MR MACKELLAR V. MR V. PYKE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1035, 9 December 1881, Page 3

MR MACKELLAR V. MR V. PYKE.

TO THE EDITOR, Sir, —I have to thank you for inserting my letter last week, re Mr tyke an 1 the opposition to the reduction of miners’ rights from £1 to 10s. In your leading column, however, your refer to my letter in a most uncalled-for manner, and—shall I say—rather impertinent to myself, Yon speak of my *• Attack on Mr Pyke—my retailing a semi private conversation— my hatred to MrPyke—and my omission to state the vital part of the argument, namely, Mr Pyke’s reasons for so voting.” Now, sir, I occupy a sufficiently public position to justify me in resenting any unwarranted imerferene on your part, and I therefore, ask you to again favour me with a short space in your columns. Understand, pray, that 1 did not attack Mr Pyke and I d.-d not retail any private conversation. The discussion in question arose after Mr Pyke’s public meeting in Clyde (when political questions.‘iy'ore being freely discussed everywhere), and amongst others present were five County Councillors, one editor,and one late Mayor of Clyde. It took plane in a public room with the door wide opeu. Wnat can you call a discua'sion like that but a eeniipuhlic one? Mr Pyke brought it about himself, and challenged me to publish the proof of my assertion that he hail voted against the reduction. 1 accepted the challenge published the proof ley your courtesy—and carefully abstained f-otn making any remarks personal to Mr Pyke. As to my “hatred of Mr Pyke” 1 have only to say that I do not bear one particle, of ■ animosity to the man personally. I hare lest all confidence rn Uis political honesty, for reasons which appear to me powerful enough. As to my not “stating the vital face of the argument namely, Mr Pykes reasons for so voting." I confess t vou rather puzzle me. You evidently admit tlr.it Mr Pyke did vote, as 1 said he had voted, and y.ci blame me tor not giving his reasons—the vital part of the argument. Purely you credit me with more ingenuity than 1 possess,if yon think 1 could possibly give Mr Pyke’s reasons for doing a thing which Mr Pyke himself most emphatically denied ever having done at all. Mr Pyke himself, I should, think would be puzzled to do it. In conclusion, sir, I will ask ura favour of you. Should any difference of opinion on public matters ever again arise between Mr Pyke and myself (and it isn’t at all unlikel;), leave us to tight it out ourselves.—l am, etc., D. MACKELLAR. Cromwell, December 7, 18S1.