THE HON. MR. FOX AND THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4153, 13 July 1874, Page 3

THE HON. MR. FOX AND THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES.

. Sin, —It might be thought more consistent with self-respect if I declined to notice the virulent and scurrilous attack' on myself in the Evening Post of Friday. I have for so many yeare been subjected to similar vulgar personal abuse in the columns of that paper and one or two others of like character which disgrace the New Zealand Press, that I can very well afford to pass them by without reply. But in reference to the alleged statement of facts contained in the article, I cannot allow the misrepresentations of the writer to go unanswered.

1. The writer, who is of course the same person as the Correspondent of the Otago Daily Times, would lead his readers to believe (he doe 3 not dare positively to assert the fact), that the contents of the divulged telegram reached him only through public rumor, which had been busy with the subject. This is too ridiculous. The telegram consisted exclusively of figures, and statements of account, and filled at least three pages (I think several more) of telegraphic forms. These figures and statements, though greatly jumbled and with many inaccuracies, were subsequently given in the Correspondent's letter to the Daily Times. It is utterly impossible to believe that that person had not either seen the telegram himself, or received a very full version of its contents from some person who had. It may have passed through a King of communicants before it reached the Correspondent ; but that there was a distinct and criminal breach of trust on the part of the original divulger cannot be doubted by any person endowed with common sense. My colleagues in office—Mr. Vogel and Mr. Gisbome —-who investigated the matter, were thoroughly convinced of that fact, though they were unable to trace the links between the original divulger and the Correspondent of the Daily Times. That there was a criminal divulger to begin with, and "a receiver as bad as the thief" to end with, was the conclusion inevitably arrived at. 2. The reason given by the writer for the action of libel not being proceeded with is not consistent with fact. On my return from Canterbury, a fortnight or three weeks after I had used the expressions complained of, and therefore with full time for consideration, Messrs. Hart and Buckley (a most respectable firm of solicitors in this town) wrote me a lawyer's letter by Mr. Gillon's direction, requiring me to retract or apologize, otherwise their instructions were to take legal proceedings by an action for slander. In reply I explained the case to them in writing and defied their client to go on with the action. After a few days they informed me in writing that they had declined to have anything more to do with the case, and that Mr. Gillon was no longer their client in this matter. Am I not justified in saying, as I .said in the House the other day, "that I supposed they threw up the case because of its discreditable character?" and where is there any opening for the Editor of the Posts insinuations that I had improperly got information as to the privileged proceedings in his lawyer's office ? This insinuation is absurd. But now we are told that the action was dropped because no damages could haye been recovered. Was this fact not known to the respectable lawyers named when they threatened me with an action ? And is it consistent with the manner in which they intimated their retirement from the case on hearing from me what its merits were ? Are we to be told that respectable lawyers like Messrs. Hart and Buckley threatened me with an action which they knew could not be maintained, in order to intimidate me into a retractation and apology ? I, for one, have a much higher opinion of those gentlemen than to credit such an implied aspersion on their professional characters. If Mr. Gillon desires to proceed with his action and will do so, I will agree not to avail myself of the difference between spoken and written words, but allow the action of slander to be tried as if it were one of libel. On one condition, however, only, namely, that neither he nor any of the witnesses called either by him or me shall be allowed to shelter themselves under the plea of non-crimination, but shall be compelled to speak the truth and the whole truth in the witness-box. Also that I shall be allowed to treat as adverse witnesses such persons as I may call to prove the manner in which the telegram was divulged, by crossexamining them in the usual way though placed in the box by myself. If he does not accept this challenge, I hope he will have the sense to hold his tongue on the subject for the future.—l am, &c, William Fox.