MR STANFORD AND THE " UNSPOKEN SPEECH."

Otago Daily Times, Issue 7004, 28 July 1884, Page 4

MR STANFORD AND THE " UNSPOKEN SPEECH."

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—l think I have before described Mr Stanford's original line of defence in this matter as " hopeless." It consisted in a denant denial that the pretended "report" was bogus at all; and to account for an otherwise respectable body of men engaging in an infamous and purposeless plot against Mr Stanfords character, and each and all making separately the same determined though reluctant exposure of the alleged trick, the theory was introduced that tho Council was " angry " Quite apart from the fact that Mr Stanford'is (or was then) an intimate and valued personal friend of my own, and that our relations at and after the interview were most cordial, I cannot permit myself to fear for a moment that this theory will be held to. account for the facts. A deliberately organised resolve among ourselves that the Council collectively, and each of us .separately, should devise and promulgate a Blanderous falsehood in order to inprove the condition of the ratebook, is utterly inconceivable. Something better must be set against our unanimous statement. As a defence, I again say, the theory which Mr Stanford asks your readers to accept is hopeless. Tj^is Mr Stanford evidently now sees himself, and thus, in his la.st letter, begot as far'as his signature withcut once inserting into his "challenges" even the mildest reassertion of his original defence. This was as it should be ; but unfortunately tho same qualities—l don't think I will undertake to describe them—to which we are indebted for the pretended report itself tempted him, after all, to add at the last moment the postscript, which I transcribe in full: " I may add that the general accuracy of your report of my speech is vouched for by two of those present when it was delivered." I dare say it is; but Mr Stanford has characteristically omitted to mention the trifling fact that those two are Mr R. L. Stanford and his principal, Mr Kitchener. As everyone else present (there were about a dozen altogether) unhesitatingly pronounces the " report" to be bogus from beginning to end, possibly this supplementary information may be desirable. In the matter of solemn trifling with the common-sense of his readers, in fact, this postscript exactly compares with Mr Stanford's elaborate description: of his "careful comparison "of " his notes" with " your report " (he knows perfectly well, of course, that no reporter.was present at all), and of how, after " dbtaining-a copy of your issue," and so on, he laboriously arrived at the discovery that "his notes and your report correspond with somewhat unusual and somewhat singular accuracy.". I trust such "correspondence,' so described, is both unusual and singular.' These two instances (Mr Stanford will be glad to have me admit) " correspond " also with the history of the unspoken speech itself, and are of the kind which "tries the patience of his best friends.

I must decline, Sir, to ba drawn into a per. sonal squabble with Mr Stanford through the medium of your columns. I hope it will be borne in mind that it was not I, nor the Council, which foisted this local quarrel upon your readers at all. I shall not therefore notice Mr Stanford's personal abuse of myself. But I am "challenged" to prove what I have stated, and. this would be a perfectly fair demand if it is seriously thought by anyone but Mr Stanford that my proofs are not already absolute. I do not think thia can be serioualy thought. I refer Mr Stanford to your report of the unanimous declaration of the county councillors, and to my own published remarks; and I will merely add that, if desired, our declaration can be, and if necessary will be, even further proved by further witnesses. But Mr Stanford must throw reasonable doubt upon those before JI go to further trouble in the matter, and this he cannot effect by mere rabid $huse of myself, or accusations of. infamous conspiracy against councillors generally. It is hopeless. Still, Sir, there is another aspect of the matter, and jit is this; you, Sir, are interested in the rights and wrongs of it. You Lave been induced unwittingly to give publication to a false report tending to the injury of the Council in matters now before the Supreme Court, and presumably to the benefit of Mr Kitchener's solicitor in the case, who happens to be Mr Stanford. The Council confidently believes that you would regret having been led into. a position sq incompatible with your usual fairnesn and dienitv. In answ" •;■.» the " challenge," I therefore say this, premising that for all other purposes the Council's statements are already proved beyorjd the possibility of doubt: — 1, As to tha utter falsity of the report, aa a I report (its falseness as a statement is equally" complete, but. that is nothing to the present purpose), inquire into it, Sir, for your own satisfaction in any way that occurs to you as best and completest; give Mr- Stanford full liberty to join in the inquiry j satisfy yourself, and publish the result. i. as to wuotiisr cue matters Mr Stanford dealt with were or were not matters in question in the Supreme Court, refer this, Sir, for your own satisfaction to any barrister of standing; fif* Mr Stanford and the Council's solicitors full liberty to join in the inquiry j satisfy yourself,, and publish the reault. This ends the correspondence as far as I am ooncerned.—l am, &c, T, o» A. D.Bell, July 20. I should explain that owing to the way our country mails run I have only just seen Mr Stanford's lotter.