MR JOHN R. MABIN IN PRINT.

Colonist, Volume XVI, Issue 1810, 15 September 1874, Page 3

MR JOHN R. MABIN IN PRINT.

["Well, gentlemen, I'll first dispose of what's inside, and then "sell" the rubbish outside.— Vide sales Saturday.]

To the Editor of the Colonist.

Sir,—lf there is one thing I dislike more than another it is appearing in print, but Mr John K. Mabin in last Saturday's Evening Mail thought fit to commence an inky fray therein, and I must endeavor to defend myself the best way I can. I should not have taken any notice of Mr John E. Mabin signifying to the public that " he was not consulted about," and was " quite of the contrary opinion," in respect to the protest I made to the Mayor. But I do object, as being personal and impertinent, to that portion of'bis letter which runs thus :—

" I think also the Mayor deserves the thanks of the ratepayers for the great trouble he has taken in civic matter*?, and wish to state that all his acts in my opinion have been guided by tho strictest impartiality, and that I think it is only those who can do no good themselves and believe others are on a par with them, that can think otherwise of the Mayor's actions."

There are epidemics like the rinderpest and mouth disease, which spread so rapidly that the most active means are required to stamp them out. Very similar is the scribbling disease, which appears to be rapidly spreading from one auctioneer's rostrum to another, and although Mr Mabin's style partakes of the " puffy," he has neither the graceful " diarrhoea of words" nor the remarkable originality of his great archetype.

Mr. Mabin evidently does not even understand my " protest," as I did not, as he writes, "protest; against the result of the election," but simply the basis upon which the Burgess Eoll was compiled. The Act of Council states it must be made in a certain way, and the parties who have compiled it have chosen another. After the Eoll was published they consulted their legal adviser, whose opinion, if broadly interpreted, seems to run thus—" You have blundered into a mess, gentlemen; so you had better blunder out the best way you are able."

If Mr J. E. Mabin truly and conscientiously believes (always supposing he has waded through the Act) that the election was in accordance with that Act, I will certify that he is better suited for a private citizen than for a Councillor. This " oily gammon" must be perfectly annoying to a person of our Mayor's sterling aud unobtrusive qualifications, but living bo near the Maitai he may think that he could " tickle him like a trout" by such unnecessary and fulsome praise and might probably get an invite to the next civic feast.

As to his personal remarks, I should advise him to stick to his hammer. The pen in his hand is a goose quill impotent to " knock down " any person " without reserve." Should the civic body reach that full development which will give the Mayor a retainer, as of yore, who was supposed to be the best judge of the quality of the civic feasts, my would-be critic (spite of the impertinence of the concluding part of his letter) shall have my vote and interest to place the cap and bells on the " head of his poll." —I am, &c,

J. H. Levien,