THE REV. MR STANFORD AND THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

Evening Star, Issue 3730, 5 February 1875, Page 3

THE REV. MR STANFORD AND THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

To the Editor. Sir, —I have to thank the Rev, Mr Stanford for the promptitude of his reply to my letter in yonr issue of Tuesday last. I regret his answer is not more satisfactory ; it is, alas ! a plea cf guilty. No, I did not think Mr Stanford had

“ invented ” the list of authorities. I said distinctly enough that Mr Stanford must have quoted from authoritative official documents, and resented on his part the imputation that he had taken them from an unreliable source. lam not prepared to question the authenticity of Mr Stanford’s quotations, that is not my business. I am entering into no controversy with Mr Stanford; but if I was, I should say, “Oh! no thank you, Mr Stanford; if you quote authorities, it is for you to prove that they age reliable, and that the representations you give of the nature and purport of their evidence are trustworthy, and not for me to prove your case as well as my own, as you wanted Mr Fox to do.” If Mr Stanford had said at the first where he got the quotations he had made, and on whose authority they were given, none would have complained. But he does not yet state his case fairly. Mr Stanford does not quote at “second hand ” from Mr Ward, He has not even the authority of that gentleman for the authenticity of the quotations he gives. Mr Ward himself quotes at second hand, and says so —quotes too from an unknown authority, who may or may not be a trustworthy exponent of the matters of which he writes. Mr Ward says: “The ‘Newcastle Daily Journal’ of May 20, 1871, contains a letter from a correspondent then residing at Lowell, Massachusetts, from which we learn, &c.” Mr Ward we know as the editor of the ‘ North of England Advertiser,’ but who is the correspondent of the ‘ Newcastle Daily Journal ?’ Of the two latter paragraphs of Mr Stanford’s reply I shall take no further notice than to say that, however much the Good Templar friends of Mr Stanford may deserve the castigation he inflicts, though they be as shamefully ignorant, as one sided, and as simple as he represents, I fail to see how that can justify him in any degree in so writing as to leave on the public mind tbe impression that he is quoting from authoritative official documents, while, as a matter of fact, his only authority is an anonymous newspaper corres-pondent.-I am, &c.. Observer. Dunedin, February 4.