CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1115, 5 August 1882, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

(ffv <?0 »ot hold ourselves responsible for opiftiane^fpressed hp our correspondents,] io:- - : '4VDI ALTEHAH PAMEit: fConcluded from our last).

TO TUB EDITOR. And I must hare ramark that I by no means approved of the offer of the " every assistance of th* Police." I don't for one minute see why they should, in criminal oases, be made subservient to any civilian )it is,not doing it, it is not letting it alone. Take any case, either it is Hie duty of the Police to .prosecute ;or it is not, If it le their duty then tliey should proceed, if it is not their duty they should not be offered as a catspaw to any one. It was for those reasons, and thole reasons only, that I declined to take up their duty until I was informed why they sought to thrust it on me; If the Inspector reported there was no ease such report, could hurt no one, and I think, ought in fairness Id be made known (or at'least the gist Of it in explanation of the first mysterious order) to persons interested only. It seems to me highly unfair that any person should stand with the light of that report behind hi* back attempting;to thrust one forward in the dark with the will-o’-the-wisp of “ every assistance’’ dancing in the distance,

If the first stoppage was a proper one, or ■ if on the.lnspectpr’s report it wg«_ found the Attorney General, Giat there was no-case, then I submit that instead of causing a great waste of time, and a lengthy correspondence, the’ proper answer at once would have been," The Attorney General has instructed the police to abandon the prosecution.” That would have been intelligible, and we should have known at whose ddor the fault lay. But no one dares say I did it. Yon say Sir, “ The fact of such reports being made public would ruin the reputation and character of many an innocent man. The italics are mine, it must be a misprint. Let me assure you that your conjecture that I wished to avoid the consequences of a malicious prosecution, is mistaken, Firstly i I should decline to accuse anyone of any offence, except on a firm belief that I was correct. Secondly: I have ever been perfectly ready, if the police had called on me, to lay an information on which they could act. Thirdly : If Fluid fifty informations I could , not possibly give more grounds on wliiph to found an action, than I have already done by my sworn evidence, for which J am, and. always have been; responsible, a responsibility which I by no means shirk ; indeed, after the dismissal Of fh* flbgrgc, I »w wires in ma°y papers stating that I wqs to he proseJilted for perjury »nd conspiracy, *s well OS to be's'ued fora few thuusauds, and I quite recognise us the true position, that cither , a felony hud . been committed, nr myself . and others were guilty of a wicked oowiraey and perjury, for which w* should have been pun-. relied, And for that reason it has always seemed to, me than th* Government. ar the Polio* could not let the matter rest where it Was i if the accused were innocent, that. innocence would .only, be-. florae ’ the. rpoie apparent, and the cose, against tli'e 'consplYatrtre arid perjurers' the stronger; if, oh tlie utljer hand, fhe accused ’ Were guilty, then the law would, have' been vindicated, anfi a-ritl qtherj renpyed from *n unjust suspicion," but td leave 'the matter an-upei) gqeUpn does, not seem ,to p* to he conducive to respect for bur laws.' You say, Sir, “ Let them iqour ah information, obtain * waiirant for the artert'. o.f th* accused and again, “Ji these gentlemen choose to swear an information the Police will act without fear or favor."

I suppose you really do think so, or you would nc)t write it, tint it shows your happy ignorapoe (which j trust may continue) of such proceedings. I venture to assert that the police vybnld' do. nothjrig at ell except eprve' summomiM, aj their hends are tied j nor do I see why they shp'uld arrest—it is only wiren persons nmJ be expected to abscond, or where they depline that .srjwalTOnt'fejiiPS for thejr appplierirton. You bare charged me With a ties’ veto i’ojurs ililotnbr; iny answer is this, I cannot sue liow the strict and impartial administration of th* Pojiamby. the Government, for which I. contend, oita injttre anyone, but I tliiiik the making 'fish of some casus and fowl of others is most injii-

rious to the public, and 15 assert that this is doff, if nos4jpthe Goternment, at least with tljSr connivance, a ■i- must not trespOMt longer on your space, and I know 4iow PuSeless it, is to contend against 4tt Edfitbr in liis own column.-—a brief fobtootSfubfout’all I’TWc writte^— bnt I Itanrtet allow you unchallenged to say it is all ]stfon. I have distmteartbft certain ’of your facts, I have given my'version, you say it is fiction—very well. If you will hare the goodness to point out to which of my ’ statements you refer I will back the truth of nry fact.as against yours-wliich I contest, .in any sum from £lO to £5O, to be paid to the Gisborne Hospital, ityour informant will do the same ; the decision to be by arbitration in the usual way, it will save much waste of time and space, and will at least do somebody good, as it is, we are only beating'- the wind, and doing no one good. This is the only practical way that I can see of deciding which of us deals in fiction, and which in truth, I cannot offer to compete with your grandiloquept.'toflf- words, are. facts,", for, words are not facts, and in the case of yoiir article, orc not even the relation of facts; but. I am Willing to admit that in the present cape your facts are merely your own word*, so in that sense' your words are made to do duty for facts. Anyone can give a general denial and condemnation without detail, I have not ddrifl, so to you. I have pointed out seriatim the most glaring of your misstatements, I leave it to you now to choose on whioh you will join issue, and! trust yOu will not attribute tome anydesire to do so offensively. I am quite willing to still believe you to bb actuated by an honest desire to be fair, to be moved only by the highest impulses, and to be actuated by those principles which must be the foundation of journalism. It would not be right that I should jump to the contrary conclusion. I attribute yonr distortion of fact* to your informant, on those false facts you may have made just conclusions, but you have been grossly misled, and your arguments Wasted.— I am,‘Sir, W. H. TrCKEB. Gisborne, August 5,1882. [Captain Tuckers letter is finished. We don’t propose to reply to him in this issue further than by this foot-note. His whole letter is plausible, well put together, and u thorough distortion of facts. We repeat that the Government have not interfered with the free action of the police, they have merely refused to become responsible for the actions of Captain Tucker, and Mr DeLautour, who endeavour to shunt such responsibilities an ta other .shoulders, Captain Tucker began the prosecution—the Government did not. Cap-’ tain Tucker should continue it. The Government should not. .We decline Captain Tuckers offer to bet, whioh we conceive ourselves’perfectly entitled to dp-without assigning reasons, W» still hold to our statement that our version nr the matter is true, while Captain Tuckers is a grain of fact in a field of fiction. W« oan’t afford to waste public moneys in private proseoutipnff.-~»Ed. JP.B.SiJ .