Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4595, 11 December 1875, Page 2

Mr. Travers writes ua a somewhat lengthy letter, which will be found in another column. In that letter he corrects some alleged mistakes in our report of hia speech at the Odd Fellows’ Hall. We are happy in. receiving and publishing this letter, as it will be proof to us and our readers that Mr. Travers has carefully perused our report, and thereby obtained that accurate notion ot what ho did say, which he could never have evolved from his own memory, or elicited from the amusing resumd of what he did not say that he assures us ho lent no assistance to produce. Of the mistakes which Mr. Travers alleges have crept into our report three are printers’ errors, the rest (if they he mistakes) were made by Mr. Travers himself, and were accurately reported. The three printers’ errors are those which converted “single” into “simple,” .“geologist” into “theologist,” and “Hutton” into “Sutton.” They are very frightful errors, no doubt, to a man of Mr. Travers’ morbid accuracy, which takes no account of false accusations against Government, supported by no more tangible evidence than some sheets of cartridge paper and a little Indian ink. But we would ask Mr. Travers to excuse the printers who have been merely inaccurate to the extent of three letters, whereas he measured his inaccuracies by inches on a map. As for the other mistakes, they are mistakes of Mr. Travers’, as is evident by his using the shelter of a letter to explain away if possible a good deal , of what he unquestionably said. He did say that “ the scheme of public works had landed the colony in heavy debt.” Those were his very words. He finds them now probably prejudicial to his cause, and so tells us “ in effect ’■’ what he meant to say. With that we have nothing to do. He should have weighed his words before he gave them birth, and then probably he would have said actually what he now desires to say in effect. It is the same with his other mistakes. As he says, they are no doubt many of them absolutely absurd, but so is a great deal more that ha uttered, and for which, as for these, he must bo held responsible. As for Mr. Travers’ corrections of the way in . which we choose to conduct the New Zealand Times editorially, there needs little to be said. No doubt ho thinks that to advocate his election would be to serve the interests of the city. Unfortunately we justthiuk differently, and as we are sure that to join with him would beto do our worst for Wellington, wemust decline to unite with him in making wholesale accusations which he never can substantiate. It may also seem contradictory to him that we should'have considered him eligible for the Attorney-Generalship, but very ineligible for a seat in the House of Representatives. It does not seem contradictory to ua. The Attorney-Generalship is a non-political office. Mr. Travers is a shrewd and cunuiug lawyer, and would have fitted it very well. A seat in the House of Representatives is a thoroughly political position, and one which a shifty selfish gentleman like Mr. Travers would fill far more to his own interests than to those of his constituents. We have much pleasure in affording those explanations to Mr. Travers, and in assuring him that wo prefer our reporters’ notes any day to hia somewhat treacherous memory. A lesson to him may bo found only.this day in our advertising columns. When lie was nominated for a seat in the Education Board, one of his sponsors, a Mr. Monaghan, made the most disgraceful assertions concerning his opponent, Mr. Toomath. Those assertions Mr. Travers had not the manliness to disavow, as we may say any right-minded gentleman would have promptly done. No ; Mr. Travers, special-pleador-liko, declined to endorse his sponsor’s outrageous accusations, but equally declined to contradict them (though they were obviously untrue), or to disown connection with a man whom personal animosity evidently prompted to disgraceful public conduct. Now his sponsor eats the leek, and this may perhaps bo a lesson to

William Thomas Locke Travers how to conduct himself in the contest he has entered on, to think carefully over what he is going to say, and thus to avoid the necessity for afterwards writing to tell people what he meant to say in effect.

Dr. Walter Buller accounts for our criticism of his claims to represent Manawatu by assuming that we do not possess a confident assurance of his ultimate defeat. This is a mistake. It was the confident assurance (some might say the consummate impudence) of Dr. Buller in coming forward as a candidate that caused our criticism. We were sorry in some respects at being obliged to place Dr. Buller’s position as a candidate in its true light, for it is unpleasant to exhibit any man’s defects. But Dr. Buller himself invited discussion of his claims to be a member of the House of Representatives, and it was merely in continuation of our “ confident assurance” that he would not be elected that we proceeded to show the electors why they should not vote for him. We have much pleasure in now publishing, at his request, a certificate from a major that he deserved the New‘Zealand war medal. If the electors of Manawatu select him on the strength of this, he will be indeed a fit and proper person to represent them.