CORRESPONDENCE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIV, Issue 233, 13 October 1879, Page 2

CORRESP O NDENCE .

To the Editor op the "Evening Mail.' Siu— ln your issue of yesterday appears a letter from " One of the Forty," m which he seeks to excuse his action by throwing dis credit upon mine. Whether he is successful in this or not I leave to your judgment, hut I ask your permission to make a few comments. The article in your paper of the 9th instant states: — " It was only by the merest accident that Mr Levestam, the Chairman of Mr Pitt's Committee, heard of what was being done." This you stated upon my authority, and I beg to nssure you that it is the truth. I learnt it accidentally on the Thursday night on my homeward way. The following mornincr, before telegraphing I happened to meet f,hc gentleman who, I presume, is the one to furuish proof. I mentioned to him what I had heard, and commented strongly upon the proceeding of the forty, while my friend,

who is a supporter of Mr Pitt's, tried to justify it. I did not then know the nature ? V£ c tele 8 r a«»t nor did he tell me it, and as 1 aid not Bee anyone who could possibly enlighten me before wiring to Mr Pitt, I challenge your correspondent, if he is not a mere braggart, to the proof. Let him lay satisfactory proof before you, and I shall be satisfied, if he satisfies you. But for the sake of argument let us grant that my friend did tell me the contents of the telegram, where then is the misstatement of fact? (I presume this is what your correspondent meant when he wrote that I sent a message " which did not state a fact.") In my telegram I stated two facts, namely, that there were .rumors that Mr Pitt had been telegraphed to re suppott Grey (the printer omitted the italicised word " re") and that the Committee had not been consulted. Which of these statements is not a fact, or which a misstatelsent of fact? Referring to the signatures, "One of the Forty" writes, "the names of a number of persons who were prominent supporters of Mr Pitt being attached to the i telegram." The most prominent supporters of Mr Pitt were, of course, his proposer and seconder and the Chairman and Secretary of his Committee. These persons were studiously, I use the term advisedly, avoided by the canvassers for signatures, and their names are conspicuous by their absence amongst the foity. As I have seen the list of signatures attached to the telegram I can state that the name of only one of those gentlemen who acted on Mr Pitt's Executive J Committee appears amongst them, and he, I | may add, would have sent Mr Pitt a warning telegram, upon reflection, had he not learnt that I had done so already. Amongst the others is the name of him with whom I con- , versed on the morning referred to above. This gentleman admitted afterwards that it was a mistake not to have consulted the Committee. He was very pleased to learn that I had telegraphed to* Mr Pitt, and thus, as I take it, virtually admitted that he had acted, to say the least of it, injudiciously in signing the telegram. lam prepared to prove these assertions. There were a few more supporters of Mr Pitt's among those who signed the telegram, but som<? of them have expressed their regret at having done so. The rest of the signatures comprised the names of all the prominent supporters of a rival candidate. In reference to the message of the forty, I would point out that they state a strong feeling oxists here that it would be better to support the old Govern- j ment if they would give a certain pledge. If this be true, then I submit that it is not too late for holding a meeting, as another want I of confidence motion is on the board. If the fort/ have any 3punk in them, then to prove the bona fides of their statement, let them call a public meeting, and I warrant they would not even get forty to voie with them. In conclusion, I beg that you will notify in your paper whenever you have received the proof which your correspondent " One of the Forty " offers, and whether it is satisfactory to you. I am, &c, • H. A. Levestam.