A FIERY CONTROVERSY.

Patea Mail, 9 April 1881, Page 2

A FIERY CONTROVERSY.

It seems that persons at Patoa have to look to Wanganui for correct information concerning the Coroner’s inquest into the recent fire. It is a mistake to suppose that the Coroner or the local police know anything about the origin of the inquest. All that is known or can be known on the subject is known .exclusively to one individual at Wanganui. Speaking through the Chronicle , this authority on fire inquests says : “ The second mistake the Mail falls into is very serious, and one which ought to be corrected as speedily as possible : the inquest at Patea was forced by no company and no individual."’ Now look at this as a sample of correcting other folks’ mistakes. This Wanganui authority has not the word of the Coroner for this assertion, nor the report of the police, nor (so he says) does he even know the name of the insurance company concerned. His ground for contradicting the “ very serious mistake ” of the Mail is nothing but assumption. He denies the inquest was forced, and denies that a particular company forced it: and these denials he puts forth without applying to any of the three sources open to him for verifying the truth. To argue with such an authority is wasting words. We say again for the proper information of the public, and say it after fresh inquiry, that the fire inquest at Patea would not have been held if one insurance company had not pressed for it. It would not have been held because no evidence could be got to justify the local police in setting the Coroner in motion. It would not have been held because the Coroner did wait to be asked before holding it, although this Wanganui authority sapiently says, “ This is not so.”

Another writer, also at Wanganui, misquotes from the Ma.il, and then bases an argument on his own error. There are three methods of argument at Wanganui, as shown by this fire controversy. One method is to assert what is wrong while professing to correct what is right. The second is to quote an affirmation, and falsify it by omitting a necessary qualification following in the next sentence. The third method is to mis-state the form of argument, and then base a triumphant conclusion on the mis-statement. Some remarks were offered in the Mail as to the origin of the inquest held into a Patea fire, and as to the policy which should govern such inquiries. These remarks have been controverted by methods of reasoning which would be childish, if sincere. We prefer to regard them as too transparent even to deceive their authors.