SEPARATION

Southland Times, Issue 562, 17 September 1866, Page 3

SEPARATION

(to the editob of the soxtthxaot) times.) Sic, — I obserye in a recent number of the Southland Times (Sept. 10) a communication, signed " Terroe Filius," (whatever that may mean) purporting to be a reply to my letter on Separation. - 1 cannot help feeling greatly amused with the extreme innocence of the writer, and his evident happy unconsciousness that he was offering in his own person a brilliant specimen of the " Positive" and " Pathetic " anti-Separationists combined, and fighting my battle by exemplifying the perfect correctness with which I delineated the paltry style of pseudo-argu-

ment adopted by that class. As I stated " they rest their hopes on mere declamation," — a remark which greviously rouses the ire of " Terroe Filliu3 " from its undeniable truth. My opponent asserts in the first place, that "in the Separation in the Assembly, not only my arguments but many others were very fairly answered." That is a simple " assertion," on his part, and a mere matter of opinivn. I hold a different view. Let him produce the arguments he so much admires, and I will demolish them forthwith. In the next place he accuses me of " an unjust and utterly unfounded libel " { (may I point out that the adjectives and adverb are superfluous, and comprehended in the noun ?) on the Northern settlers, and remarks that " I have made a serious charge against them ; am I prepared to substantiate it ? " Most undoubtedly I am ! But this would only be called for had I enunciated a new and startling accusation on unknown grounds. This is not the case. [Ah, my good friend, you will never make a debater !] On the contrary, I drew a fair and logical inference from facts known and patent to the world —an inference already drawn publicly in the Australian papers. Here agnin we have " unlimited declamation, but of reasons nil." If my charges are untrue, let him prove .the falsehood. My opponent, in his next sentence, again shows signal incapacity as a debater, and a lamentable — I may even say a " post-prandial " — degree of mental confusion. Can he really be so obtuse as not to see that a war in whose object we have no interest, must be, both directly and indirectly, prejudicial to us. Directly — because we have to pay for it. Indirectly — because it injures the reputation of the whole Colony. If so, it is useless to argue the point, unless I could supply him not only with arguments, but with brains to comprehend them. And I may add also temper. It is a sad mistake to be violent and ferocious in discussion. Referring to my " second main argument," he asks how and why Seperation would terminate the Provincial system ?" I must call his attention to that part of my letter describing the plan of government I should wish established, in place of the present one ; there will be found the answer to his question. I may here remark that although, the alterations I proposed may be deemed chimerical and Utopian, few will deny that they offer the best means of escape from the extravagant, complicated, and detestable form of government witli which we are at present cursed. Lastly I notice that I am declared to have sinned in quoting the remarks of my literary friend, but as I am not made aware of the nature of my iniquity, I am unable conscientiously to utter a penitent "peccavi!" To tell the truth, I rather piqued myself on my candor and fairness in publishing the most able and forcible argument on the other side (although starting from mistaken premises) that I had met with. How difficult it is to judge impartially our own actions ! How fortunate that we have one in our midst so eminently qualified to do it for us ! ! " Oh ! let us be joyful ! !!" Looking calmly at my opponent's letter as a whole, it is somewhat difficult to understand why it was written at all. A reply it is not. It abounds in declamatory assertion and unmeaning queries, but does not contain a single argument, unless it be that novel and original aphorism " Union is strength." I may be wrong, but I really cannot help' fancying that I have heard that remark before. I can conjecture two possible motives for the letter. First, is " Terroe Filius" an artful Separationist assuming the disguise of an anti- Separationist and parodying in ludicrous fashion, the weak and claptrap quibbling of that party for the purpose of bringing it into ridicule and contempt ? If so, the idea was adadmirable and ably w©rked. I am inclined to adopt this view as the second supposition is sadly ill-natured and cruel — namely, that the whole purport of the letter may be found, as in feminine epistles — at the end ; that in fact, it was written to display the author's proficiency in Spanish and Latin, which languages I apprehend the quotations are imtended to represent, but to which they bear but faint resemblance. Let me assure " Terroe Filius" that I am not so evil-minded as to entertain such an idea for a moment. But Ido regret, Mr Editor, that your various types does not include the Grreek alphabet, as I am thus debarred from exhibiting to an admiring world my profound and intimate acquaintance with the language of Homer, Plato, and Demosthenes, and must perforce be content to sign myself simply, Tours truly, Chables Eotts Ma-r/iw. Martendale, Sept. 12, 1866.