THE SUTTON INQUIRY.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 2033, 4 July 1885, Page 2

THE SUTTON INQUIRY.

The Evening Post having commented adversely _on Messrs Beetham and Buchanan in connection with Mr Davy's report on the Sutton case, Mr Buchanan has replied iu the following terms, without eliciting further comment:—To the Editor of the Post—Sir,—ln your issue.of yesterday. you give give a short summary. of Mr Davy's report on; Mr Suttons dismissal from the ; Sheep; Inspectorship of the Wairarapa district. To-day you give, expression to the | opinion that "Messrs Beetham and-fl Buchanan do not come at all nicely oat '1 of the enquiry, and that it is evident tHat | Mr Sutton had failed to make himself agreeable to these local magnates, and that they used their'political,influence against hip." • ■ • ; Turning to the full report itself, and papers attached, I "find that the supposed charges against Mr Beetham and myself are strictly confined to two items 1. That Messrs Beetham and Buchanan distinctly state that great dissatisfaction , exists as to the manner in which the department and Act is being .worked in ' the Wairarapa.

2. That having made arrangements to meet Mr • Bayly and Mr Sutton on 27th April, at Masterton in order to go into the whole question, we either failed or refused to do so, and consequently there was no enquiry.

Taking the last first, and .reading Mr Bayly's notification to Mr Sutton of the supposed appointment/ it may appear very extraordinary, but it is nevertheless absolutely and literally true, that, although happening to be in Masterton on that date.for a totally different purpose, it was not till Mr Bayly's notice to Mr Sutton was puhlished in a local paper Borne considerable time afterwards that I first became aware of the judge and jury position Mr Beetham and myself were expected to occupy. But it will be asked, what about Mr Boetham's approval of Mr Bayly's notice to Mr Sutton before it was .sent? Mr Beetham distinctly states that Mr Bayly quite misunderstood his meaning, and as distinctly denies having consented to take part in any enquiiy whatever.

And now as to the complaints supposed to have been previously made to the department by Mr Beetham and myself. During the early part of the year, as well as for some time previously, complaints were continually reaching us from settlers to the effect that clean certificates were hold as to flocks which they had tho strongest possible reasons for believing to be scabby, and that drafts from these flocks were being sold and driven on tho public roads, to the imminent danger of clean flocks throughout the djsfrict, These statements being made hy men in .whose good faith we had evory confidence, we at once considered it our duty as settlers and representatives of the district to urge that the Superintending Inspector should personally visit the infected portions of the district and judgo for'himself. For some time he took up the position that he could take no'; cognisance of anonymous complaints—thathe must have them madeinaformalandspecific manner before he could take any adtion whatever, The complainants, however, fearing retaliation by the Pjstriqt Inspector . ana by the holdcrgof these spurious certificates, refused to assume the position demanded by the Superintending Inspector, and so matters stood for some time, until he finally took the step we had all along urged him to take, viz., to visit the district himself, The immediate result, as is well known, was thodiscovery of long-standing scab in the Riversdale flock, and Mr. Davy rightly states that Mr Bayly's report of 2nd of June thereon was the immediate cause of Mr. Sutton's order to remove to Nelson. Mr. Davy is, 1 hewever, quite on error in stating' tlist Mr. Sutton had no opportunity given to him of explaining the presence of long-standing scab in the flock while a clean certificate was hold. A re-examination of the papers will show him the reference to Mr. Sutton, and his reply 1 allow of development of scab subaeiwerif his last inspection' it} all-sufficient reply |p" th'isi is flie we ]J, known faofc thai' sysfcqniatiQ killing and concealment of raliby eUeep had been indulged in far something like twelvo months previous to Mr Bayly's discovery. I have now, 1 think, conclusively shown' that Mr Beetham and myself wero fully justified in every step we took—not to injure Mr Sutton, but solely in the public interest, and that, had Mr Davy chosen to call us in evidence, lie would have been spared the issue of a report which is abviously so largely based upon imperfect and misleading evidence. ■ lam, &C., :;■> W. C. Buchanan, .