ILLIBERALISM ANSWERED.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 183, 15 July 1884, Page 2

ILLIBERALISM ANSWERED.

[Our only reason for inserting the following scurrilous and insulting production, is with a view of correcting the writer by showing the public to what disgraceful extremes one may be led by giving way to rabid and violent animus. If referred to any other than the writer olQ 1 1!liberalism,” we could not possibly have inserted it. Our refusal to discuss the contents of such an effusion, will be fully understood.—Ed. Telephone.] “ Had the individual who penned the lines under the heading “ Uliberalism ” himself shown any liberal behaviour, and what is of still greater importance, told the truth, I would have passed the covert slanders he is endeavoring to convey; and treated the so-styled ‘ explanation ’ with the contempt it deserves. But he has not told the • truth ’ nor yet a portion of the truth, In the first place I must distinctly assert that the reporter was never spoken to requesting him not to attend; this primary perversion of the truth is most disgraceful, as it would lead the voting public to infer that even after public notice, calling the meeting, it appeared there was a desire for secrecy. Now such statements allowed to go abroad, would do incalculable injury, and be remembered to the disadvantage of the party most concerned at a future period. I am particularly desirous to stamp this first assertion as perfectly fa Ise, and can prove it false. The reporter might have been there if his proprietors wished; in fact, so far as that goes, might have attended all the committee meetings. No attempt was ever made to exclude him. Next, as to the surreptitious manner of sending in the report. It was rendered to the office during office hours—quite open copy, and free for the perusal of any one. Now, what can this mean? So far for number two. The next barefaced perversion of the truth is contained in the remarks that the copy was demanded back with a ‘ threat.’ The real truth is—not a word was said more (han to ask for the copy. The circumstances were these: About *l2 o’clock the Editor saw me and said it would not go in. I then replied, ‘ Very well—do as you like.’ Shortly after I saw the Herald, and asked them if they would put it in, and they agreed to do so. I returned to the Telephone and asked for the copy. The Editor was then discussing with some others in the office about the matter, apparently having just received a written order for them to strike off 1000 copies containing the report. I said, ‘O, never mind, the Herald will put it in.’ I then asked for the copy, and was handed i l , immediately passing it over to the Herald. Now this is what is styled a “ threat.” I was very much astonished when I learned later on that the ‘ whole * of the copy had not been returned to me, the last sheet, containing most important matter, being retained at the Telephone office. I immediately applied for it. They admitted having had it, and yet failed to produce it, the Editor endeavoring to make it appear ho had returned the copy intact to me. This he must have known himself was incorrect, as I counted the sheets received, which were numbered to eight, and yet the report in full was nine (9) sheets. I endeavored patiently to point out to the editor his error, and he made a hurried attempt to search for the last sheet which was missing, and became annoyed at my persistent endeavours to obtain it. He was then emphatically told by me, either that the copy was in the office, or he had destroyed it. This increased his annoyance to that extent, that he demanded in a very angry tone—- “ Did I doubt him ? ” Implying was he a liar. All I can say is that I will give a reward to anyone in the Telephone Office, who will prove he is telling the truth. The remarks re telegrams concerning Mr. Gannon are also untruthful, and are only dragged in to bolster up a bad cause. Of course Mr. Locke’s telegrams cost the Telephone nothing, at least so he would lead us to infer. Mr. Frazer will be here, and can answer for himself and the lies he is accused of telling.— H. C. Boylan.”