Web Analytics
"Controversy Erupts Over Veracity of Dr Long's Statements: An Exchange of Letters with A. Hall in the Limerick Echo" |

“Controversy Erupts Over Veracity of Dr Long’s Statements: An Exchange of Letters with A. Hall in the Limerick Echo”

The Limerick Echo features a heated exchange between Dr Long and A. Hall regarding the veracity of statements made by Dr Long. Hall accuses Dr Long of deliberate falsehood, while Dr Long defends the accuracy of his statements. The dispute revolves around a car boycott case and the involvement of Limerick magistrates. The exchange raises questions about the credibility of Dr Long’s statements and the potential impact on his professional reputation.

Dear Sir,

I have received a letter from Dr Long, in which he claims that my statement, as reported in several Belfast and Dublin papers, was inaccurate. He refers to a recent case where a carman was summoned, as reported in the Limerick Chronicle of September 19th, 1903. Dr Long expects a public withdrawal and an expression of regret for the charge made against him.

I am willing to give Dr Long the benefit of publishing the parts of his letter that he provided. However, if I have done him any wrong, he should understand that he is to blame for not correcting the report in my paper if it was indeed inaccurate. He had several days to do so but chose not to, likely because it did not suit his purpose. Dr Long’s manner of speaking and writing is ambiguous, indicating his intention to mislead. If he had said, “This boycott, or the boycott, was continued, so I had to issue a summons, which was heard at Petty Sessions on 19th September last,” everyone would have understood what he meant. However, he deliberately avoids being clear and specific to avoid potential trouble. He seems to be skilled in avoiding direct answers and employs a large amount of mental reservation, as evident in the excerpts from the trial report he referred me to.

I do not wish to take up more space to expose Dr Long’s evasive tactics. I believe I have provided enough evidence to demonstrate that he has no right to complain if he is misunderstood or misinterpreted. His use of the words “of course – I referred to the recent case” is a revealing indication of his true character. Of course, I should have known better, as he says one thing and means another, much like the individual who denied inciting a mob to beat a man by claiming, “I did not encourage them; I tried to save him; I told them not to nail his ears to the pump.”

I have no intention of engaging in a controversy with Dr Long to help him secure a pay increase, as he hinted at in his speech in Belfast. Therefore, I will not trouble you further or waste my time on a man who is as difficult to get a straight answer from as it is to hold onto an eel.

Yours truly,
AMBROSE HALL
Mignon, January 26th, 1904


To the Editor of Limerick Echo,

January 22nd, 1904

Sir,

A letter appears in your issue of the 23rd inst, published this evening under the suggestive heading “Dr Long’s Veracity.” That letter was not sent to me prior to its publication. Accordingly, I am sending you a copy of my reply to Mr A. Hall’s letter, for which I request the same publicity as you have given to Mr Hall’s slander.

Yours truly,
J. JOHN LONG, MP..

1 Lansdowne Villa,
Limerick, Jan 22nd, ’04


Dear Sir,

My attention has been drawn to a letter bearing your name that appears in the Limerick Echo today, in which you accuse me of deliberate falsehood. My statement, as reported in several Belfast and Dublin papers, was as follows: “The car boycott was brought before three Limerick magistrates, all of whom were Prefects in the Confraternity,” etc. Of course, I was referring to the recent case at which you were not present when I summoned a carman, as reported in the Limerick Chronicle of September 19th, 1903, and my statement was perfectly correct.

You, sir, without taking the ordinary precaution customary among gentlemen of a judicial mind, jump to the conclusion that

I have dredged up an ancient trial that is undoubtedly a sore memory for you personally. You charge a fellow townsman with deliberate falsehood. As a magistrate for both Limerick and Co. Clare, you then proceed to write, “This should show the amount of credence to be attached to any statement oral or written by this gentleman of the duplex profession who undertakes to cure both soul and body of his dupes.”

Should I, unfortunately, find myself before you in a court of justice in any capacity in the future, can I reasonably expect justice from someone whose state of mind is so clearly revealed? As I expect a public withdrawal and an expression of regret for this charge concerning my “veracity,” I await your reply.

I remain, yours truly,
J. JOHN LONG, MP..
A. Hall, Esq.,
Limerick

Limerick Echo – Tuesday 26 January 1904

SHARE OUR HERITAGE
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments