SMITE V. GREEN.

Timaru Herald, Volume LVII, Issue 6068, 29 September 1894, Page 3

SMITE V. GREEN.

tO THI EDITOR OP THE TIMARU HERALD. Bib,—Messrs Grandi and Gray's letters appearing m your issue of 26th, continue io to beg the question at issue between u», that I am really at a loss to understand what they mean. Do they mean to vnthdrtuo the memo, ligned by them, and if so, why? If not their conduct is inexplicable. The question at issue is a simple one, via : Was the representation alleged by Mr Solomon made or was it not? I anjwsr the qusßtion m the negative, Messrs Gray and Grandi's memo, confirms my denial, and Mr Wederell aleo confirms it. If the memo, was untrue m any particular why did Meaers Gray and Grandi sign it P Baoh of them was particularly careful to sign it" for self only," and gave it to me as previously stated without any restriction or qualification whatever. Mr Grandi's assertion that Ido cot" deny, etc.," is so absurd, that I wonder at ar man pretending to have a grain of oommon sense, making it at this stage. _ What have I done but denied the authenticity of the whole state* ment made by Mr SolomoD, from the very beginning of the correspondence p The fact is Mr Grandi finds himself m tho position of having made two psrfeotly irreconoilable statement;, and now by a kind of double shuffle tries to get out of the awkward position, without having to acknowledge either statement to be false. One of them must be false, and on the faots stated by me I leave your readers to judge whioh ie to. Mr Gray, not to be outdone, pursues tho same shuffling tactics, instead of meeting the point at issue fairly and squarely. He m effect Bays "If you did not represent to me what Mr Solomon says you did, you represented something else, and therefore had no right to use the memo, to acquit yourself from Mr Solomon's charge." This is a speoies of argument which only a man fairly brought to bay would ever dream of using. To have been logios', h« should bave declined to sign the m«mo. on the same ground. Why did he not do to ? I am cot at present conoerned with, nor have I brought anything besides Mr Solomon's obarga, into the correspondence, so Mr Gray has do right to try and shelter himselt behind any suoh innuendo concerning other alleged representation!, as that contained m his letter. This, however, is only on a par with the assertion m Mossrs Gray and Grandi's previous letter, that the memo, wai only an admission that the words used by Mr Salomon did not v exactly desoribe," etc. Specious sophistry of this kind can only deoeivethe mostshtllow minded. Did spaoe permit I could traverse Mr Gray's letter to some purpose, but I re frain, feeling sonfident that your readers will have no difficulty (seeing the manner m wbiob Messrs Gray and Grandi have conducted the correspondence) m deciding wbiob. tide ii worthy of belief. I am, Ao, Jho. MaiooimboNo - Timam, 28th September, 1891.