ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

Patea Mail, Volume IV, Issue 323, 22 May 1878, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

[We are ad all times ready to give expression to every shade of opinion, but in no case do we hold ourselves responsible for the sentiments of our correspondents.]

REPLY AT LAST. (To the Editor of the Patba Mail.)

Sis, — Please allow me., through your columns, to inform those interested, that, I have received the long ago promised “ Memorial of Sheepowners in favor of Mr Hately being retained as Sheep Inspector.”

The memorial contains twenty-two names of shipowners within the Patea Comity. The one, in the opposite direction, if my memory serves me right, contained something very near eighty. It will thus l>e seen how far Major Atkinson was justified in staling that “a counter memorial, signed by a majority of sheepowners within the County, was forwarded in favor of Mr liately.” I am undecided whether it would be right or not to hand over the document or not to yon for publication, but if the public wishes it, I ■ will do so. In the mean!ime, airyonc interested can inspect the memorial on applying to me, it being public property.-—! am, &c. EDWIN 11. MORGAN,

“INQUIRER” AGAIN. (To the Editor of the Patea Mail.) Sir, —When I wrote my letter, I did not expect to have been honoured with an answer by r Mr John Gibson, as it could hardly be supposed that lie would trust himself to appear in print, for fear his natural amiability of disposition would be thereby displayed. However, be has made the venture, and has, as might have been expected, shewn the cloven foot. Mr Gibson has admitted just as much as he dared not deny—keeping back as much as possible, amongst which is, of course, the real abject of bis visit, to quote from his letter, “and accordingly requested Mr B ackett to ask if Sir John Goode could, without inconvenience, give the Board the benefit of Ids opinion on the subject ; but that .we waited upon him to impress our opinions as to any particular site, I distinctly deny.” Now, as Mr Gibson lias ventured an explanation, he should have made it full and disiiigenous. This it is hardly likely he has done, and, in any case, his waiting upon Sir John Goode, without the authority of the Board or public, on this wharf busi ness, was unv.arrauc-il.iie and presumptions, and the denial of Ins real object will have but little weight. The truth will come out sooner or later. Mr Gibson must not imagine that the public are blind to the eflorts he and others are making to secure Wharf accommodation. Cor the other side of the river, it is *a nffu.ter of public notoriety, and of very unfavorable comment.

With reference to tiie insinuation that “ Inquirer” is a im-mber of the Board, I may say. that that is quite immaterial to the question at issue, but, oven in this case. Mr Gibson may find that he is as wide of the mark as he was when he went to see Sir John Coode, and—did not see him. But do not let him be under the impression that it could only be a member of the Board who svould take exception to his meddling, the opinion is very unanimous in condemning Ids action. Mr Gibson’s letter, taken as a whole, is not very idee : in fact, I may say quite the reverse—such a letter as you might expect a man very much one of temper to have wruleu. if he is going to lose his temper every time he is found out, I think he will act wisely in not going into print.—l am, &c., INQUIRER.