Poverty Bay Standard. Published Every Evening. THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1882.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1135, 31 August 1882, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. Published Every Evening. THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1882.

Ax American writer on being asked if he had read “ Ixgjbsoll on the mistakes of Moses,” replied in caustic terms that he “ didn’t care to read” Bob Ingersoll on the “mistakes of “Moses,” but would “have very much “liked to hear Moses on the mistakes of “Bob Ingersoll.” Mr William Daly, late full private in Her Majesty’s army, dilates at length, on the mistakes of the Standard. Well, perhaps the public wouldn’t care to hear too much about Mr Daly’s mistakes; but that distinguished soldier makes a great mistake when he alleges that the Standard is under any pecuniary or other obligation to Captain Tucker. What Mr Daly alleges regarding the piece of paper, which we presume to mean a promissory note, does not in the least refer to the present proprietary of the Standard. What transactions the former proprietor had with Captain Tucker or Mr Daly we know not, neither do we care; but if Mr Daly uses any such transactions as the basis of his accusation against the Standard of ingratitude, we can only tell him that he is circulating a falsehood. The proprietary of this paper have never been in any way under the slightest obligation, pecuniary or otherwise, to Captain Tucker, nor, if they had been, would it have prevented them speaking their mind. Mr Daly, we find to be a very respectable discharged soldier, but an illiterate man who is not by any means to be accepted as an authority on literary matters. We have nothing whatever to allege against him except that we believe that Captain Tucker (with whom we believe Daly served) knows a trifle too much for him. When Mr. Daly accuses us of “the blackest ingratitude and falsehood,” he should shew clearly the instance in which we have been guilty of such disgraceful conduct ; remembering that he Is open to what we now give him, aflat contradiction. There is not one iota of truth in his assertion, and we fail to see that his letter In the least assists Captain Tucker's cause. When Mr. Daly connects the present proprietary of the Standard in any one way with the former proprietary, he displays ills Ignorance of the subject ou whioh he writes, for there is no connection between them.