THE DRINKING FOUNTAIN.

Evening Star, Issue 2858, 17 April 1872, Page 2

THE DRINKING FOUNTAIN.

To the. Editor, Sir, —It appears the concluding portion of the remarks I made on Saturday last, when opening the Cargill Fountain, and having reference to Mr E. B. Cargill, have given great offenco to the sub-editor (who is the writer of the “Casual Notes”), and the editor of the Daily Times. lam accused of gross flattery, sycophancy, and toadying. I have a clear recollection of what I did say on that occa i> n, and I do not think that either term can fairly apply. My friends and the public, or that portion that was present will remember—that after speaking of the late Captain Cargill, I said, I could say nothing further of him of my own knowledge, but that those who had personally known him, agi'e d that his son, Mr £. B. Cargill, in many points of character, strongly resembled bis father, and that if that was so, as most of us know the son, and know the manly, independent, straightforward* ness of his character, the Captain’s character could not be too strongly eulogised. This is the substance of what 1 said, and I leave it to any unprejudiced person to say if that language deserved to be characterised in the manner it has been by the writer of “ Casual Notes.” But, Mr Editor, the man is young and very bilious, and possibly bis snarbng nature is to be attributed to the state of his stomach and the weakness of his head. The editor himself (who by the way, it is well known does not occupy his present position on account of his fitness for it) in a footnote to Mr E. 6. Cargill’s letter, with an assurance and impudence which is charac* teristic of the man, says “ There is scarcely a reader of the Times but will agree that my remarks about Mr Cargill were offensive in the highest degree.” What a cool piece of assumption. How does the editor know what the opinion of nearly every reader of the Times is ? If he is able to dive so deftly into people’s minds, he should know that the large bulk of the Times' readers are only readers per or e, and are disgusted with the manner in which the paper is conducted—with its ceaseless and useless snarling at the General Government, Mr Vogel in particn* lar. post-office and telegraph departments, &c., &c. Again, to whom can my remarks be offensive—to Mr Cargill or to the public ? If to the former it is his business alone, and surely the public will uot deem it offensive to speak truly of a gentleman who is held in high esteem by them, and who has proved himself by deeds, not words, to be a good man and true. Again, in conclusion, Mr Editor, let me point out whai appears to me to be a great absurdity, although quite in keeping with the general conduct of the Times. The editor, for the second time, to day, disclaims all responsibility for the views expressed by his contributor of “ Casual Notes.” Is it not ridiculous for an editor to disclaim such responsibility when the productions emanate from his sub. (?) but doubtless the editor is somewhat ashamed of the scurrilous nature of the writing, and that accounts for it. I am, &c., H. S. Fish, Junr. Dunedin, April 17, 1872.