CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1337, 2 August 1883, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions expressed by our correspondents!. FROM ORMOND* TO~GISBDBNE. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,-"-It was the opinion of several that the article in Saturday s Herald was ; ulculaved to do injury to the district by inciting opposition to further loans for real purposes. Though such may have been the- object, the article is so absurd in itself, and io evidently the outcome of petty spleen, that no weight can be attached to it. Jf the writer 'uv.l Confined himself to the metals of '• ilc» fldry/’ he might have brought in ’* sir.istrcusly/’ a hint of the gold aud silver not forthcoming to him for the local bodies’ advertisement, aud even had b.e posed as a 1 metulician,” lie need not necessarily have given us such confusion of grammar and so many contradict i uis of him* self. For instance, in one part it is said that the roads of the district are “ a bed of mud without a bottom elsewhere, that the frozen metal is melted into a sea of mi.fi. slush, etc., and going to the bottom. Again, that the Council have mis-spent thousands in destroying the roads—against thia, “the metal was the best that could be obtained.” In this way one sentence might be put against the other through most of the production—taking up your apace unprofitably Ripping up the early faults (long since remedied) uf inexperience and u rip re pare du ess was certainly unnecessary in preparing the way for the horse tram proposition. If such were mooted in a common sense article, much might be said in its favor, though I am aware that there art* many impediments and drawbacks attached to it.—Yours, &e., Sigma. BROMLEY’FviNDICATiON (sm). [TO THE EDITOR. J Sir, —Will you kindly publish' the following—Notwithstanding the hostile attitude that has been taken by the Standard towards me since the advent of this unpleasant case in the Resident Magistrate’s Court in connection with myself (but the common herd is ever most willing to hound the stricken deer), and considering that the public have heard only heard one side of the question, “the other side will appear in due time.” I must admit that I was surprised at the remarks made in one of the sub-leaders in your issue of the 31st ultimo. The man (save the mark !) who could be guilty of penning such a cowardly, malicious, and, for the most part, lying attack upon a lady, should be well horsewhipped, which would bo far too good and gentle chastisement for such an arrant sneak; and, moreover, he is well aware that I left the Court at my Counsel’s suggestion u search of the witness Mr Wilson, who h id gone to his business under the impression that ho would not be required again, the judgment being hastily given in my absence. I also see that Mr Wilson’s evidence is conspicuous by its absence in your one-sided Resident Magistrate’s Court report.--! am, &c., S. J. Bromley. [The “ stricken dear ” is pressingly invited to call at our office and vindicate the honor of the “ lady ” whom he dared not (in the witness box) call his wife, iu the manner above alluded to. The mongrel cur yelps at the wholesome castigation so richly merited. The “ coward ” preaching against cowardice! the “sneak” prating about bravery! the fabulous liar exclaiming about falsehood ! is a pitiful and disgusting spectacle, and must make the very denizens of Hades roar again. We leave the individual to the unmitigated contempt of all ‘ ‘ men.-Ed. I B.S. j