The Evening Mail. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1878.

Oamaru Mail, Volume III, Issue 793, 26 October 1878, Page 2

The Evening Mail. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1878.

The letter which appears in another column, one of the first-fruits of our Thursday evening's article on the Oamaru Cricket Club, is written upon the most expensive handmade foolscap, such as is sometimes used in banks. The writer has, we think, acted with excessive modesty in withholding from the public his true name. There is nothing in the letter of which to be ashamed. Indeed, it is a very creditable production, considering the difficulties of the subject; and to-night there will be witnessed a scene such as has never before occurred in the history of any paper in the Colony, if the public are capable of appreciating a good thing. People with bated breath will besiege the runners for copies for the sake of reading " Fair Play's" able defence ; and when the extra thousand papers, which have been printed in anticipation of an increased demand, have gone, they will crave for more. As a larger number of copies than usual of this issue will doubtless find their way to the United Kingdom, who knows but that Her Majesty's attention may be directed to "Fair Play's" letter, and that admiration of the writer's able advocacy of the sacred rights and superiority, and protection of the honor, of the New Zealand noblesse against the radicalism of the vulgar canaille might induce Her Majesty to bestow upon the author the well-earned distinction of knighthood. But, then, who is he? Must his name and reputation for ever be confined to the precincts of a vile, Hottentotish editor's room, and at last be buried in the oblivion of the word "anonymous," when his literary works shall be found side by side with the world's other great authors ? Is the writer to leave no laurels behind him with which to adorn his name, whilst the immortality cf his language and sentiments is assured by their super-excellence ? Let us engage in the profitable occupation of analysing " Fair Play's " letter. The polite exordium in which the words ''Radical effusion" ocours, tempered by the word "somewhat," bears testimony to the superiority of the autlior. He was evidently not quite certain whether or not our article was a " radical effusion" —or, perhaps, like Mark Twain, he was not aware of the meaning of the words, but thought them good ones to introduce by way of commencement. The sentiments expressed in the second paragraph have our entire concurrence. Surely the author has busied himself in eliciting public opinion, he has hit the mark so correctly ; and his condescension m thus expressing it is quite surprising. For what need he care for public opinion. He lives within a charmed circle, where public opinions are considered to be radical effusions, the only thing of any value emanating from the public being subscriptions. The gentle reader will observe how kindly the writer recognises our authority on what a gentleman should be. How he warms towards us, as though he would like to elevate us from our humble station to that which he occupies. But, as the bare mention of the honor sadly tries our weak nerves, we fear that we could not survive the process of induction just now. When we have been purged of the "radicalism" so abhorrent to the author, then we will consider the overtures which he has so delicately made. In the meanwhile we will be satisfied to remain as we are. The author in the third paragraph says that wc are probably as good a judge of' cricket as we are of gentlemen. This is too much flattery ; and although he may realise the truth of what he asserts, we feel the risings of inordinate pride in our weak nature at the bestowal of the compliment. We would not he so cruel as to "eliminate the bankers" from the Club. Perhaps it would be better for the others to leave them, and start another gentlemen's Club, in which case the residue could establish themselves under the euphonious and appropriate title of " The Banks Club." We are glad to hear that the bankers " have on two occasions defeated the rest of the town." Who would have thought that they could have done it at all ? But when we are told that they have done it twice ! we are lost in wonder and admiration. The last portion of our author's able effort is so different in tone from the rest that we have concluded that it is the work of another hand. Can it be that, fatigued with the mental strain, he felt compelled to leave the completion to another, or has some wag played a cruel joke. It must be the one or the other —either the letter is the composition of two talented persons, who nevertheless did not quite understand each other, or the finishing touch has been given to it by a practical joker. Anyone comparing the peroration with the remainder of the letter must come to this conclusion. The termination is absurd, and would lead one to suppose that the author, who but a moment before was brimful of suavity, wound up by getting into a towering passion. _^______