The Dunstan Times. CLYDE FRIDAY DEC. 9TH, 1881.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1035, 9 December 1881, Page 2

The Dunstan Times.

CLYDE FRIDAY DEC. 9TH, 1881.

Ee.;»:;th tfce n;le of men entirely just The pen is n.igtitier than the s-.iorri.

In cur last issue we published a letter S’gnccl “ D. Mackellar, Cromwell,” in which (ho writer charged Mr Pyke with having voted in 1577 against the reduction of the miner’s right fee, whilst he is now a loud advocate of the reduction, thus implying that Mr Pyke is inconsistent, and that his present advocacy is only as so much hunkum and political claptrap. In our comment on the letter wo said that it was evidence of the wiitcr’s hatred of Mr Pyke, or ho would not have omitted to give the vital parts of the argument, viz,, Mr Pyke’s reasons for so voting. Mow. before wo enter into another phase of the question which it has since assumed, we most emphatically de sire to state that we still adhere to what we then said, as had there been any other feeling than that of the bitterest hatred, Mr Mackellar would have been honest enough to have staled that Mr Pyke was supported on the occasion by 30 other .mimbcis, including all of the golnlields mcmhc .B, making 31 voting against the proposition out of a House of 48—if even he could nut have given the reasons. And moreover he would bare stated that Mr Pyte had since then, and on his own motion, brought a Hill into the Assembly

in the session of 1879, and also in 1880, for the very reduction. which ho had previously voted against; but no, that would not answer his purpose, and he must needs hide this vital part of the argument. Now for the other phase of the question above alluded to. Mr Duncan Mnckellar in this issue favors us with what wo are lod to behave ho supposes is such a clincher that will for ever and a day afterwards stop us from questioning him or any of his acts and deeds. In the effusion, and to which we invite attention, he first of all alludes to the public position he occupies. Well, as to public position, in our place we are not supposed to bo influenced by any sueb consideration,—nor for the matter of that do we intend to bo. We pass over the mittwranted interference. Next iu order, Mr 'laekellar enters into the when, the whore, and how the vexed discussion aro-o, and would have it, that it was a semi-public, rather than as ho would have it, a semi-private one. On that head we will leave it to our readers to decide the knotty point. Mr Maokellar then says, ns against our charge of hatred, that he has no personal animosity against the man, etc, etc., and concludes with the mo lest request that when differences of opinion aiise between himse’f and Mr Pyke that we will leave it to them to light it out. In opening our comments on Mr Mackellar's letter in our last issue, we said we had not intended taking any part in the contest between Mr Pyke and Mr Fraser for the honor of representing the Dunstan dis triul in the House of Representatives, and very sorry are we that we have been forced into tha fray, but having been drawn into it we don't inten I to cry “ Peocavi 1 " at the dictate of Mr Marke’.lar, or any one else. Not that we love Mr Pyke the more, or Mr Fraser the less, but in the spirit of fair play for which the Britisher is so universally famed we could not allow the attack to pass unchallenged, the more especially as the attacked was absent raid unab'e to defend himself. We have allowed Mr Mackellar to have his say, and we have had ours j and as to-days poll will decide on the merits or demerits (with the public) of the contestants, we will here let the matter rest, and shall be quite content to let sleeping dogs lie.