OUR MELBOURNE LETTER.

Evening Star, Issue 4113, 3 May 1876, Page 3

OUR MELBOURNE LETTER.

Aprils Our “ little war” is still the msst interest

ing topic of talk in town. The Stevenson letters are still unopened. When the Easter holidays came, Ministers fled from before their face, and one went to Fernshaw and another to Philip Island ; storms detained tained the one and weariness the other, so no Cabinet meeting could be held till to-day. The matter will be considered this afternoon. The general impression seems to bo that the letters will be opened, and that a great risk will be run in doing it. Young Wilkinson has been committed for trial for the assault on Guthrie, but there is some probability that he will not be convicted. I have heard several eyewitnesses remark, with significant shakes of the head, on the very “hard swearing” on the prosecution side, while it is proved beyond all doubt that Guthrie was the first assailant in the personal encounter, that the billet of wood on which he charges the damage was his own weapon, and that not until Wilkinson had sustained severe injuries in the contest was the billet wrenched by him from Guthrie and turned against its former owner. The hypothesis for the defence, that Guthrie was cut by falling glass, may also turn out to be true.

The summer has been so unusual in its character that snake adventures have been rare. But an official series of experiments on Professor Halford’s ammonia remedy for serpent poisoning has kept up the public interest A committee of first-rate medical men conducted the trials and reported their results to the Medical Society. In every instance the ammonia totally failed, even in those four where the Professor himself operated. In the dissuasion which ensued there was none of that acrimony that has hitherto been so prominent in this dispute, but a very fair weighing of evidence on each side. The preponderence seems to be in favor of this view, that snake poison acts in dogs differently from its action on man ; tV.at, therefore, the negative results on this series ought not to bar the trial of ammonia in future on the human subject, and that even if the remedy eventually prove to be no remedy at all, we are no worse off than before its announcement. It is worthy of notice that not a single word was said against ammonia on the ground that it produced bad effects physiologically an objection raised in the Fayrer discussion some time ago by a certain set of sciolists. We may take it for granted, therefore, that intelligent medical men do not endorse that objection.

The inquiry -into the charges against Mr Smyth, the Secretary for Mines, is to be concluded to-morrow (Tuesday), when the chairman heroically declared that the Board will make an end of the case, even if the sitting should last till Wednesday morning. Saturday saw the conclusion of Mr Smyth’s cross-examination, and very effective it was. The everlasting non mi recordo was returned to the most pointed questions, and persisted in even in the teeth of documentary evidence in the witness’s own hand-writing. The crowning point, however, was reached when Mr Stewart, the solicitor for the complaining officers, recalled Mr Smyth’s own evidence to his mind and got him to repeat it, to the effect that during a certain period of time two officers did all the clerical work for the Aborigines, did it well, did it out of office hours, and did it without pay. The next question introduced a letter signed by the chairman of the Aborigines Board, asking LIOO-a year for Smyth on the ground that up to that time (including the above-men-tioned period) he (Smyth) had done the whole, of the Board’s clerical work without any assistance whatever. Of this letter the witness instantly and positively denied all

knowledge. Stewart suggested that he, as secretary, must not only have known of it, but probably suggested it. This he at once denied, on the ground that he could not have written such a statement since it was not true. Being asked whether the LI 00 was requested as salary or to pay for assistance he as readily answered “No,” that it was in lieu of travelling expenses, etc, Stewart then placed the draft of that identical letter in Smyth’s hand, and asked whether it was not in his own writing, which was perforce acknowledged, as well as the fact that he had therein deliberately inserted the statement that he had just sworn was false. This most damaging discovery Smyth could neither elude nor explain away, and he was allowed till to-morrow to find out what he could say for himself. However ingenious the explanations of other letters and minutes may have been, they will all have to be taken in the light of this fact, and with the knowledge of Smyth’s character that it affords. There can be but little doubt of the result. Professor M'Coy was called as a soft of witness to character, but his evidence carried little weight. He was, as attorneys say, “too good a witness.” The Professor is nothing if not gushing, and he “gushed” about Smyth in such a flood of eulogium as carried away anything that v might be of value in his testimony. The only impression left was that of a curly pate, a red face, a pompous manner, and a pair of black cotton gloves, unanimously talking nonsense. On dit, that the expulsion from ike Melbourne Club of “Brough Smyth” is in contemplation, and that the Board of * Aborigines long ago determined to get rid of him, but did not quite see their way to do it

By the way, it ia said in the papers that a book of the old Boad Board accounts shows the signature of “Robert Smith” to an account for cartage done on the Mount Alexander road, when that work was in progress, and that that handwriting has been admitted by “Brough Smyth” to be his own. It would be an interesting discovery if one could find anywhere in that same book the name of the present Secretary for Mines as certifying any accounts—would it not? A former engineer to that defunct Boad Board used to tell with a chuckle how the Secretary for Mines did act as timekeeper, or in some such subordinate office, in the old days.

The Royal Commission on Friendly Societies has done one good thing at least, it has made several defaulting secretaries abandon their post and showed the way to make such defalcations much more difficult for the future. Indirectly too it has shown up the rottenness of several societies whose friendliness, seemingly, consists in getting money out of a large fraction of their members to put it into the pockets of the smaller fraction.

“The Rev.” C. Clark |has got a new lecture, and it is a very good one. It is about Oliver Cromwell. Its chief fault is that it talks a great deal of almost everything beside Oliver and too little by a long way about Cromwell, but it accomplishes exactly what its maker intended (would that we could all of us say the same !)—it fills the Town Hall with people, the papers with praise, and Charles Clark’s pocket with pecuniary “pickings.” Exactly what con nection a “ reverend ” has with rifle shooting I don't know, but half the proceeds of the next deliveiy of this lecture are to go to the fund to send our rifle team to Philadelphia. May be Mr Smyth© (Mr Clark’s clever agent) has an eye to a good advertisement in the States, whither it is said Mr Clark is going by the next San Francisco mail.

The University “commencement” and conferring of degrees took place on Saturday. So disgraceful a scene has never been witnessed here before, The undergraduate*

bahaved more like an assemblage of baboons and howling monkeys than members of a learned body. The confusion seemed intended to rival that of an Oxford commemoration, and almost accomplished the intention ; any shortcomings must be attributed merely to lack of numbers - certainly not to feebleness of will or capacity. Cricket is developing in unexpected ways. One of them is the enlargement of the English language. Not long ago, a few very ‘ swell” fellows formed an exclusive sort of club, whose uniform is very showy, and who call themselves “ The Bohemians.” In opposition to these was formed a club, whose name is an enigma —“ The Callithumpian. ” One of their members gives an explanation of the word not fit for repetition, and moreover I don’t believe it is the true one. I have heard it derived from “ callow ” and “ thump,” as if to say “ those who hit the unfledged ones hard, ” and a more classically minded cricketer—my friend, Grallator—suggests “callus” and “thump,” i.e., the hard hitters. I leave it to your readers to discover the true etymology for themselves. I think your townsmen ought to be particularly qualified to accomplish that task for there is a “ fee-faw-fum” smell of Scotchman about the word —at least, so it affects my philologico-olfactory nerves. There is a rather dog-and-flsh kind of controversy about Calvinism going on just now in the ‘Argus,’between “ A Presbyterian minister” and “An Inquirer,” under which latter pseudonym critics profess to discover a well-known contributor to the ‘Maryborough Advertiser,’ But inasmuch as the latter is evidently in total ignorance of the original authorities, takes all his quotations, as well as all his views at second-hand from authors on one side of the question, and is more ignorant than a schoolboy of Latin, he has no chance in fair argument with his antagonist, who is apparently well read. The Alhambra, which should have brought this, sailing on Saturday last, was found to have a hole through one of her plates. The iron is to be taken out and another plate put in, so the Arawata does this trip in her stead.