CONTRADICTORY" TO McLEOD.

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 1 June 1916, Page 2

CONTRADICTORY" TO McLEOD.

TO THE EDITOR

SIR,—I noticed in your issue of 18th in st that Mr Jauies McLeod has written a long, disjointed, illogical, self-contradic-tory epistle, in which, while failing, to use any argument worthy of a fifth standard schoolboy, he apparently thinks that loud, talking and verbose writing are argument. He forgets that empty tins make the most noise. But from the tangle of his letter one thing stands out clearly—he says to me practically " You are a liar." Now, when one man calls another a liar you may take it that either the caller or the called is a liar. If all your readers knew both Mr McLeod and myself intimately, I would feel it absolutely unnecessary to reply, I would be quite satisfied that the popular verdict must acquit me. But as no doubt many of your readers are unacquainted with me, it is perhaps as well that I should help the public to see which of us is telling the truth. If you take Mr McLeod's letter alone you will find internal evid-

ence that Mr McLeod has not written - the truth ; while if you take the whole ".■: correspondence that has passed through the columns of your paper, Mr McLeod's lack of veracity is still more powerfully apparent. I will defer till next week an analysis of Mr McLeod's letter, and will for the present confine myself to a few remarks upon one or two points. Mr McLeod says that I made a charge against him with respect to illegal expenditure during his term of office, that challenged me to prosecute him, and then I dropped that charge. If you or your , readers will refer to your back numbers you will find that when Mr McLeod challenged me to prosecute him, I replied that it was the place of the auditor, not of his successor, to take s*fch ■ steps, and . - I then proceeded to prove my charge. I stated that Mr McLeod left office while s the Board owed £520 in addition to the'

overdraft —making practically £1000 in all, while the Board's ordinary revenue was £460. I then quoted the section of the Act governing the situation and showing that one year's revenue was the^i.; maximum indebtedn ess a local body wiA^j permitted to incur in its current ' el»" penditure. Mr McLeod says I droppefi the charga. I say I did not. Let your readers say which one of us is telling the truth. Just one more point before I close. Mr McLeod says that not he, but Mrs Oxley, made the arrangements with Waitemata County Council to remove the spoil from the Helensville South Bowling Green. I was not a member of \ that Club, but let your readers ask any member of that Club what was the. position. Two of the members have told me that Mr McLeod, who was then President, informed the Club that Mrs Qxley was selling them the allotment in question on £1 deposit, and that he (Mr McLeod) would get the green hollowed out at no cost to the Club, as the Waitemata County Council wanted spoil for the approaches to the bridge, and ' that he would get them to take their. spoil. Did your readers ever hear a more pitiful excuse for the actions made by a public man than this attempt of Mr McLeod's to shuffle out of his"" responsibility by throwing the blame upon a lady whom it is Ms clear duty to protect, instead of. dragging her name into such a controversy? Here, again, I ask your readers, is Mr McLeod to be believed ?—I am, etc.,

E. Thurlow Field,