GREYILLE'S TELEGRAMS.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3381, 27 December 1871, Page 3

GREYILLE'S TELEGRAMS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE INDEPENDENT. Sir, — A telegram sent by me to the " Otugo Daily Times" having been made the subject of a sub-leader this morning, you will perhaps allow me to make a short explanation. In the first place, you are in error in attributing the message to Greville & Co. The " Times" did nob publish the telegram as being from that firm, nor have Greville & Co anything to do with or any control over the messages I send to the " Times." The message as printed runs as follows : — " Mr Haugbton ib appointed Commissioner of Goldfiolds Water Supply for Otago. The Independent says the appointment is an honorary one, and that Mr O'Neill will probably receive a similar appointment for Auckland. Both are so arranged as to avoid bringing their recipients under the Disqualification Act" The portions itnlicisod you characterise us utterly false, and I at once admit that the Independent never Baid anything of the kind. The message as I sent it was as follows : — " Haughton appointed Commissioner Goldfiolds Water Supply for Ottigo. Independent says appointment honorary one. O'Neill probably receive similar appointment for Auckland. Both so arranged as avoid coming under Disqualification Act." The person who wrote out the telegram, by omitting fcbe full point after tLe word " one," and inserting the words "and that," luado the mistake for which you blame me. The rumor of Mr O'Neill's probable appointment, although not announced bj the Independent, was current in the town, and as to the remarks about the Disqualification Act, the words were not intended to BUggest any evasion, but simply to inform Otago people that although Mr Haugh ton had accepted an appointment under Government, ho would not in consequence be compelled to resign his soufc as one of their representatives. — I nm, &c, The Otago Times Cohbespondennt. Wellington, Dec. 23, 1871. [Wo accept the explanation given by the manager of Greville's agency on the one hand, and that of the correspondent of the " Daily Times" on the other, so far as they relate to the responsibility of Greville and Co. for the telegram in question. And possibly the telegram, as sent by the " Times' " correspondent, was wrongly interpreted by Unit journal ; but ie it not ajfacfc (hat the "Times' " correspondent is also the chief officer of Greville & Co at Wellington under the manager ? A reference to the issuo of tuo "Daily Times" of the 16th will show that no distinction was made between the telegrams sent by the special agent of that journal at Wellington an«l the general telegrams supplied by Grevillo and Co.— Ed.]