SIR WALTER BULLER IN REPLY.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 10298, 9 May 1896, Page 3

SIR WALTER BULLER IN REPLY.

I Sir,— l havo no Intention of continuing the correspondence on the Horowhanna Commission or of entering Into any controversy with Mr A. l>. D. Fraser. Bntl have just a word to say in reply to the postscript to bis lengthy letter, the rest of his matter being for the moat part mere " leather and prunella." I deny that I proposed putting in my "pamphlet." I explained to the Commission that I had stripped off the Introduction and the newspaper commenta at the end, and that what I proposed putting in waa merely the reprint of what bad appeared in Hansard, exactly as I had received It from the Government Printing Office. The chairman observed that this was already on offioial record, and I aaid that my only object in referring to U was that I might affirm on oath, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the troth of every word contained in my speech and examination at the bar of the House, which I accordingly did. Mr Fraser is presumed to have known what privileges the course I adopted gave him In the way of, crossexamination. This statement of faota will show at whose door the " misrepresentation," if there has been any, actually rests, It is perfectly true that lv my address to the Commission I freely aoknowledged the fairness and courtesy of the three gentlemen who had been opposed to me throughout the proceedings, saying that they they had never so mnch ! as hinted, in their examination of witnesses, at any unfairness or wrong doing on my part, let alone insulted me by any Bnggestion of fraud, as had been done elsewhere. It was not till after I had made my speech that Mr Fraser scattered all ronnd bis imputations of falsehood, and I took the first opportunity of telling the Commission, In anything but amblgnouß language', what I thought abonb it. It is equally true that in 18S7 Mr Fraser, who was then a .stranger to me, came forward in a chivalrous spirit to defend an absent man in the Native Land Court, and thla friendly aot wbb suitably acknowledged by me at tbs time. Let yonr readera say whether it is "good form " for Mr Fraser to parade tbis fact in public nearly ten years afterwards ! At any rate Mr Fraser seems determined to undo now the volnntary service he then performed. The aspersions which Mr Fraser admits were "false, cruel, and I cowardly " were practically the same as those contained in Sir Robert Stout's i famous memorandum of 1886. My " explanation of Sir Robert Stout's statements" were already "placed on the records of this colony," and Mr M'Kenzle onght to have known it. Sir Robert Stout has done what he could to atone for his error, and I bear him no 111 will over it. Mr Kraser, on the contrary, endeavors to give freah color to it by repeating in bh letter Mr M'Kenzle's utterly uncalled- tor remarks on this subject as recorded in Hansard.— l am, &c, Walter L. Buller. Wellington, May 7th, 1896.