MR. CLARK AND THE DRAINAGE SCHEME.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5747, 30 August 1879, Page 2

MR. CLARK AND THE DRAINAGE SCHEME.

The following letters have been handed to us by Mr. W. T. L. Travers for publication:— “ 9, Victoria Chambers, “Westminster, S.W., July 14, 1879.

“Dear Sir, —On the 7th instant, via San Francisco, I received copies of the Wellington newspapers —• Evening Post and Evening Chronicle —both of the 23rd May last, containing an account of a meeting at Newtown on the subject of the Mayoralty election. “In the last mentioned paper a paragraph is headed ‘The Great Engineer Unmasked,’ and a short editorial on the same subject.

“ I am quite aware that on these occasions of excitement partizans are led to do and say what probably they would not at other times, and in ordinary cases they may be passed over without notice ; but the tissue of malicious falsehoods which prevades the statement made hv Mr. Taylor at the above meeting passed all bounds of forbearance, and I cannot allow them to remain unchallenged. I have, therefore, applied to Messrs. Doulton and Co. for information as to the person alluded to by Mr. Taylor as his authority, and I enclose their reply. “For myself, I emphatically deny that there is the slightest particle of truth in any part of the statement made hy Mr. Taylor in regard to myself, nor the shadow of foundation “or excuse for the slander thus publicly uttered, reported, and approved by the editor ; nor is there the slightest shadow of reason for it in any proceeding or statement of mine when in the colony or during my visit to Wellington. « lyfy report on the drainage of Wellington contains no mention of the manufacture of pipes ; the only occasion on which I did so was in reply to a question at a meeting of the City Council, which by request I attended. “The N.Z. Tdies of May 17th, 187 S, gives an account of these proceedings, but I cannot find therein that I mentioned the name of any manufacture ; nor did I during my visit endeavor to influence the municipality in the disposal of their business in favor of, or to the prejudice of, any person or interest in any way, either publicly or privately. I can only repeat that the statement made by Mr. Taylor is false, malicious, and cowardly—disgraceful alike to the persons who concocted it, and to those who published it in the absence of the person chiefly affected. . “I am by no means insensible or indifferent to the injury such a statement is calculated to dome ; my professional reputation i-', 1 trust, beyond the reach of such persons as are here alluded to ; but I must defend it, not only on my own account, but also in justice to the various Governments and municipal authorities who have honored me with their confidence in the colonies. I am therefore determined to take such legal steps as may be open to me to brinir the authors and those who have assisted them in publishing this calumny to account. “ I desire, therefore, that you will oblige me by taking up the matter as solicitor on my that the most public means may be taken of denying the truth of Mr. Taylor’s statement, and that you will commence such

proceedings against such persons as you may see fit under all the circmr.-tances of the case. My ag-uts in New Zealand are Messrs. Harman and Stevens, of Chri-dchnrch, find my solictor in England is Sidney Hargrave, K-q., rf No. 0, Victoria-; tr-. et, Wta-triduc-ter.— ours, ice,, “ W. Cl-AUK. ** — Travers, Esq., solicitor.” “Lambeth IVttcrv, Lou l>m, S.E., “Wth July, “ Dear Sir, —We beg to acknowbj.l m receipt of your letter of 7th instant, with c pits of Wellington (N.ZJ papers, containing statements in which your name is mentioned, in connection with our own, :u a reb-renoe t>» the proposed drainage works of that p ace. We cvn:;<‘t ha. cXpr-*-' our gr.v-.t surnri-e at the unju-uinable way in which mir name is ma le use of in the statements referred to, and hasten to state that there is not the slightest foundation for the allegation that you have ever acted as an agent on our behalf. “ We desire to give the most emphatic contradiction to the statement, published in the Wellington papers, that a per>ou from that city had been informed at an interview with us, respecting certain commissions alleged to have been paid by us to yourself. No such conversation ever took place ; th: whole statement is a fabrication. . “It is true that a gentleman from Wellington calle I np ui us in the month of Seott-mher, IS7S, and made some enquiries revering the cost of our stoneware pipe-*, stating that ho hail been requested to collect information on the subject while in this; country, as a scheme for the drainage of Wellington was under consideration. We do not, however, recollect that your name was even mentioned ; but if so, it was only casually, as we knew that you had visited the Australian colonies in onnectioa with some projected drainage operations, but we were not then aware that you visited New Zealand. The gentleman referred to, who gave his name as Mr. O. F. Worth, of Wellington, saw one of our confidential clerks (Mr. Davisl, and was informed as to the matters upon which he called to make enquiry, lie was afterwards introduced to Mr. Henry Doulton, the senior member of our firm, with whom he had a short conversation, but nothing was said respecting your representing tis, as stated in the papers which you h ive handed to u’, nor was any allusion to such a subject made, for the simple reason that nothing of the kind ever had any existence in fact. “ We do not recoil ect any other visitor from New Zealand calling upon us, and can only suppose that the above is the occasion referred to ; you will observe, however, that Mr. Worth’s name does not appear in the statement made by the Wellington journals. “We must express our great regret that your reputation should have been thus scandalously aspersed, and our equal annoyance to find our own name implicated by these false and libellous assertions, which have been made, as it would appear, to serve the ends of a party contest at Wellington. “ We shall he glad to afford you any further information which it may be in our power to give relative to the subject ; and are, dear sir, yours faithfully, “Doulton & Co. “W. Clark, Esq., C.E., “9, Victoria Chambers, Westminster.”