CORRESPONDENCE.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume I, Issue 25, 19 December 1861, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Hawke’s Bay Times.

Sir, —On seeing numbers of your contemporary issued without a word of reply from 0.P.5., I really began to think he had yielded the point in dispute on the principle of “ discretion being the better part of valor.” I was just beginning to feel sorry for this, as I should not have felt “justified” in further agitating the subject if he had not found “ reason” to “ persuade” him to reply (you see I can’t forget his valuable apothegm), hut on receiving the Herald of to-day I at once saw that he had buckled on his armour and thrown another lance. Sir, I have very carefully re-read my late communication to see if it could by any possibility justify him in attributing the sentiments or in applying the epithets he has to me and I must now assert that as such sentiments did not exist in my mind, so neither can I find them even implied in my words. The only inferences I drew from his production were these: that he might he one of the drones who had reason to fear the consequences of retrenchment in the direction you had suggested —an infer-

ence plainly to be deduced from the fact of his taking up cudgels against your. views ; and the other was that he was remarkably stupid—perhaps wilfully so, in “ being so anxious to appear unable to comprehend your arguments,” and in “ distorting and perverting your statements.” That he had done all this was clearly enough shown in my communication, and if not wilfully, then most certainly the cognomen of “ Stultus ” was merited by him, and if so, one still more “ miserable.” Here is the dilemma, —he can choose which of the horns he will prefer. Sir, I am not in the habit of imputing motives to my fellow men. I am well aware that as a rule they lie in a sphere far above that to which our senses or even our reason, can penetrate —they lie in the region of causes. We have only the power of examining effects; but it does sometimes happen that though we are unable to rise to them, they descend so near to us as to enable us to judge of them with probability, though not with certainty. And this may be the case now, as I remark O.P.S. does not yet deny being “On Provincial Service” though he does that “ he has the prospect of his A.s.d.being diminished,”and “that the remarks in the Times apply to him in this particular,” which is something very different. As'he has not thought proper to reply to such a “ miserable being ” and “ reptile ” as myself (he can deal in articles he likes not to find in another’s warehouse), as far as I am concerned the question rests iu statu quo, and it will be time enough for me to resume the argument after he has done so. Meantime, I may remark, as regards his “ Geeat Peinciple”, it is (as far as I remember) one of yours as well as his. I think I have read in your columns sentiments such as these : —“ There are other economies than those of <£. s. d., economies to which that is subservient, and for which it must exist.” “ That it is not the actual cost of an article, in itself considered, but in comparison with what it ought to cost, that is the true measure of economy.” “ Not the sums of money spent, but the manner of spending,”—all of which is in perfect agreement with O.P.S.’s “ Great Principle.” Sir, the whistling of the “ drones of office” may be very pretty indeed ; but at the same time the expense of the music may be greater than its value, in which case it is not true economy to buy it, especially as we are quite unable to afford the treat. Yours, 4'c., Ahueiei. Napier, Dec. 14, 1861.