THE SLUDGE CHANNEL.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 332, 16 July 1875, Page 2

THE SLUDGE CHANNEL.

(To the Editor of the Mount Ida Chbonicle.) SiEj ~ recent correspondence upon ttis subject has reached so great a length that I should he neither surprised nor disappointed were my present note to be met with the usual editorial fiat—" This correspondence has - been sufficiently prolonged to elicit the facts on; bothi sides, and no further communications thereanent will be inserted, unless paid for as advertisements." Should such a fiat be given forth I, as I said before, should not be surprised. At the same time I desire, sir, to point out to you, and through you, to the public that—despite the two lengthy and labored manifestos of Mr. John Creighton—the charges contained in the letter of " Fngit," and endorsed in that of " Scrutator," remains not only un-refuted, but absolutely and emphatically confirmed. Now, " Fugit's " complaint was, that there appeared no prospect of the channel being completed in any reasonable or definite time. This complaint Mr. Creighton in his first letter evades by pointing oat an alleged difficulty in obtaining labor, the difficult nature of the work, and numerous other excuses, all alike foreign to the point raised by " Fugit." " Scrutator " then comes to the fore, and clearly and pointedly challenges Mr. Creighton to state " that the work will be completed within contract time, or even within a specified period." To this challenge Mr. Creighton replies, "I plainly teJl him (' Eugit') now that it (the Channel) will be finished as soon as we ccm possibly do it, and that will likely be before it is required." I cannot but think that, after reading the challenge, and the reply, the public will come to the conclusion that the complaint of "Fugit" has been fully and effectually substantiated, even by the admission of Mr. Creighton himself, above quoted. I coiild say a great deal more upon this subject; but, as the case as against the sludge channel contractors has been fully proved by the evidence of one of themselves, I do not think it necessary to add anything further. I cannot, however, before concluding, refrain from alluding to the position in which the public are placed by the statements of Messrs. Creighton and Abbott in the matter of these public works—as placed by yourself in juxta position in your last issue. Any one who reads those statements must at once see how completely these contractors desire lO have the public in their power, and how determined they are, if possible, to carry out their contracls how and when they please. I have done. As a matter of duty, I have called the attention of the public to the sludge channel contract, and the facts of the case (through the instrumentality of the 'Chronicle 1 ) being before them, I now leave them to do theirs.—l am. '&c., Fugit.