D.H. MERVYN. (To the Editor)

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 146, 24 November 1870, Page 7

D. H. MERVYN. (To the Editor)

Sih, — Will you kindly permit me to state through the medium of your columns that as I purpose shortly addressing a meeting at Tuapeka, where my words will be reported, that I decline replying to the garbled atfd maliciously false representation - of what I stated at the meeting I had the honour to address at West Eoxburgh. I wish also, in justice to the inhabitants of the Teviot, to say that nothing could be more kind and enthusiastic than the reception and hear- j ing which I had on that occasion ; and ' that it was simply owing to an oversight on the part of the chairman, Mr. Low, that the motion thanking me for speaking, expressing their confidence ! in me, and requesting me to become a candidate for the Waikaia district in the Assembly, and the Mount Benger district in the Provincial Council, was not put the meeting. I immediately pointed out the mistake to the chairman (after the vote of tiianks had j been proposed to the chair), and he was going to put it to the meeting when I suggested it was a matter of no importance, as at that stage of the meeting, it would have been irregular ; but so far as I could judge, there was only one dissentient in the room, a person who, for reasons best known to himself, has always been a bitter opponent of mine, and who, on all occasions, assumes to dictate to the miners and settlers of this district how they shall vote. I also deny that I said that no member of the House of Representatives was to be held responsible for anything stated by him in private, but I quoted the following remarks from the hon. Mr. Waterhouse's speech (see " Hausard " No. 14, page 631) to show the inadvisaj bility of introducing private conversations at a public meeting : — " In these matters we have to deal with the public opinion of public men, and we go beyond our province when we take account of private conversations and private actions, although they may be | those of public men. If we do not observe that difference, debate will be embittered, and the freedom of intercourse amongst ourselves will be very materially restricted." Sir, at that meeting, I asserted what I now repeat, that I did everything in my power to prevent the Clutha being made the boundary line between the Dunstan and the Waikaia districts, and iit was only when I believed that a member would be taken away from [ the goldfields (as we had a hard tight to get the fifth member), if we insisted on a population of 760 persons having a member to themselves, that I gave way and acquiesced in Mr. Macandrew's proposal to make the Clutha the boundary line of the two districts. This statement is true or it j is not true. If untrue, what more j easy than to prove that such is the case. Sir, I consider it degrading to a representative to have to answer such trumpery charges. I suppose my chief offence in some people's eyes, is that I am a resident in the district which I represent, but I would infinitely prefer any other person being placed in my position did I believe that your correspondent's opinion was shared in by half a dozen people in the district. Qf course, sir, 1 don't refer to the article headed " Communicated," as it was not written by a resident in this district. I treat it with the contempt it deserves, apologising for troubling you. — T am. &c, D. H. Mervyn.