Overland
Journey to the Ovens and Melbourne, No. 10 (Letter) 31
March 1854 Empire (Sydney) |
Sir- In your issue of yesterday you
publish a long tirade from a correspondent signing himself "Gundagaiensis," who no doubt aspires to the distinguished
position of being extremely "cute" and facetious. But as I am not aware of any law which
requires one man to be answerable for the stupidity of another, I would claim
your indulgence whilst I correct one error into which your correspondent
has fallen, and upon which the whole of his twaddle hinges. In speaking of a communication of mine
which appeared in the Herald of the 7th instant under the head of
"Notes of an Overland Journey to the Ovens and Melbourne, No. 10,"
he observes:- "The author of these 'Notes,'
whilst describing his passage through Gundagai, and the remains of
devastation of the floods of 1852 and 1853, which were there exhibited,
must have left his optics in Sydney, when he ventured to state, &c.''
Now I beg to inform this exceedingly "cute"
correspondent that I never pretended to describe the "devastation,
&c., of the flood of 1853,'' and that if such a description exists I believe
it can only be found in his own "erratic brain." What I did describe, as may be seen both
from the passage quoted and the context, were the effects of the
memorable flood of 1852, when so many of the inhabitants of Gundagai met
with a watery grave. The whole tenour
of the "Notes" goes to show that the writer endeavours to
describe only those things which came under his special observation during
the journey, and as this journey took place in February and March of
1853, it is not likely that he would attempt to depict from personal
observation the effects of a flood which took place some three or four
months subsequently. In fact, I never heard the full
particulars of the latter flood, and could not therefore pretend to
comment on its effects. All that I said, or implied, with reference
to this flood is, that having been informed (while at the Ovens), that
the water rose three feet higher than on the former melancholy occasion,
I was of opinion that that the inhabitants must have been thoroughly
convinced of the folly and danger of adhering to the old site, and as
a natural consequence that they would remove, or had removed, to fresh
ground. But as the passage speaks for
itself, I will with your per-mission take the liberty of requoting it as follows:- "What struck us as being somewhat
remarkable, was the fact that some of the places swept away by the
flood, (of 1852, in which so many lives were lost,) had been rebuilt,
and were actually occupied as stores and residences. One must have thought after the
memorable catastrophe referred to, that the inhabitants would have
profited by the lesson, and selected safer ground for their habitations. The flood of the last year, which, I am told, rose
three or four feet higher than the previous one, must, I imagine, have
convinced them of the folly and danger of adhering to the old site." After this explanation I do not think
it necessary to make any further remarks. The facts stated are
indisputable, and "Gundagaiensis" himself
admits their truth, who he says, "for both these establishments
(the Post Office and the Inn,) formerly on the old site, have ceased to exist
there since the last, flood" (1853). With respect to the offensive tone and
temper in which your correspondent writes, I shall make but one
remark. I have always been led to believe that
one gentleman can reply to another for the purpose of correcting mere
matters of fact, without resorting to coarse invective and insulting inuendos. I neither know nor care who your correspondent
is and what is more, I neither care nor heed what he may write, but I would recommend
him future not to manufacture criticisms out of the grossness of his own intellectuality.
I am, &c. The author of the "Notes
of an Overland Journey to the Ovens and Melbourne." Sydney, March 29th. |