To the Editor of the Times:
SIR, - a sense of duty constrains me to appear for the first time in the columns of your paper. In your issue of the 7th a correspondent who signs himself B.L.L. assails in an indecent and fallacious manner one of our most respectable citizens. He emphatically states that the gentleman’s house in question is the seat of vituperation, and as for meaning – less epithets and false accusations they can be obtained there without money and without price. Such a base fabrication I venture to say is never seen in public print unless it be the production of such a diabolical wielder of the pen as the notorious B.L.L. When a man rushes madly into the arena of public controversy, as instanced in the case of B.L.L., simply because he differs in opinion on a political question of trivial importance and endeavours by a course of infamous slander to sustain a cause no matter how just, I now plainly tell him he does not elevate his standard of morality in public opinion, particularly at Memramcook, where the facts of the case are known. Moreover when I refer to the so called (Thaddy’s) honesty and integrity of purpose, I firmly believe I represent the views of every citizen of our seldom disturbed village. Indeed his letter (B.L.L.) of the 7th has been the subject of severe criticism by parties wholly disinterested in “Thaddy’s” personal welfare.
In reference to who should be census enumerator for the Parish of Shediac I have nothing to say, but in the meantime I would suggest that you, B.L.L., retract the misstatement made in your late communication, as I believe you are a man who is depending on public patronage for support, otherwise your unblushing disregard for the decencies of life will be Thaddy’s vindication without one word more. Yours, &c.
Memrmamcook, April 8th.
A LA Mode.
[This correspondence, which started in the Moniteur Acadien, is getting to be rather personal, and as both sides have had their say perhaps it would be as well to let the matter rest here.]