The Carterton Paper.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XIX, Issue 1811, 24 March 1886, Page 2

The Carterton Paper.

The Carterton Paper is in a bad way and has indulged in a quantity of Billingsgate, because the Standard took it to task last Friday. When there is “no case,” lawyers “abuse the opposite party this is what our contemporary has done. llespecting the challenge which appeared in our columns ou Friday we, on Monday afternoon, received a letter from Carterton, in which the writer says •• Why did you not state exactly what my offer was ? 1 said 1 would cover the sum of £3O if it was proved that the Observer Lad 300 subscribers. Of course it will make no difference if they can show that number, but if they cannot it is only right they should forfeit £3O, which I propose shall be given to the Oreytowu Hospital. I will forward you a cheque whoa the atraugcm nts are made if they take ii up. 1 ream n, .Sc.'' We certainly regrot that we used the word deposit instead of “ cover.” The challenge arose out of averbalconversation, and we wrote from memory ; still, it will not make any difference to our contemporary if ho is so sure of winning the amount. He can put down £3O and pick up £OO ! Ho suggests that Mr F. H. Wood shall be referee ; but how is Mr Wood to know that the Observer has 300 subscribers ? How could he judge if a lot of bogus names were shown him in a book ! Wo have every faith in Mr Wood, but not in our contemporary. Oh, no. We will sift that subscribers’ roll if we get at it, and if we Hud that it is really genuine, we will “ eat bumble-pie,” we will apologise tor our remarks, we will see that the money is handed over, and then we will retire into “the majesty of darkness.'’ To know that there are 300 genuine subscribers, may we suggest that the proprietor of the Observer give us a list, and we will publish them gratia in the Standard. He can do the same in his own columns. We make the suggestion because the readers of both papers will then be able to judge for themselves, and if the names of persons are published who do not subscribe then let them acquaint us with tho fact. We appeal to the public to say whether this is a fair way of getting at the truth. If our contemporary can suggest a fairer way, let him do so.