MR. TERRY AND MR HENDERSON.

Marlborough Express, Volume XVI, Issue 292, 15 December 1881, Page 2

MR. TERRY AND MR HENDERSON.

To the Editor of the ExtitKss. >Sir%, — I note your local m which you deprecate i orrc'spondence of a personal character, therefore I am m some doubt as to whether you will insert any reply for me as against Mr Terry's letter m your issus of the 14th inst., I trust, however that ytv ■ will allow me space for a short rejoinder. My original charge agiipst Mr Terry was that at Mr Seymour's meeting, m giving what he called the whole facts of the retirement of Mr Henderson, he did not state the facts correctly. | The first question between us was— Did I go to Chnttchnrch " mainly " to announce my retirement. Mr Terry said I did. I say I did not, and I suppose I know what I went for better than Mr Terry. Mr Terry now abandoos the " mainly," so I win on that point. It is true I might announce my intention to retire, from Christchurcb, if I co decided. The next point is- Did Mr Dodson wait "some days" for a reply before convening the meeting to make kuown my retirement ? Mr Terry gives this point up ton, so his statement at Mr Seymour's meeting was not correct, and that is what I said. Mr Terry now shifts the ground from what he said at the meeting, and says that Mr Dodson did not ask me to reconsider ; therefore there was no necessity to wait. Now, one wonders bow Mr Terry could have been so long, under tho delusion that Mr Dodson had requested me to reconsider, seeing that he was m intimate communication with Mr Dodson all I along, even before Mr Dodson wrote to me at all. It is strange he never found it out till now. It would appear according to Mr Terry that we have all been labouring under a mistake— Mr Dodson did not do auythi.jg 30 generous : he never asked me to reconsider. I am happy to say that your readers will not tbink this to be the case when 1 lay before them Mr Uodson's own letter to me. It is as follows :— " Blenheim, 25th August, 1881. My Dear Mr Henderson, — 1 was very pleased with the contents of your letter of the 11th [16th], and after so good a report from the menieo, made m so searching a manner, I had quite concluded that not only were yon out of danger, hut that you would still contest the seat. Your second letter has dispelled all this, and now I suppose I must really face the position ; hut I cannot bring myself to the scratch, and so far have taken no steps beyond m confidence consulting Terry. He is quite of your opinion that you out of the way, the party will look to me to .take the | place. I have not spoken to anyone else, nor do I intend until I again hear from you. Terry is of opinion that, grntacdyou adhere tv your present purpose, the change should not be made public until after the Borough elections are over ; September 10th is, I think, the lust one. I am rather of this opinion myself, but this is just one of those [points] where your feelings should be consulted. If, therefore, you wish the announcement made I will at once do so. Upon receipt of your letter of 18th [19th] , I went to the telegraph office intending to send you a long telegram asking you to re-consider the position; but, remembering past disclosures, I cut out all but the bare words youwill have received. I must admit that I feel a very coward m this business. I have bo long looked for you to take the seat that I find myself almost unable to realise the fact that you are not to do so ; and it seems like a cruel piece of fate that I should fake your place.' I cannot get over the idea that I am robbing you of your just right. I know all that can be .sain about the close friendship, and that it matters I very little which of us either win or lose a battle -uae is affected equally with the other —but this does not dispose of the fact that I shall be taking a place you could much better | fill, and that my feelings would be better l gratified to see you m it than be there myself. I cannot get cvei this feeling, and while fJicre is any possible clmwx of your wind, chanyiinj, I hmm I shall' be coward ciumi/h to shrink from I In; work until the last ntoment. [Omitting irrelevant matter,] Hoping, to hear from you soon) I remain yours, H. Dodson." [The italics are mine.] That is the letter. Jly understanding of it was, that Mr Dodson would not even speak to anyone on the subject till he heard from me again ; that even Mr Terry allowed it was yet an open question, as I might not- " adhere" to my theu intention. [We have here eliminated a part of Mr Henderson's letter, reflecting upon a public department.] I leave it to your readers to say if that is not a commbusehse view of the case, and that Mr Dodson did give me the opportunity of re-considering, with a view to a change of mind, assuring me that " while there was any possible chance of my mind changing" he would " shrink from the work until the last moment ;" and that he did not intend even to speak to anyone else than Mr Terry " until he again heard from me." The question is, then : Did Mr Dodson ask me to re-cousidar '.' Mr Terry vow says "he did not." I say that, to all intents and purposes, he did ; and I rest my statement on tho letter, and leave your readers to judge.

The nest point is about the locals m the " Times," which Mr Terry said were " appearing m issue after issue, stating that Mr Henderson would not contest the seat." I asked Mr Terry to produce these locals. He produces two Uwiils, but as -they- are both of dates prior to my mind being. made up to retire, and before my letter to that effect was written m Christchurch, they do not apply. However, neither of these locals say that "Mr Henderson would not contest the f«» 1 ,." One of them says that U A rumor :•» hjw current to the effect that it is Mr Dodi on'i intention to contest the Wairau." But, i-trungeto say, the li'test local says, not that I " would not contest the seat," but quite the reverse; that I refused to make room' for Mr Dodson. The Jocal states that the " principal reasons why Mr Dodson will be unable to come forward is said to be that Mr Henderson somewhat selfishly refuses to retire m his favor, and persists m claiming a sort of pre-emptive right to. the seat." This is- positively comical—quoting this to prove that I would not contest the seat. Mr Terry then has" entirely failed with his "locals." and we will revert to the position furnished us by Mr Dodson- that the " Times," up to the very day of the meeting he convened to announce my retirement, " evidently had not heard of anything." Air Terry has not proved wh°t lie said to be true.

I challenged Mr Terry m the matter of saying that one of ray family had circulated a statement all over the town, to the effect that I Trouhl not contest the seat. He has nut proved his statement at nil. On the contrary, he proves, by n quotation from a letter of Mr Dud?on's, that the ue.vs was not generally known, bat only that a certain " Mre - — got to know something [only something, mark] of our secret, arid finding this the case I did not feel justified m keeping the knowledge from our friends, for it would be out aurt ovor the country m a few hours." You see it was not then out aud over the country, that lay m the futuro ; and Mr Terry's statement that one of of my family had circulated it all over the town is seen to be quite wrong. Mr Dodson iiad to call our friends together to tell them that which was all over the town, and which had been m issue after issue of the " Tiinen." How ridiculous an argument, Mr Terry is m an equally awkward position as tegards the advertisement to ths electors he was 11 jisrty to drawing up for me. He

argues to try and make out that I matta my own state of health to be as bad m my letter as it was made for me m the advertisement. If this were the case, why did he depart from the words of my letter m drawing up the advertisement? Why did they not publish that which I sent for publication? Sly Utter was limited to the " state of my health with relation to the coming contest." T'ae inkerti'.fetnent precluded ma " from again coining forward," without limitation. The advertisement nia<?e more members of the medical profession than one adverse to me ; though they had my letter before them, which declared that the Christchurch doctor said, after a searching investigation, there was nothing the mutter with me of the nature I was afraid of. This was dsliberate misrepresentation to my disadvantage. My letter showed a state of making up my mind not to stand. The advertisement made it that I was " precluded," . and that it was " impossible,'? and that it was "not m my power to be of any < ; further service," all much more severe forms of expression than there were m my letter. I say again, " friends " would have made the expressions milder rather than more severe. It was not on the doctor's opinion that I gave np_, but by my own anxiety for fear I might not be able "freely" to do the work. Let anyone read my letter and read the advertisement, and they will see that there is a wide difference between the two dooumenta, and that Mr Terry is wrong when he would try to make us believe that there is no difference. I see Mr Terry admits that he.was m error when be said that I bad never expressed a willingness to stand after my return from Christcuurch. I had not done so to bis " knowledge," he says. All the part of my letter relating to this part of the subjeot is passed over, so I presume it is admitted to be true. Mr Terry is oertainly committed to the position that ." Mr Dodson, purposely to | allow Mr Henderson an opportunity of coming forward if he wished, delayed the announcement of bis candidature till nearly a fortnight after Mr Henderson's' return from Christchurch." This is a remarkable position for Mr Terry new that he says Mr Dodson never asked me to reconsider the position. I don't understand why it should be "purposely" kept open if I was not to have the chance of acting on a change of mind. Mr Teiry introduces now and irrelevant matter, but as there would be no end of a discussion followed m that way, I confine myself to the original topics of his Bpeech. Of his last paragraph I take no notice, it is not argument, but abuse, and I do not want to use your journal for any such purpose; indeed, it is not m my line. I have shown above that Mr Terry has failed to support, by proof or argument, the statements he is reported to have made at Mr Seymour's meeting. Yon have allowed Mr Terry con. siderable license m hard names. I shall not follow suit. ' Geobok Henderson. lath December, 1881. GEO. HENDERSON. ' • To the Editor of the ExwtHSS. Sir,,— The letter m last night's Express signed "Geo. Henderson," is only fiddling on the old- familiar string! There is the much abased "I," and then "Geo. Hendersou," there is the usual vanity, and " Geo. Henderson " keeps it company, then the well-known conceit,' and "Geo. Henderson " dancing attendance, here a cold and heartless sneer, then a . snap and the icicle " Geo. Henderson," theu a selfish platitude, and presto " Geo. Henderson " stalks forth. Look where we will m this wordy waste, and " Geo. Henderson " iB to the front. It begins with "Geb. Henderson," ends with '"Geo. Henderson," and "Geo. Henderson" fills the., middle, ' Please, Mr Editor, spare ns m future. Your readers are patient and long-suffering, but they tie very sick of ,an over done of " Geo, Henderson." Peace. Wedneidajy December 14th, 1881.