THE KAKAHU BUSH SCHOOL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1575, 30 April 1887, Page 2

THE KAKAHU BUSH SCHOOL.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— Tories are the finest fellows in the world at election times, when they are ready to do anything and sacrifice everything for the benefit of the working man. Before the general election comes round I want you to let your readers know how that Tory rag, the Timaru Herald, treats a poor man when it is not electioneering. About a fortnight ago I kind of lost my temper at the stupidity of the School Committee and something else —but the laws that the Tories have made are not all in favor of honesty and outspokenness—aod coming home from a ineetin; in a passion, just about white heat, 1 sat down and wrote a letter to ease my mind a little. Copies of this I sent to you and the Editor of the Timaru Herald. You put it in the waste-paper basket because 1 had made an innocent person rather conspicuous, although you said you had no sympathy for the real sinners. The 'Editor of the Herald printed it with a foot note which led me to think that he understood my wroth to be aimed at the unoffending. I wrote again, explaining that it was not, and gave him a little more information, putting the saddle on the right ass, but he cut that out as a precaution against a libel action, ho said,* and in the next issue there was a leader about three libel cases, concluding witb the information that bis only trouble in guarding against libel was the correspondence in the open column, asserting that some men could not write about the public doings of others without libelling them. This was followed next day with a travesty in the open column by Spectator accusing me of making myself ridiculous by my terrible pen—my pen is just a common Wayerlsy nib, with a porcupine quill for a handle contradicting several things that I never said telling me what I knew, with soran assertions about a gentleman I don’t know—concluding with the assertion that 1 am such a cross-grained individual that I would differ with others through pure perversity, even when I knew they right, [f that isn’t libel it ought to be. Perhaps there is nothing libellous unless it is true. Spectator kept clear of . the question at issue, and had more gall than honey in his effusion. I thought that I felt the smell of brimstone and broade’oth when I read it, and remarked that John Calvin or the. devil had dictated 1 it. i don’t think the writer would hesitate to present a man with a loftier ideal and nobler sentiments than a sponge dipped in vinegar to moisten his parched lips in his last agony. The Herald witb its usual generosity closed the correspondence with this malicious slander. I appealed to its loye of justice to allow me an opportunity of again trying to remove the impression, wherever it might exist, that my complaint was against the innocent person that had beeu unavoidably referred to ui the letter. I gave a hint to ladies and gentlemen bow to detect wolves in sheep’s clothing—

Certain signs to know Faithful friend from flattering foe. But I was informed that the pnblication of that letter would prejudice the lady. Things must appear awfully different to Tories frond what they do to Radioala,—l am, etc. Wm. L. Dusoan. Kakahu Bush, 26th April, 1887.

[We rejected Mr Duncan’s former letter because it contained matter calculated to injure the young lady who had been appointed to the school. The Herald published the same letter, and, after having published it, and done all the damage, it had the cool impudence to say that it was calculated to injure the young lady. Why did not the Herald reject it when it ■aw it was damaging to the professional reputation of an innocent person T It was the wrong time to say it was damaging when the damage was done. It ia apparent now that Mr Duacan is better pleased with ue for rejecting it than with the Herald for publishing it. Wa said at the time that we believed no one would regret injuring innocence more than Mr Duncan, and his present apparent rage at his action being looked upon as having that tendency shows how exact our estimate of him was. We saw that his letter was an illconsidered hasty expression of opinion on a subject in which he took an intense interest and felt strongly, and that in order to reach what he considered injustice he was himself unjust. Mr Duncan doubtless did not realise that he was unjust when bis “ passion was about whita heat.” He took nobody into consideration except the objects of his wrath, and hence bis mistake. If the Herald bad thrown a little cold water on bis "white-heated” passion be would have been happier to-day, but the time' when common sense guided that paper is past. As regards " Spectator, ” Mr Duncan can pitch into him as bard as he likes so long as he does not try to identify any parson with him. Let him remember that in trying to identify Spectator he may be " putting the saddle on the wrong ass,” and thus be guilty of greater injustice. If he took our advice he would let the matter stand as it is at present. -The Editor.]