MR. SCOTT IN REPLY.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 1042, 4 June 1883, Page 2

MR. SCOTT IN REPLY.

TO THE EDITOR. SIR, —I was highly diverted the other evening, when reading your journal, to notice a letter signed (i James McMeckin,” in which he attacks me in a vicious and vindictive manner. The vulgar tirade is quite in .keeping with the distinguished author, and the glaring falsehoods he puts forth are but the spleen of an enraged man. There is one point that I would like vindicated. It is that of the “ foul language ” business, that cat him so deeply, which “ was unfit for a child to hear." Well done, Mr McMeckin, - what next I Is it not, Mr Editor, a deal more degrading for a young child to see its enraged parent pursuing another inoffensive person, who was only asking for his supposed rights, and the said parent to be armed with a dangerous weapon. And, Sir, the reason he waxed so warm was that he passed some remarks, relative to my late father, that were of an offensive nature to me, which I would not take from any blustering, ignorant clodhopper, far less from the refined, highly-bred, and gentlemanly farmer, who is such a “model” in his manners (?) Mr McMeckin would give me no satisfaction, whatever, when I asked payment, stating that he never had the goods at all. He also talks of manners. They are a (judging by his antics when I called on him) utterly destitute in himself, and'as the whole letter bristles with falsehoods it would take some little time to review them all. He also gives me some advice regarding the civil law, which must be of infinite volue, coming from such an eminent authority. But I was advised by a person not to take the civil law, but another course, when he would have been defendant, and then his legal knowlege would have been of intrinsic value to him, when he would have been able to give a capital record of the “ laughing ” affair, not omitting the more “ humorous ” portion of the affray—the pitchfork and the chasing episode, which must have been very amusing. Had I had this handy weapon, instead of being the pursued I would probably have been the pursuer. The shadow that was following, what the Quixotic writer designates the “ would-be swell ” was not that of himself, but the more substantial one of Mr James McMeckin. Hie whole effusion is of such an inaccurate and wonderful nature that it entitles the writer to a monument,- or (to say the least) an effigy. To continue this is only taking up your space, and therefore I conclude. —I am, See., John Scott. Hawera, June 2.