Sir,—In Mr Kettle's reply to my previous letter he attempts to shelve the question as to the wherefore of his sudden philanthropy by saying "the simple question to be decided in whether or not the action of the Government in the matter is legal." What I wish to show Is, that the question would never have been rained had Mr Kettle's company been successful in their negotiations with the siding-owners and the Corporation.

In his first paragraph he says I have thought fit to make charges against him which, as I well know, are quite unfounded. But facts are stubborn things, and I purposely withheld any allusion to the letter to the Corporation now mentioned by him, trusting that, as Mr Kettle's long and continued opposition to the siding-owners was of no avail, he would bury the hatchet and be satisfied. He, however, now calls for the publication of this letter, and, to please him, I now enclose a copy, It will be observed that that etter was written by me on behalf of the siding-owners, and bears the signatures of them all. Mr Kettle is quite in error in saying he asked the Corporation to hold an inquiry, an immediately the siding-owners found what was being done, two of their number called on the Town Clerk to see if the Press report was correct, and were favored by that gentleman with a perusal of the concession, and they thereupon waited on the various members of the Corporation and demanded an inquiry. These gentlemen one and all expressed surprise at Mr Kettle's action—this despite what was said by His Worship the Mayor and Cr Fagan at an after meeting, and now quoted by Mr Kettle. (By-the-bye, the etter now enclosed is that which Cr Fagan could not understand; perhaps he did not wish to.) If Mr Kettle had shown such a laudable "desire to act fairly, straightforwardly, and above-board," why not have gone at once to the Council and said : "Gentlemen, according to your minute, before I can get any concession over these sidings 1 must get a letter from the present owners saying they had agreed to terms. This I cannot do, and therefore withdraw my application so far as said sidings are concerned? " No, he only mentions this when his hand is forced, and in order to stop the reading of the letters from the sidingowners, and said he thought they were acting in very undue haste, when Mr Joachim aptly asked him would he have had us quietly wait on until the deed between him and the Corporation was signed and sealed, If Mr Kettle was acting so very straightforwardly, why, sir, did he not show fight then, instead of at once foregoing the only part of the concession that he expected his company would make money out of? Will Mr Kettle let me and the public know, not whether the action of the Government is legal—for I have no doubt the Government can look after themselves—but why he now seeks to get an injunction?

These sidings, sir, are now again connected with the main line and in working order, despite moat persistent and strenuous opposition from more than Mr Kettle; and the future purchasers of sections in the south end of the town, on the Harbor Board's reclamation, will be very pleased to know that no private body or company has a fourteen years' privilege to make and work all the railway sidings in the City. They would find it very different between arranging for a siding with such a company and the present siding-holders; the only condition of the latter being the payment of their proportion of cost of laying the junction, and the signing of the deed now existing between them and the shunters as to the details of working.

I am sorry that my position as factor for the siding-owners has necessitated my appearing inimical to Mr Kettle, and the same reason must be my apology for thus so engthily troubling you. However, this is my last on the subject.