The Wairarapa Daily. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1881.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 3, Issue 926, 16 November 1881, Page 2

The Wairarapa Daily. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1881.

Mb Eenall has accused us of misrepresenting him l>y putting words in his mouth which he never used. This is a serious charge to make against any journal, and comingfrom any other public man than Mr Bbnau- would be it very damaging one. Mr Emu, however, jjs a man who is not very particular what he says, and his utterances carry very little weight with them. The following is tljo text of our report of the former meeting on fee Opaki, to which we Understand Mr Rj|NA(# takes objection :-

Mr Osborne: Which is tho worst, the Rabbit Act or the rabbits ? Mr Renall: The Act is five times worse than the rabbits. Mr Harding: Wo want lo get rid of tho rabbits. Mr Renall defied them to kill them. The Act might clear the men off the land but not the rabbits. Ho held two hundred acres of land; how was lie to slpjir the rabbits off them ? Mr Osborne; Employ working men, Mr Eenall: Let the working men go to— -\ Mr lorns: 1 rls.e lo a point of order ■ Mr Renall should not ho interrupted. Mr Renal!: I don't mind tho interruptions, but that was ut ' lapsus linguie.'' 'sow, we assert positively that this extract from our report is absolutely truthful, and that it is not exaggerated jn any ono particular. "vve have, subsequent to its appearance in our columns, met many Opaki settlers who were present at tho meeting in question, and each one corroborated tho statement raado in our report. Mr Renau,- may bluster as much as he likes, hut facts are stubborn things, and those we have referred to are capable of absolute proof, If we had misrepresented Mr Ernai.l we should have been the first to express our reu'at, and to offer liiin an ample apology; but we simply reported tho cogue honestly as it took place, and we certainly shall not submit to have our report called into question now, or at any future time, by Mr Renau without a protest. A public man may make a slip of the tongue in the heal of a moment, but this is the first time in our experience that any public man has taken tho extraordinary course of denying publicly words which were spoken in the presence of numerous witnesses, and of the nature of which there could not by any possibility be any reasonable doubt. If we wilfully misreported Mr Hekall on the occasion.' referred to, we did him an injury for which the law provides a remedy. Let him take this remedy if he behoves he is entitled to it. We are quite ready to defend our action in this matter—either in Court or out of it, .