THE TELEGRAPH ENQUIRY.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3348, 17 November 1871, Page 2

THE TELEGRAPH ENQUIRY.

+. TO THE EDITOR OP THE INDEPENDENT. Sik, — In your iesue of to-day you allude to me in connection with the Telegraph Enquiry iv a manner which warrants me in requesting space for a few words in reply. I have no intention to ineddio with the mass of accusations piled upon Mr Barton, nor in any way to go into the general question raised by your leaders of yesterday and to-day. I shall confine myself strictly to what I am personally concerned in. In one place you say that if Mr Barton " was kept in ignorance of the facts by his active Wellington agent, and hie sympathising friend, then these two must hare grossly and unscrupulously deceived him, in order to further theiv own selfish and dishonorable ends." Of course it would be folly to affect an ignorance that this is meant to apply to Ml* Gillon and myself, and I cannot help asking you what grounds you have for making such a charge against me? I defy you, sir, to prove that my conduct during the whole period of my connection with the " Evening Post" was actuated by any other motive than a desire to advocate such views of public affairs as I conceived to be conducive to the public weal, and, at the same time, to further tho interests of that newspiper by legitimate means. What " selfish and dishonorable ends " had I to serve ? I never sought a share, however Bmull, of Q-overnmenfc plunder ; I did not want a billet ; I never received injury, real or fancied, from any member of the Ministry, nor had I any hopes of preferment from the other side. I must Bay, sir, that in making this charge you have (to quote your own words) " been guilty of a mean and dishonorable abuse of your functions as a journalist." You talk, too, of something which was "dragged out of Mr G-ifford by Mr Lemon." Mr Lemon dragged nothing out of mo. lam not accustomed either to part with my words by such a process, or in any way to require it. I told the simple truth, and defy tho whole well-trained telegraph establishment — boys included — to disprove what I said — no matter how often they may deny it. Again you say "Mr G-ifford admitted that he made an arrangement with 'somebody ' at the Telegraph Office, but was not able to remember who that somebody was, Mr Smith, having a better memory, comes forward, identifies himself as that somebody, and swears that Mr Qifford declined to receive the telegram slip by slip, as it was delivered from the instrument, \ preferring to have it entire." You forgot to mention that I also said " with somebody com* ' petenfc to make such an arrangement." What I did not remember was whether I said I would take the telegram in slips or all together — an unimportant matter, as the message was finished, by Mr Lemon's own admission, four hours and a half before I received it. I was most careful not to state anything at all dubious to my recollection, but had I chosen to go in for invention, with a staff of boys to I back me up, I daresay I could have concocted as neat a story as that of Mr Smith. Again, why should Mr Smith's evidence bo deemed worthy of such attention to the exclusion of mine ? I regret to speak so of a gentleman for whom I have always hitherto entertained respect, but I again affirm that Mr Smith' 3 evidence is erroneous in several important particulars. Ido not accuse him of wilfully stating what he knew to be false, after the manner of the boy Hill, but I believe he has become confused among so many similar occurrences, and confounds several dates together. At all events, tho weight of evidence is on my side. If Mr Smith is corroborated by the boy Hill, an employee of the office, I am corroborated by two perfectly independent and unbiassed individuals, not to speak of the admission made — that it was known I had a man sitting up. Why, I again ask, should that man have sat up all night if I had agreed to wait until seven next morning for tho message ? Of course, as you have had tho discussion all your own way, it is quite eauy for you to draw what deductions you please from your own arguments, nnd to Bay, in a sort of Euclid stylo, " therefore, the charge against the Government is utterly unfounded" — Q. E. D. — but to my thinking the matter is just where it was. It is beyond all doubt that tho message was finished at Wellington at half; past two, and not received by the " Post" until seven. Mr Barton might think that this delay was caused by express order of the Government, and I, on tlie other hand, might consider it the result of carelessness or laziness, with which the Government had nothing to do. These are matters of opinion — the fact stands, the telegram did not come. — I

am, &c, P. Gifford. [Wo are sorry to liave wounded Mr Gilford's feelings, but wo really cannot enter into a controversy with him. We mado no charge whatever against Mr Giflbrd ; we simply put a suppoeitive case, and if lie has been pleased to fit the cap to his own head that is not our affair. We repe.it that if Mr Barton was kept in ignorance of the fact that Mr G-ifford was offered the telegram slip by slip, then Mr Barton's "active Wellington agent, and his sympathising friend" (whether they were Messrs Gilford and Gillon, or anybody else) " must have grossly and unscrupulously deceived Mr Barton in order to further their own selfish and dishonorable ends." If Mi« Gifford alleges that this amounts to a "charge" against himself wo can only say that we are sorry for lhe fact. We have no wish to impugn Mr Gifford'a conduct during hio connection with the " Evening Post." It may have been all that he claims for it, and more. But when Mr Gifford impugns the evidence of Mr Smith, and the messenger, Charles Hill, of tho Telegraph Department, we feel it necessary, in the interests of truth, to examine into the value of bia ownetate*

ment. The substance of Mr GUfford's argument is simply this, that while the evidence of Mr Smith and the boy Hill was untrue, his own was unimpeachable; and that, therefore, the decision of the committee was unwarranted by the facts. When a person makes a broad assertion like this, it is perfectly proper to inquire to what extent his own testimony is credible. In the " Post" of Monday last there is a letter by Mr Gifford, in which he cays, referring to a conversation he had with Mr M'Kenzie, "If I did soy that wo" — meaning the " Post" — " wore to wait until 7. I could only have said so for the furpjoes of throwing Mm off Ms guard — a legitimate ' ruse"- — Whether or nbt it isa " legitimate ruse" to tell a lie when it is expedient to do so, is a nice queetion in moral ethics, on which Mt Gifforda nd ourselves may differ j but if he will practise such strategems, he must not be surprised if the public take him at his word when lie siiys, " but, had I chosen to go iv for invention, toith a staff of 'boys to hack me up, I daresay I could have concocted as neat os. story as that of Mr Smith." Indeed the public will, no doubt, give Mr Gifford credit for ability to concoct thejieatest story imaginable, single handed. [KRW, W*^.