka, viz., —to think and act for yourselves in regard to this railway, tremble for the consequences ! It reminds me very much of the advice, “"do not act as [ do, but as I say you ought to do, though in this case the example, in my opinion, is more commendable than the precept. In conclusion allow me to remark that, squatter though I be, it will take something more than the wrath of the Tuapeka Times to deter me from drawing the attention of the residents in this district to such subjects ns I may think are worthy of their consideration. I am, &c , WM. FRASER, ■'lamacleugh Station, Hov; 6, UTi.