THE BREAD QUESTION.

Western Star, Issue 9, 10 January 1874, Page 3

THE BREAD QUESTION.

TO 1 THE EDITOR. Sir, —In her last letter “ Materfamilias ” addresses me in tlie second person. Please allow me the same privilege. Poor me! No, poor “ Mater.” You are the last one who ought to cast up my poverty to me. If I have been the extortioner you represent, I ought to be very rich ; unless I have been a spendthrift. Since you are at your slanderous work, at any rate you had better publish that too as it would make the different parts of your story harmonise together. You say you are afraid you have hurt my feelings. Of course you have! Is not that what you meant to do ? To be gibbeted in the public prints as an extortioner, and a poisoner of the public, is no very soothing process I assure you. By your' account I ought to be under the surveillance of the police; for the bread that would make the children howl must injuriously affect the public health. You tell me lamin an unholy state of mind. Please remember that the calumniator is in a more unholy state of mind than his intended victim, even though that victim should vindicate himself with some degree of heat. You assert your right to grumble. Grumble your belly full if you will, but do not get up a cock and bull story to hold me up to the execration and contempt of the world without a shadow of occasion. Of course your rubbish is innocuous so far as my customers are concerned ; but, unfortunately, your newspaper slander will go much beyond that circle, among parties who have no means of knowing the facts. You next take some excerpts from my, letter and dish them up into pellets for the purpose of slamming them into my teeth, so as to create a sneer and a snigger; taking care, however, to obliterate all trace of the purpose they served, or the connection in which they stood in that letter." For instance, where you say “ one of whom used to do all the business of the place, &c.,” a stranger would think that this had been some piece of silly brag. My only object in stating that fact was to show that there was no subsistence in the place for the third baker, who had been told that he had only to come and do a sti’oke. You object to suelx expressions as “ shameless falsehoods,” “slanderous woman,” &c. Such expressions are usually the mark of an intemperate writer, but not always. Eminently not so in the presexxt case. I was between the "horns of a dilemma. If you are not a slanderous woman, what am I ? You say that I have not contradicted any of your statements. I do not understand you, for I think I have. Possibly, you mean that I have not said in so many words that my bread is xxot of good quality. I refrained from that simply because of the impossibility of proving it in a lettcx’. That can oxxly be proved by an inspection of the article. You next put three questions, accompanied by the remark that you know what the reply of the public would be to them.’ What facilities have you for knowing the mind of the public ? If it were not for fear of making too much of you, I think I could get a very different response from' that which you anticipate. Question No. 1: Is nob the Riverton bx’ead inferior to that of any other town in the province ? Answer : A hundred noes. Q. No. 2 : Do not a lai’ge number of families bake their own bread ? A.: Yes.- And is not that true of every town in the province or out of it ? You further ask: Is not bread brought fx’om other places? Answer: Not that I axxx aware of, except in the case of two pxxblieaus, with whom I never have any dealings, and who, I hear, are displeased because both the bakers have joiuccj. the temperance movement. I wonder if that has anything to do with the present outburst. Certainly no foreign bread has ever interfered with me in the slightest degree. For question No. 3 I refer you to my letter No. 2. —Yours, &c., James Ireland.