INLAND MAIL TENDERS.

Marlborough Express, Volume XI, Issue 874, 9 December 1876, Page 7

INLAND MAIL TENDERS.

Sir, — Cm you inform us if the General Government intend accepting any of the mail tenders called for some two month 9 since, and what is more to the point, returning the heavy deposit tnosiev which had to accompany each tender.. — Yours, &c, A Tenderer. ANOTHER VIEW OF THE IN QUEST. Sir,— As you have permitted Mx James Sinclair to publish rather more than two columns of what he calls incontrovertible truth, I trust that m the spirit of fair play you will allow me the right of reply. I will endeavor to be brief, but before I proceed I wish to preface my remarks* by stating that I am not actuated by any regard for what Mr Sinclair has either said or insinuated with reference to myself, as m my estimation his good opinion is no credit and his bad one no disgrace. I write now aS I have ever done with the sole desire to defend the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That person's lengtliy effusion|is one of those cunningly devised tissues of truth and falsehood where the two are artfully blended like the colors m a pipce of shot silk, and the shades can only be discovered as the light falls on them. His letter is'liko the playof Hamlet with the Prince of Denmark left out. As the first two paragraphs refer more especially to yourself I shall pass them by. The first sentence I shall notice, is the assertion that ." the rowdiness that went on lies wholly at the door of a majority of the jurymen— none at mine." Now, Sir, I tell the man who pnnneii those words that he is a gross perverter of the truth. The "rowdiness" was begun by himself before the Coroner had completed the examination of the witnesses, so much so that I rose and said that " I must request the Coroner to call Mr Sinclair to order." I di<i not do that m a corner, but m the presence of the public who were m the jury room,' and I defy contradiction. And several times during the inquest 1 expressed my dissatisfaction at the course adopted m the examination of witnesses.. The object of. the enquiry was to discover the oriyiri of the fire, and 1 was not willing to lend myself to the crnitiHcation of porsoual or political maljce, lam as ready, as

Mr Sinclair to fearlessly denounce the wron.j doing of any Government or any drpsitmtmt ' thereof, but I also have some regard for the proprieties of time and place. -Mr iSihulnii- i»r all I kn -w might be a very clever nun, an 1 capable of "-wheeling about and tiiruiug a'mut and jumping Jim Crow "better than Mr Kite himself, and his talent m that direction/would not entitle him to perform id Church while humbler geniuses were at prayers. Consequently I objected to the jury being utilized for a purpose beyond their jur sdictinn and I stated publicly that I considered that many questions were asked totally ireltvant to the object of the-enjuiry. Notwithstanding the laboured efforts (that were made, no evidence was adduced by which the mode m which the-business of the E.M. Court was conducted could be m any way associated with the origin nf the fire. Of course Mr Sinclair lost no opportunity of loudly complaining with his usual verbosity aliont (he inconvenience wliich lie hnd been put to by the regulations of the R.M's Office"; that did not however elucidate the.mystery, which the jury were empannelled to nnvavel. I repeat an assertion made m my first letter which you objected to publish that "The Coroner proposed to adjourn-the. the inquest", m consequence of Mr Sinclair's indecorous- behavior," but he discoveied he had made the offer too late, that the only course open would have been to discharge the jury and call a new panel, and. of course we all wished to avcid such an extrememecasure.. Mr Sinclair says " public opinion is a powerful lever, but it should never find entrance into a jury room." Why then did he endeavour so assiduously to introduce it during the enquiry and afterwards m the rider? There are two other things which should never enter a jury room—beer and brandy —but Mr Sinclair obtained both aud drank them m my presence, and ifc was because I objected to that part of the proceedings that he insulted me by using language which applied to nic m any other pbice would have assuredly . caused ft breach of the peace. This important part of the case Mr Sinclair carefully leaves' out of his letter, because that is the bogie m the cupboard which he wishes, to hide. And it was m reference to that proceeding that the foreman said, Mr Sinclairs conduct " would lead anyone to suppose that he had been bought over to purposely bring the jury inSo contempt." Mr • Dodson did notaccuj-e him of being bought over, but that such an outrage of decency by a man who had sworn to give a proper and impartial verdict would lead to such a supposition.. These-' are the facts on which the wholo history of the matter hangs,' the principal figure iv the drama—carefully cut out —With the whole of the remaining facts which Mr Sinclair has grossly distorted, I have not time to deal nor do 1 think his assertions of sufficient importance to merit a-reply. I have one question- hawover to ask before I conclude. When did Mr Sinclair refuse the foreinauship of that Jury? To.my certain knowledge he was never proposed and if he had be.eu'l should certainly have proposed some one else. I have no desire to drag other people into this dispute or I could -nentiiiU names and reveal facts m connection with this enquiry that Mr,.Sinclair would have acted wisely to have kept a little closer to himself. In, conclusion .J have to say that according to the school of morals m whicji I was educated, the man who tells the truth m such a way as to deceive and with that end m viesv is practically and morally a liar. With these remarks I quit the subject, nor shall I ayain ask you to spare me auy space m reference - to this matter. —l am &c, Dec. 4th 1876. Charles J. Rae.