Colonel Whitmore on Private Telegrams.

Thames Star, Volume X, Issue 3174, 22 April 1879, Page 2

Colonel Whitmore on Private Telegrams.

The following letter has been published by Colonel Whitmore, explaining his conduct in reference to Hon. Mr Waterhouse's telegram to Hon. Mr Hall, the particulars of which appeared in our telegraphic columns a few days ago. He gays:—"The-telegram opened was clearly addressed to me—clearly intended for me, and came to be in ordinary course liko any other telegram. The clerical error to which Mr Walerhouse refers occurred in another telegram altogether, which was delivered in Ohristchurch, and it was not I, but Mr Hall, who mistook the same, and he has clearly stated that he' meant his reply for me. I received a telegram signed by Mr Hall, referring to one from me. I had never sent such a telegram, indeed I had never sent a private telegram in my life to Mr Hall, and I have no unofficial correspondence with him,

consequently I could not regard the message otherwise than a trap and forgery. Obviously, I had not the least reason to suppose Mr Waterhouse concerned. At that moment the air was full of rumours, and the invention of Opposition wiieacres was largely exercised in producing political skits of all kinds, which credulous or mischievous people telegraphed about the country. That morning I had read one of these, professing to name certain rather improbable gentlemen as being about to replace some of the Ministry. Mr Hall's telegram would have been a reasonable answer to any message recapitulating the contents of this skit, and the solution of the matter which occurred to mo was that somebody had forged my name to such a telegram addressed to Mr Hall, and that he~had regarded me ns an outgoing Minister, and sent a sympathising reply; otherwise it might have been a forgery of Mr Hall's name sent to' draw,' me on to the subject of the supposed split in the Cabinet. At all events, I looked upon it as a forgery, and, in shewing it in confidence to my colleagues, and asking their advice, I did what I considered natural aad right. To say that a forger catf) protect himself by putting • private' oftthe document would be ridiculous. Myfcolleagues concurred in my view; but the comical side of the matter struck them more forcibly than'it did' me, and they thought it was, probably, meant as a joke. However, Mr Fisher kindly examined all the telegrams bearing my signature for the past: few dayg at theVWellington office, and I wired to Mr Hall, so that inquiries might be made at Christchurch, and the result was unexpected. Mr Hall replied that, on second reading, he found that he had mistaken the signature, .which was ' Whitehouse.' On this I applied to Mr Waterhouse, who admitted the paternity of the original telegram, and I handed over Mr Hall's with my reply, of which I have no copy. I re« member, however, having told Mr Hall that I had shewn the telegram to my colleagues. This is the whole story as far as my colleagues are concerned. It does not explain all the reports wbiohhave been in circulation, with which, however, none of the Ministry have any connection. As a rule these reports have shewn a complete misconceptfen of the eonteats of Mr Waterhouse' first telegram, which he had the opportunity, but chose not to remove. In his letter he gave out that it purported to be an account of what h* had written, but stopped short just as it became interesting. Why did he not giv* the names of the proposed Ministry of his telegram P As he has not done so, I will try to account for the omission. Had he told the whole L'uth, I believe he would have shewn that he had jumped too credulously to the conclusion that the political squib above alluded to'was true, and had hastened to communicate, his intelligence to his political friends. ' To have exposed himself thus as a retailer of silly canards was top galling to his pride, and he preferred to put forward an account: yhioh .was hardly ingenuous.,., He, however, felt it was tru3, and that accidentally I had come to know it, and his vexation hat betrayed an amiable gentleman into losing his temper, and becoming abusivei Ido not intend to follow his example,,and, therefore, pass over his uncomplimentary remarks about myself without reply.— I am, :&o* t Ot. 3. WHiTkoßK.''., if,.> f