THE “CONSPIRACY” AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5633, 19 April 1879, Page 3

THE “CONSPIRACY” AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.

COLON ED WHITMORE IN REPLY. To the Editor of the Evening Post. Sir, —Mr. Waterhouse’s letter to yon oh the telegram business did not at first appear to require any reply from me. It gave an incomplete and rather garbled account of the affair, and contained rather violent expressions. But strong language does not create a strong case ; on the contrary, it is in weak ones that one hears of the plaintiff’s attorney coming in for abuse. Mr. Waterhouse, I think, has substantiated nothing, except that he is liable to unreasonable attacks of temper, and exceedingly anxious to force himself before the public. Bat. I see that the story, from his manner of telling it, has been misunderstood, and I have before me an article gravely accusing me of using my official position to intercept a telegram addressed to somebody else, and of disclosing its contents to my colleagues. This out-Waterhouses Waterhouse, and compels me to put forward the facts of the case as far as I can do so. The telegram I opened was clearly addressed to me, clearly intended for me, and came to me in ordinary course like any other telegram. The clerical error to which Mr. Waterhouse refers occurred in another telegram altogether, which was delivered in Christchurch, and it was not X, but Mr. Hall, who mistook tho name, and he has clearly stated that he meant his reply for me. I received a telegram signed by Mr. Hall referring to one from me. I had never seat such a telegram ; indeed, I had never sent a private telegram in my life to Mr. Hall, and have no unofficial correspondence with him. Consequently I could not regard the message otherwise, than as a trap and a forgery.

Obviously I had not the least reason to suppose Mr. Waterhouse concerned. At that moment the air was full of rumors, and the invention of Opposition writers was largely exercised in producing political skits of all kinds, which credulous or mischievous people telegraphed about the country. That morning I had read one of these, professing to name certain rather improbable gentlemen as being about to replace some of the Ministry. Mr. Hall's telegram would have been a reasonable answer to any message recapitulating the contents of this skit, and the solution of the matter which occurred to me was that somebody bad forged my name to such a telegram addressed to Mr. Hall, and that h« had regarded me as an outgoing Minister, and sent a sympathetic reply. Otherwise it might have been a forgery of Mr. Hall’s name, sent to “ draw” me on the subject of the supposed split in the Cabinet. At all events I looked upon it as a forgery, and in showing it in confidence to ray colleagues and asking their advice, I did what I consider natural and right. To say that a forger can protect himself by putting u private ” on the document would be ridiculous. My colleagues concurred in ray view; but the comical side of the matter struck them more forcibly than it did me, and they thought it was probably meant as a joke. However, Mr. Eisher kindly examined all the telegrams bearing my signature for the past few days at the Wellington office, and I wired to Mr. Hall, so that inquiries might be made at the Christchurch end. The result was unexpected. Mr. Hall replied that on a second reading he found that he had mistaken the signature, which was u Whitehouse.” On this I applied to Mr, Waterhouse, who admitted the paternity of the original telegram, and I handed over Mr. Hall's, with my reply, of which I have now no copy. I remember, however, having told Mr. Hall that I had shown the telegram to my colleagues. This is the whole story as far as I «r my colleagues are concerned. It does not explain all tho reports which have been in circulation, with which, however, none of the Ministry have any connection. As a rule, these reports have shown a complete misconception of the contents of Mr. Waterhouse’s first telegram, which he had the opportunity, but chose not, to remove. In his letter he gave what purported to be an account of what he had written, but stopped short just as he became interesting. Why did he not give the names of the proposed Ministry of his telegram I As ha has not done so, I will try to account for the omission. Had he told the whole truth, X believe he would have shown that ho had jumped too credulously to the conclusion that the political squib above alluded to was true, and had hastened to communicate his unintelligence to his political friends. To have exposed himself thus as a retailer of silly canards was too galling to bis pride, and he preferred to put forward an account which was hardly ingenuous. He, however, felt it was true, and that accidentally I had come to know it, and his vexation has betrayed An amiable gentleman into losing his temper and becoming abusive. I do not intend to follow his example, and therefore pass over his uncomplimentary remarks about myself without reply.—l am, &c,, G-. S. Whitmore.