CORRESPONDENCE.

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 12 June 1912, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

£50 CHALLENGE RE RAIL-

WAY MATTERS.

TO THE EBITOB,

Sir, —In your issue of June 6th appears a rather .wonderful letter from Mr James Stewart, and no doubt to his mind he has completely flattened me out, and for twisting, it would be hard to beat. His first comment re Dr Cook is too absurd to bother with. He then states "Mr McLeod has yet to accept my challenge." Where the challenge comes in I fail to see. He asked me, from the platform, to state my authority, and I stated Smith of Matakohe told me that he had approached both him and Jackman. He then stated if I could prove my statement, he would give £50 to the Helensville Library. There is no challenge in that, him saying he would give the money if I proved my statement, aiid I have already done so through your columns. I admit I did not say at the time I would try and prove it, because I knew too well what would happen, —that Mr Stewart would rush Smith to try, as he did, to make his marble good. There was nothing said about judge or jury, or independent persons. He only stated if McLeod will prove his statement he will give £50 to the Helensville Library. I have proved my statement beyond all doubt, and it now rests with the public of Helensville to insist on Mr Stewart paying his £50. But they know it was only bluff to try and discredit my statement. His next twist is that my letter of 23rd inst., and my notice of 27th April are 'contradictory, but to an unbiased mind such is not the case, and for the reasons, the notice was dated 27th April, while the letter referred to was the 23rd May, over three weeks after the meeting, and in the letter I was referring to what took place at the meeting. I might just as well throw the same accusation back at Mr Stewart (for he is not infallible) for he quotes from a letter of mine of the 23rd inst., and one of the 22nd, whereas I did not write two, but I give him full credit for a mistake, and not a contrary statement as he credits me with. But to quote his own words, I leave your readers to observe the difference. (The next twist) Mr Stewart writes : " The report of the meeting reads : (see Press copy) McLeod informed Stewart he was going to bring the matter of the non-stop before the Minister, whereupon members were buttonholed to go against it. Now I will show where the twist comes in; Mr Stewart carefully publishes what suits his case. What I said in the Hall was : " I approached Mr Stewart in the train and said I notice that there is no mention of the train stopping at Helensville South, whereupon M r Stewart remarked it was ridiculous to think the train could stop at Helensville South, and it was then I stated I would bring the matter before the Minister." That was No. 1 shot by Mr Stewart against Helensville South Station in the presence of Delegates, though perhaps not exactly buttonholing, was at the .same time letting them see that he was not in favour of the stop, tending to prejudice their unbiased minds as they had no interest in Helensville South stop.

Mr Stewart, in trying to wriggle out with his challenge, states : "M r McLeod stated that he could name two, and on Stewart asking for the names, said Smith of Matakohe, and on being pressed for the other said Jackman." I will now ask your readers to examine the next paragraph of Mr Stewarts letter in which he states : " The statement now made by M r M c Leod is that Mr Smith was his authority," and continues " This is news *to me, and I immediately wired Jackman." Your readers will see that he states in one paragraph of his letter that he asked my authority and I stated Smith, and in the next denies that he ever knew it was Smith, and further says he asked for my second authority and I stated Jackman, on his pressing me. Such is not the case, I required no pressing from M r Stewart. I stated distinctly Smith was my authority, that Mr Stewert approached both him and Jackman.

I will now show an equally ridiculous statement as to how far Mr Stewart can be relied on. M r Stewart quotes M r Jackman's telegram, that he had no conversation with Stewart re train stopping at Helensville South, while Mr Stewart in his previous paragraph states : " What nonsense, Mr Jackman only passed through Helensville to-day, and laughed at the idea of you calling the meeting," only another slight twist on the part of either Stewart or Jackman, or both.

The next I have to deal with is Mr Stewart's cowardly attempt to throw discredit on Mr Smith's statement by terming him "M r McLeod's co-partner in this business himself," and he continues " and your readers will now find that I publish something interesting, but from the opposite

point of view, from the other delegates." Ido not intend to be so unkind and unjust as to class them as co-partners with M r Stewart. But your readers do not yet get those wonderful statements, for Mr Stewart again wanders back to his challenge and to Tennyson's Grandmother, but if she were more ridiculous than Stewart and his challenge, she must have been funny, (and the fun continues). More requests to accept his challenge and them confine myself to original matter. I admit it is rather a hard task to ask me to confine myself to original matter when replying to such an active brain as Mr Stewart's, for he is all over the shop, even Town Board, Domain Board, and garden seats, to let the people know he has donated a seat to the Springs as a peace offering for not having tried to get the stop at Helensville South. And he again makes an incorrect statement as to what I said at a Town Board meeting about his lone hand. I never mentioned such a thing at a Town Board meeting, it was at a -Domain Board meeting. And as Mr Stewart has mentioned Town Board, he might have let the Ratepayers know all I said, as one quarter of what I said was not reported. We next find Mr Stewart admitting that he did meet Mr Smith on board the Tuirangi, but he does not admit he broached the matter to Mr Smith. If not, what were all the high words about ? Did he get the worst of the deal, and prefers to say nothing? Why not give the whole truth ?

The next charge against me is the time that lapsed between my writing Smith, and the publication of his reply, three and a half weeks. Surely M r Stewart must have a motive in this matter of pointing this out, and I am sorry he did not state it. I mince no matters. He found Jackman in one day, and Smith in two days, quite a difference. In fact I did not go in on the Monday morning to post my letter In time for the mail, because I did not want to see either of them. I left that to Mr Stewart knowing he would attend to it. In the same paragraph Mr Stewart is careful to emphasise the fact that "Mr Jackman is Chaiiman of the Otamatea County Council, one of the speakers arranged for at the deputation to the Minister for Railways at Auckland, while M r Smith was not."

I am glad M r Stewart has raised that point, and I ask him to state who arranged for the speakers, and the authority for such arrangement. .In Mr Stewart's endeavour to try and point who Mr Jackman is, Chairman of the Otamatea County Council, I think he has rather fallen in, for your readers will remember that at the meeting I called in the Foresters' Hall, M r Stewart told the audience that M r Jackman talked a lot of nonsense at the deputation to the Minister, and that Mr Coates had no business talking about country stations being left iv and suburban stations left out, and that I had no business to plead Helensville South Station,

Mr Stewart next charges Smith with going out of his way to make the following statement in reply to my letter : " I was present ot tho interview with the Minister and was not aware-of any discord other than that caused through Mr Stewart interfering with you (McLeod) when speaking at the said interview." Mr Stewart then writes: " Compare Smith's statement with that of the Minister." But I will ask you to compare Smith's statement with that of Mr Stowart's made in the Foresters' Hall, that I caused discord, and when your readers have done that, let them compare also the Minister's reply whether I-caused discord. The Minister and Smith both stato there w.is n<i discord, which shows the truthfulness of Mr Stowart's statement that I caused discord. Mr Stewart seems to have challenge on tho bruin, for lie again refers to it and asks mo to put up £100, but 1 aurno bluller ; 1 want facts, and lie cannot bluff me with his challenge He then winds up his letter as follows : ' Further than this 1 have no wish to continue this controversy.' ' I suppose now that Mr Stewart has exhibited his letters and telegrams to Railway Manager and the public at large, and putou his own construction, he thinks it would bo well to stop, but I Jo not.

I notice that Mr Stewart has put in a lot of letters from persons I knownothing about, in this ructter. 1 never charged Stewart with buttonholing any of the following;: Messrs Mitchelson, T. Coates, F. Mander, and A, E. Harding, As far as I know none of those were members of the Conference. Nor did I charge him with buttonholing- Messrs Shepherd, Hudson, Dye, Coates, M.T\, or(i. W. Thompson, and cannot think why Mr Stewart has thought fit to write those people, except it is for the purposo of trying to kill the petition now being circulated asking for the express to stop at Helensville South.

In conclusion I will refer to Afr 0. Ooates,' M.P., lottor which roads ; " I cau truthlully say thnt Mr Stewart did not buttonhole me in regard to the proposed timetable, noithcu- did you suggest any stopping places for any trauis. but to the contrary, you carefully avoided any suggpstion as to where trains should stop," What Mr Uoates has here stated is exactly what I charged Mr Stewart with at the meeting in the Hall, that he know Helensville South was to be wiped out

and he carefully kept it up his sleeve, not telling either the Town Board or the public of Helensville. What I term one of his lone hands.

There is one gcmtlernan who has written Mr Stewart, whom I -will deal with later and show that his statements are contrary to facts. 1 1 would a3k why Mr Stewart has carefully avoided getting any letter from Smith or stated what the conversation was he had with Smith, Your readers will also notice thac Mr Stewart, in wiring the Minister, did. not ask the Minister if McLeod. had not caused discord as he stated at the meeting in the Hall, and which he cannot deuy because Mr Donovan remarked, when I denied the charge of discord on my part, that it was plain either Stewart or McLeod were not telling the truth. Now you will see who is telling the truth. And E must thank Mr Stewart for publishing the Minister's telegram exonerating me, and condemning himself. Your readers will also see that Mr Stewart used a part of Smith's reply to me in wiring the Minister, and later on Mr Stewart writes : " McLeod is welcome to play with Smith's marble all the time, I never had any use for it." I ask, could anything be more contemptible after using part of Smith's letter to try and mak« his point good. Another matter Mr Stewart refers to is private spying, and I am sure it must be a great trouble to him in his rambles, but I think he will admit that spys are preferable to informers. I am, etc., James McLeod. June 10, 1912.