COLONEL WHITMORE IN REPLY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 3439, 19 April 1879, Page 4

COLONEL WHITMORE IN REPLY.

[By Telh9ba?h.]

WELLINGTON, April 18. The following letter to the Editor appears in to-night's Post : — Sir, — Mr Waterhouse'a letter to you on the telegram business, did not at first require any reply from me. It gave an incomplete and rather garbled account of the affair, and contained rather violent expressions. But strong language does not create a strong case ; on the contrary it is in weak ones that ono hears of tho plaintiff's attorney coming in for abuse. Mr Waterhouse, I think, has substantiated nothing except that he is liable to unreasonable attacks oi temper, and exceedingly anxious to force himself before the public. But I see that the Btory, from Mb manner of telling it, has been misunderstood, and I havo beforo mo an article gravely accusing me of using my official position to intercept a telegram addressed to somebody else, and of disclosing its contents to my colleagues. This compels me to put forward the facts of the case as far as I can do so. The telegram I opened was clearly addressed to mo, clearly intended for me, and came to me in ordinary course like other tolegrams. Tho clerical error to which Mr Waterhouse refers occurred in: another telogram altogether, whioh was deliverod in Christchurch, and it was not I but Mr Hall who mistook the name, and he has clearly stated that he meant his reply for mo. I received a telogram signed by Mr Hall referring to one from mo. Inadnover sent such a telegram. Indeed I had never sent a private telegram in my life to Mr Hall, and have no unofficial correspondence with him ; consequently I could not regard the message otherwise than a trap and a forgery. Obviously I had not tho least reason to suppose Mr Waterhouse concerned at that moment. The air was full of rumours, and tho invention of opposition writers was largely exercised in producing political ekifcs •f all kinds, which credulous or, misqhjevoua people believed. That morning I had received one of these professing to name certain rather improbable gentlemen, as being about to replace some of the Ministers. Mr Hall's telogram would have beonn reasonable answer to any message recapitulating the contents of this "skit, and the solution of the matter whioh occurred to me waß, that somebody had forged my name to such a telegram addressed to Mr Hall, and that be had regarded me as the outgoing Minister and sent a sympathetic reply. Otherwise it might have been a forgery, and in showing it in confidence to my colleagues and asking their advice, I did what I considered natural and right. To say that a forger can protect himself by putting "private" on a document would be ridiculous. My colleagues concurred in my view, but the comical side of the matter struck them more forcibly than it did me, and they thought it was probably meant as a joke. However, Mr Fisher kindly examined all the telegramß bearing my signature for the past few days at the Wellington office, and I wired to Mr Hall so that enquiries might be made at the Christchurch end. The result was unexpected. Mr Hall replied that •n a second reading he found that he had mistaken the signature, which was " Whitehouse." On thiß I applied to Mr Waterhouse, who admitted the paternity of the original telegram, and I handed over Mr Hall's with my reply, of which I have now no copy. I remember, however, having told M* nail that I had shown tho telegram to my colleagues. This is the whole story as far as lor my colleagues are concerned. It does not explain all tho reports which havo been in circulation, with which, howovor, nono of the Ministry have any connection. As a rulo, these reports havo shown a complete misconception of the contents of Mr Waterhouso's first telegram, which ho had the opportunity but chose not to remove. In his letter ho gave what purported to bo an account of what he had written, but stopped short just as »h<j became interested. Why did ho not give the names of the proposed Ministers of his telegram ? As he has not done so, 1 will try to account for the omission. Had ho told the whole truth I believe ho would have shown that he had jumped too credulously to tho conclusion that the political squib above alluded to was true, and had hastened to communicate his intelligence to his political friends. To have exposed himself thus as a retailer of silly oanards was too galling to his pride, and he preferred to put forward an acoount which was hardly ingenu us. He, however, felt it was true, ana that accidentally I had come to know it, and his vexation has betrayed an amiable gentleman into losing his temper and becoming abusive. I do not intend to follow hia examplo, and therefore pass over 'hia uncomplimentary - remarks about myself without reply. — I am,