ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

Southland Times, Volume III, Issue 230, 19 March 1866, Page 3

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

•» WB DO NOT IDENTIFY OUBSELTES IN ANY WAY WITH THE OPINION 3 EXPBES3ED BY OTT_ OOBBESPONDEIfTS. •» THE RAILWAYS. TO THE EDITOB OP THE SOUTHIiAND TIMES. Sib, — Being not only an Enquirer by name, but also one by nature, I have to inform you in reerence to the answer published in the a local journal, to my former letter, that I regret to find the assertion made by Mr. Irvine that he " did not write the testimonial" he pubhshed to be a Bubterfuge, for I have, with many others, been shown the draft of this testimonial in his own handwriting with an accompanying letter, expressive of the deep obligation he would be under for a testimonial in those words. The offer of Mr. Irvine's services stated to have been made by him, is separate and distinct from the published letter of 16th February, 1866, the interlining of which letter by that gentleman in the words " both of these appointments being then vacant," is stated to be a mistake. With regard to the specified slopes of 2 to 1, instead of Hto 1. I wrote to the Railway Engineer for satisfaction with regard to so serious an assertion, and received the foUowing reply : — " Southland Rauways Engineer's Office, " InvercargiU, 15th March, 1866. Sib, — Although precluded by position and professional feeling and standing, from replying to the malicious mistatements, inexperienced reasoning, and personal abuse, leadipg'to the popular outcry which now (after an interval of nearly two years from the suspension of the railway works for want cf funds wherewith to complete them) endeavors to attribute to me every evU of such suspension, I have the greatest desire to satisfy any honorable and disinterested inquirer into my conduct of the works intrusted to my charge. The statement of your correspondent to which you refer, that " the drawings aUuded to in the specifications under the head of cuttings and embankments show the slopes of the cuttings to be one and a half, to one, and the slopes of the embankments two to one " is a merereiteration of one of the many previous mistatements on which voluminous arguments are based. .The slope of the cuttings is shown in the drawings referred to," as one to one and the slope of the embankments as one and a half to one, consequently your correspondent's assertion that "what he states in this respect is beyond dispute, and cannot be questioned," shows either that he misrepresents drawings he has not seen, or that having seen then, he is unable to scale them, or that having made gross mistatements, and argued on them, he does not yet see it, his interest to describe this mistatement as he did his attack and calumny on Dr. Menzies, under the novel excuse of " a slip of tlie pen." Whilst feeling it my duty to Bubmit for tho present to the malicious misrepresentations pubhshed by your correspondent and their temporary effect on the pubhc mind, I continue my services to the Provincial Government, after the due expiry of the notice given of my desire to terminate them, for the sole purpose of abiding the decision of the commission determined on, of competent Engineers from the neighboring Provinces. On the appointment of such a commission I shaU submit to it the voluminous attacks made on me, in order that every matter referred to in these may be thoroughly investigated and that I may be subjected in a report from competent and disinterested men to acquittal or censure as I may prove to merit either the one or the other. I have the honor to be, Sir, yours &c, R. M. Mabchant. I think it due to the Railway Engineer to publish his reply to my inquiries on the subject of the -slopes, which I requested in writing, and I do so the more readhy as the unprovoked attack by Mr. Irvine on Dr. Menzies, and his subsequent abject apology to that gentleman leads to the conclusion that other " slips of the pen" have been committed, and not as yet apoligized for. I am informed that if he was Superintending Engineer to the contractor it is not as stated by Mr. Irvine, " rubbish " to suppose that he should be conversant with what the specifications contained. It is strange that Mr. Irvine should have preferred publishing in proof of his ability the testimonial obtained from Mr. Davies, the draft ■ of which he prepared himself, — (for with the letter accompanying it, I, and many others, have been shora the document, and if Mr. Irvine denies its existence, it shaU be framed and glazed for pubhc inspection). If he possessed any certificate of services on pubhc works from any Engineer to whom he had served a period of pupilage, and it is so evidently Mr. Irvine's interest to publish such a document as not being prepared by himself, that if it had existence at the time the one aUuded to was pubhshed, his not doing so is to be regretted. Mr. Irvine claims in the testimonial so drafted by himself and pubhshed, to be Superintending Engineer to the contractor, but now he writes "As to carrying out the works according to con- " tract it was no business of mine. I was simply " employed by the contractor to do certain'pro- " fessional work, and it was my plain duty to do "zvhat I teas told without asking why oriohere"fore." Does this gentleman really understand what he writes; and what it implies, supposing him to have held the position he assumes to have held. In conclusion, I should fear that even some "slip of the pen " would be admitted and apologised for, to the applicants, before Mr. Irvine undertook at the request of his friends to hold the tar pot he speaks of, although from the rate at which his pen slipped, when he drafted his own testimonial, and pubhshed it, I fear he has had some acquaintance with pitch, and that it has not left him altogether undefiUed. — I remain yours &c, luquibeb. InvercargiU, 18th March, 1866.