EXPLANATION AND REPLY.

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 1058, 11 July 1883, Page 2

EXPLANATION AND REPLY.

, TO THE EDITOR.

‘Sir,— With your kind permission I will endeavour, ai? briefly as possible, to reply to the remarks of a “ Friend of the Man in Blue ” in your last issue. He has settled the question very much to his own satisfaction no doubt, but with all due deference to the writer’s opinion, I beg leave to differ. With regard to the idea that my letter was “ entirely uncalled for," I claim to be as ardent an admirer of our police force and the Law and Order they represent, as the correspondent who stands forth ns their champion, but nevertheless I think that in this instance our usually agreeable Sergeant was' a little in the wrong.- A.nd my critic is also in the , wrong in ascribing the sayings and doings of an entirely different person to myself, on the night alluded to; although as I happen to be acquainted with the .facts I can perhaps put him right. It is probable in the hurry and confusion of voices that occurred, that the Sergeant misunderstood. It if true that he was told at first that the Captain ordered the bell to be rung,, but it Was quickly by some one saying that “ the Captain was in the country,” and so far from the party mistaken for “ Observer” not knowing the locality of the fire, he it was who told Sergeant Donovan that it was at Adamson’s. I would be one of the last to take personal offence at.the slightest fault, and am ready to make all due allowance for over-zealousness; but it must be admitted that when that zoalousness clashes with the. rightly-directed duty and zeal of others, the persons interfered with have, some right to feel annoyed. My letter was not intended to parade personal grievances; This I totally disclaim ; ' but rather as a defence of the prompt action of the Brigade and those who gave the alarm. With reference to the alleged “ false alarm at the Mail Office, anyone looking up the back files of the paper may see that there was at least some cause for alarm on that occasion. Oar “ police are not infallible !” and “ are. not allowed to reply themselves ” in print. True ; but it may be answered there are not wanting defenders to reply for them, as witness my critic for one.' And why these two reasons should exclude them from free and fair criticism I fail to see. As a representative of our Colonial police, the Sergeant is in general courteous, obliging, and all that can be desired, so far as the writer knows ; but in this instance he' forgot that it was not a part of his business to control the Brigade. . Trusting I have-rendered the matter more explicit, I again subscribe myself—Yours, &c.,. Observer, =