ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

Southland Times, Issue 727, 23 September 1867, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

■©■ — — WE DO NOT IDENTIFY OURSELVKB IN ANY WAY WITH THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED BY OUB CORRESPONDENTS. (TO THE EDITOR OF THE SOUTHLAND TIMES. Sir, — Up to this time I have been under the impression that conductors of newspapers have always considered it a point of honor to consider letters sent to them for publication and signed by what are termed " norn de plumes" confidential, unless by the expressed consent of the writers. Tou will therefore be able to judge of my astonishment when Mr Aylmer (a gentleman whose friendship I have enjoyed since the middle of 1850, and whose word I know to be unimpeachable) informed me that a Mr Sayers had shown to him, and others in his presence, the manuscript of a letter sigued " Resident" written by me to the editor of the " News" and published in that paper. I have not the least objection to every person in Invercargill knowing that I was the author of that eifusion, but as I never gave the " News" editor permission to make the authorship public, I say now, what I have said to him in a note, that his allowing this document to fLU iu.t<a .BuoL. lia.n.ds is perfectly inexcusable. What appears to me most extraordinary in this transaction is, that the person he took into his confidence is an individual who, unintentionally to himself, pays me a high compliment by holding me in great abhorrence. I can only come to the conclusion that the editor of the " News" sympathises with Mr Sayers in his personal dislike to me, and therefore took this way ' of showing it. My experience of life has taught me that the displeasure^of some persons is a favor, and the friendship of the same parties a positive insult. With' your permission I will make one or two remarks upon the letter in question. I will only say in preface that neither directly nor indirectly have I heard whether Mr Smyth (the gentleman written against therein), has either read it, or resents it. If Mr Haigh's assertion was right, there can be no doubt that Mr Smyth was wrong ; yet my taking up the epistolary cudgels for the nominally aggrieved party was Quixotic in the extreme, and several parts of the letter ai*e objectionable even to myself,

I particularly allude to the would-be facetious remark about Mr Smyths name. This was uncalled for, especially as whenever we have met, we ha^e done so upon apparently very friendly terms. After my letter, it may appear strange my saying that as far as I am concerned, I still feel the same. The cause of my momentary ire was that if what Mr Haigh accused him of was true, Mr Smyth not only injured himself, but those parties also with whose policy he is more or less identified. If the wording of that letter has in any way annoyed him, (and I repeat I have not the least idea whether he laughed at it, or was angry) I can only say I am very sorry. Now, as I very much doubt the good faith of those persons connected with your contemporary, I have ceased to be a supporter of that paper, which action on my part, I have no doubt, will not materially affect , its pecuniary circumstances. It will be able, I dare say, to get on without me, and I shall be able to enjoy life without it. As Sam "Weller says, " our exhausted naters will be able to surwive it." — Your obedient servant, W. Innes Bridges.