OUR READERS’ OPINIONS. DR. COLLINS ACCEPTS MR. SHERIDAN’S CHALLENGE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXIIII, Issue 3625, 11 September 1912, Page 5

OUR READERS’ OPINIONS.

DR. COLLINS ACCEPTS MR. SHERIDAN’S CHALLENGE.

tro THE EDITOE.I

Sir,—l can hardly confess the pleasure it gives me to see Mr Sheridan throw down the gage of battle, but I fail to understand what end he lias in view, except that of future personal preferment—certainly not the interest of the Engineer, for that is tantamount to ai\ acknowledgment that he approves his administration, and on that platform lit: is prepared to stand should he care to contest the next election. Neither can 1 foresee to what ultimate good this correspondence will lead. I, however, trust you. Mr Editor, to close it when its ultimate, purpose has been served. Ihe opportunities, for engagement lie offers are the platform or the press, and I choose the latter. The weapons he has commenced his campaign with —personal epithets—l will accept them. His battleground and entrenched line of defence—the Engineer—these 1 decline, liecause neither he nor 1 have sufficient professional knowledge to express opinions of any real value, and it opens me always to an attack which I should be unable to defend of making charges against a man who is practically handcuffed, an argument my esteemed friend would not scruple to use against me—poor strategist that he is. I realize he will not be dislodged from bis entrenchments with ail outflanking move on my part. So in order to make him light on a battle-ground of my choosing (viz., a- battleground we will name Jack Sheridan for want of a better) it is imperative on my part- to render his own defence necessary, rather than that of the Engineer, and force him to prove his municipal honesty prior to either attacking or defending another’s. I will then endeavor to make him deal with main issues which up to the present he carefully avoids. Then we can play with the pawn or pawns which go to make this friendly correspondence interesting. Before concluding tlie.se preliminary remarks, I would like to state that Mr Sheridan is a personal friend of mine, and this duel is purely political, and in no way personal. Nor do I intend it shall be so

The innuendoes with which he prefaces his remarks that 1 am the author of correspondence bearing the noins dc plume “Opportunist” and •■Politician,” are unworthy of him. The very error of the. period in which lie was actually a councillor, likewise the Editor’s footnote, should prevent him in the future from making such useless and purposeless assertions. Further, I note tlic gentleman makes the interesting observation that my name does not appear on the ratepayers’ roll. In this he is right. I would just like to say J am financially interested in a valuable piece of property within the Borough boundaries. Further details, if he so desires, I will furnish him with as confidential information. This may possibly prevent further statements of such a

character. Again at the end of his correspondence I notice some very unsavoury epithets, such as "hysterical notoriety mongers” and "irresponsible meddlers.” Such expressions are very ungc-utlemaiily, but since such are his weapons of attack, I must descend to his level and utilise them as weapons of defence. From their method of introduction I take them to myself, as well as applicable, to many others, and he has my heartiest thanks for having used them. For the rest of the correspondence, it chiefly composes a- severe criticism of the present Council, excepting perhaps one or two, and a distinct reflection on the administrative capabilities of the present Mayor, and an intimation generally to the ratepayers, that he is a competent- person to adjudicate and undertake the defence of the ability or otherwise of the Engineer. That- my esteemed friend may have- shown to his business contemporaries shrewdness I do not deny But I cannot conceive -his ability to solve engineering capabilities with any degree of correctness or judgment to the public generally, or myself in particular, unless I also assume he is arrogating to himself a. knowledge tantamount to a very gross impertinence. My esteemed friend and I claim to be politicians. Therefore I would a-s'k your readers to assume we are both rogues. Which is the bigger this correspondence will serve to _ show, and if it does no other good it- will remain as a testament of how we regard each other politically. “Dog does not eat dog” unless one or the other becomes decidedly dyspeptic.. But my esteemed friend evidently thinks they do, and is prepared to put it to the test, So let it be Now I will use my esteemed friend s ungentlemanly epithets, and give a. typical example of how a hysterical notoriety monger and meddlesome irresponsible seeks to gain-office. “When Mr Sheridan contested-the seat- for Mayoral honors against Mr Lvsnar, bis nomination, I allege, was informal, and he was aware of it while contesting the election. So were one or two intimate friends. The rest of his partisans were kept in ignorance of the fact—even the very gentlemen who at his request took the platform (and some did so because we recognised his personal incapacity to meet an opponent of Mr Lysnar’s calibre singlehanded). Had we won this election, might T ask what would have been the 1 position of those gentlemen who trusted him and hol]M?d hunt and or the ratepayers generally in the eyes of the DominionV Will my esteemed friend feel aggrieved if J apply his own epithets to himself. Me will go to a stage further. Either the statements lie made- to me subsequent to the election are true or false- If true, I leave others to pass adequate judgment- on him. If false, they aio the expressions Of a pure braggart to escape his own defeat. If this is a misstatement of fact, lie will have an opportunity to give it a distinct denial, and 1 the pleasure of reminding him of the time and place of the peculiar circumstances under which it- occurred Also it might, be interesting to recall the compact he suggested m rim event of the last loans not having beep carried. , , v „ Mv esteemed friend must realise that it shows poor judgment foi partisans to disagree over a paun in the battle of conflicting interests, and an equally absurd problem for the attacking party to assume great municipal righteousness and integrity,, undei the halo of “Jack Sheridan m Polities and to him I would say- P 1 your disinterested motives,, and 1 may -condescend to treat you a it • zing some degree of mental ability and

discuss graver issues, and, if necessary, tight oil a battleground of your own choosing.—-Yours, etc., JAMES 0. COLLINS. • Gisborne, Sept. 10.