MR CONDELL'S DECLARATION.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIV, Issue 31, 4 February 1879, Page 2

MR CONDELL'S DECLARATION.

To the Editor of the " Evening Mail ' Sin,— So the great gun has been fired at last! After deliberating for a whole week, Mr Pitt's Committee, acting; no doubt, under the advice of their learned chief and some other great legal luminaries who belong to their number, have decided that the great gun should take the form of a Statutory Declaration, and oh ! what a lame result. Really, to get a grip df such a flabby, backboneless document is rather difficult. Mr Adams has already publicly denied and challenged proof of the exaggerated statements of Mr Kavanagh and Mr Frank, and this precious declaration, I suppose, must be looked upon as the only proof which can be adduced in their support. Now let us examine this important document, the result of so much deliberation and so much wisdom. Declaration, No 1, appears, so far as I can judge, merely an attempt at a justification of Mr Jacob Frank's shady letter, unless Mr Condell really wishes the electors to believe that Mr Adams said that he would support Mr Curtis' Bill on the strength of the Statement that Mr Condell " clearly understood and thoroughly believed 1 ' that he would do so, agaiust Mr Adams' affirmation that he did not say so. Let it be clearly understood that all tbe declaration really puts forth on this matter is Mr Condell's belief as to the meaning of a particular conversation. Surely on the face of it, a distinct statement by a candidate on so important a subject would have left such a clear impression on the mind of a Roman Catholic that he would have been able to quote the actual words used. The truth of it is that the wish was father to the thought in Mr Condell's mind, and while acquitting him of any serious intention to deceive, I think it is a pity he should have lent himself to Mr Pitt and his Committee. As to the second declaration, there is really nothing to answer until we pet to " yes " and the subsequent words. Now assuming that Mr Adams did say this, and I think that, considering the evident desire to make the most of the conversation, grave doubts may be cast upon Mr Condell's rendering, this attempt to catch a candidate in the heat of a contest for any chance expression he may let drop can only be characterised as unmanly and unfair to a degree. But I suppose that we must not be too hard on the adherents of a weak cause, and this last effort of our opponents bears the impress of weakness in every line of it. Yours, &c, A Member of Mr Adams' Committee.