ANONYMOUS WRITING—IN REPLY.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 102, 28 October 1895, Page 2

ANONYMOUS WRITING—IN REPLY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR. g IRj —My letters upon duties on necessaries, were, in regard to the community, for a beneficial object. With such object in view, and when nothing of a personal, vindictive or libellous nature is introduced, then their subject matter should be welcomed by the unprejudiced portion of the community, whether a signature is used or not. Mr Goodbehere, however, who was the first to commence a correspondence of a personal nature, which he has an unfortunate tendency to do whether writing for or against the views of others (which is sufficient alone to spoil writings intended for the public benefit), laysdown a law of his own to me in pointing out that there was very little use in writing to the papers on the above duties, but that I should come out and impress the truth on the public mind by agitation and frequent public discussion, in reply^ to which I gave my reasons for not doing so. But to all this and most of my other arguments in favor of anonymous writing Mr Goodbehore has made no reply. Mr Goodbehere evidently thinks that he is privileged to write what he likes while I should encumber your columns with explanations and details of what he calls a categorical reply, letting my own statements go to the wind. Mr Goodbehere commenced his last letter by saying that I misrepresented facts, to which allegation he gives no proof. My statement that " lawyers are adepts at getting out of scrapes by hook or by crook " did not apply to all the members of that profession, nor does it apply to Mr Goodbehere personally, at any rate only until he gives a straight-forward reply to my statements. He, however, comes to the conclusion, farther on, that both he and your readers must know very well that his objection to anonymous letters related only to those exposing public abuses as being ineffectual in providing a remedy for those abuses, but this does not agree with his opinion expressed in writing upon the duties on necessaries referred to in a former part of this letter, which goes on to say, in his letter dated 30th Sept., that all he can do is to express his views in writing. It seems to me from the latter view and the foregoing that Mr Goodbehere would like to see a public debating society here, and among other subjects, to discuss the merit and demerit of different writers, but members to refrain from writing, which he, in his capacity of judge now and again, would keep in the right path by correspondence ; but, his making use of extreme personalties and vulgar slang terms, such as " Ditto, Brother (so-and-so)," would, I think, unfit him for this duty. As for Mr Goodbehere's objection to anonymous writers only when exposing public abuses, how does he account for such writers as ' Asmodeus,' ' Scrutator,' and ' Civis, 1 employed by the leading weekly papers of the colony almost for the express purpose of exposing public abuses ? I have no inclination to hurt the feelings of any private individual—it is against my grain to do so, unless driven to it; but on his entering into such a large contract as that against the Prohibitionists, I would advise Mr Goodbehere to shun personalties and slang terms, or else he might catch a Crabbe, and also remember that it is one of their assertions that intoxicants are the root of all evil, and malt beer, whether bad or good, is to be herewith condemned. I am, &c, A Colonist. Feilding, 23rd October, 1895. P.S.—Mr Goodbehere seems to think that he has the majority of unprejudiced persons in his favour in this correspondence. lam quite willing that he should still have this opinion. For myself I will be content with having an intelligent (I hope) minority in my favour— and be thankfui for that blessing. This correspondence is becoming like the proverbial running brook, and the general public, I am afraid, will become heartily sick of it; but let Mr Goodbehere have the last words in reply by all means. I may neither have the time nor see any useful object to be gained by replying again. —A.C.