CORRESPONDENCE.

Thames Advertiser, Volume VIII, Issue 2125, 19 August 1875, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

"ME" BAGNALL & " W." PLANT (Why didn't he put M.P.C., &c.P) To tho Editor of tho ThAMKS Abvkriiskr, Sib,—Mr Bagnall begins his loiter by saying " to tell only part of tho truth is worse than lyingand vainly endoavours to show that Buch was my conduct. I think I can show your readers, if not Mr 8,, that if anybody misropresonted facts or stated what was not true iu this correspondence it was " Mr " B, and not "W." Plaut. First. I submit that ho evidently meant you and tho publio to understand that there was no meeting of delegates of friendly societies, when he positivoly know there was a mooting (although from reasons quite apparent his lodge was not represented). That's misrepresentation No. 1. Second, his "joko" comes in. Ho say s tho delegates did nothing but passaresolution condemning "what ho had done." That is not true; but what they did do was to condemn his conduct tuous_ and egotistical, I call it) in constituting himself a representative of all societies (and everybody in general, I suppose), and that, too, in tho very teeth of the fact .that thero wero properly appointed representatives meeting at tbo very time, and ho perfectly cognisant of tho fact. _ That's misrepresentation No. 2. Third, with regard to my "unforlunato quoting" (as. ho puts it) of tho Kauwaeranga meeting case, Mr Bagnall again wishes to misrepresent tho fact, and apparently desires that liia egotism on that occasion cost tho ratepayers somo £8. So I said, and so t again say, I did not ssy cxactly £8. Will Mr Bagnall state how much less, perhaps £7 12s. And with regard to his law, all I know is that our Hesident Magistrate could'nt sco it, but probably it was obtained on tho cheap, and like he who used it was little worth. In conclusion, Mr Bagnall is happy to say thero aro no no such Plants on Block 27. Now, Mr Editor, don't you think ho would ,bo happier still were thero no Plants on tho Thames,—l am, &c., W. Plant.