THE CROMWELL SEPARATIONISTS AND THE ARGUS.

Dunstan Times, Issue 790, 8 June 1877, Page 3

THE CROMWELL SEPARATIONISTS AND THE ARGUS.

(TO THE EDITOR OF THE DUNSTAN TIMES.) Sir, — I would wish to have an expression of public opinion on the case of O’Neill v. David Anderson Jolly and Duncan MacKellar as reported in the Cromwell Argus of last issue, with the view of knowing whether the Editor of the Argus is a reliable person to get information from through his paper. I hold a newspaper ought to give an unbiased report, or none. I think the under-written will be a proof of the selfishness, and I might say corruptness of the agitators, who are, or were instrumental in taking monies to which they have no right. The cause of the dispute between O’Neill and the Separationists is the difference of amount of money which they agreed to pay. The agreement entered into by the Separationists and O’Neill—which'was not denied when the case was hoard—-was that he be paid all expense, including whisky money, which is usual in such undertakings. As 1 am informed, Mr O’Neill intends having the amount, with the time it took, and the names of the Committee given publicity in the shape of handbills, which will be stuck up at the County Office ; or that Mr Coldough will ask the Council’s opinion on the matter. When it comes on for argument in Parliament it would be well the amount should be placed as a charge on the proposed County, as O’Neill says ho has lost L2O by the transaction. Mr Editor, why did Mr Brown, the Editor of the Argus suppress the acts of Duncan MacKellar’s witness ? Is it because he is a partisan of the clique ? David Anderson Jolly, when asked to give evidence for the defence, was in such a mental state that he choose to open and take up his position in the criminals’ box until removed from the same. He was the only witness who attempted to prove the alleged excessive time taken for the canvassing for the signatures, and when sworn he said four days was sufficient tor travelling in the Bannockburn, Nevis, Hawea, and Cromwell districts to obtain signatures to two petitions. O'Neill says ho would not have completed the separation petition but for the promise of Mr Mackellar, who promised the amount should be paid. O’Neill attributes Mr MacKcllar breaking his word and honor to the misfortune the Corporation met with when Harriot Robertson was sued for exactly the difference of O’NeiH’s amount, for rates said to bo duo to. Corporation, but it turned out in evidence that lawyers and

others had occupied the same building previously, and it was looked upon as very mean to single out n lone woman for rates that ought to have been paid yeors prior. That case was dismissed, and then it was a matter of money, and the agitators would not put a coin out of their own pockets. O’Neill was first paid with a Corporation cheque. I presume there then set in a dread of misapplying the Corporation money, as the Argus, in its ordinary report, has suppressed the fact that monojs were paid for political purposes. Mr Editor, it will bo within your memory that thelo existed a body of men in New York known as the Tammany Ring. The Cromwell agitators should in future bo known as such, so far as misapplying Corporation money goes. My object in writing so lengthy a letter is to try and enlighten the public on the shuffling trickery of the separationists. In conclusion I will leave an enlightened and discriminating public to say whether justice has been done in the matter, and shall be happy to abide the result of their verdict.—Yours, etc., An Observer of the Whole Affair. Bannockburn, June sth, 1877.