The post since Saturday’s edition is, frankly, more than the present arrangements were built to take. A representative selection follows, with the editor’s replies in brackets where some further word seemed wanted. Not every letter has needed one. As is customary, letters are edited for length and, where strictly necessary, for plausibility. One, this week, has also had to be edited for the avoidance of a particular slander.
From the deputy of the Warden of the Sluice, filed Saturday evening
Sir. I have read with mild astonishment Saturday’s account of my recovery, in which I am described as having been “located, in possession of the principal humidity gauge, in working order.” I was at no point lost, in any sense the Warden, or this paper, has any business reporting. Throughout the period in question I was engaged in a careful field study of conditions on the lee of the north reed cluster, the results of which I am compiling and will submit to the Warden in the customary manner. I would be obliged if the paper would, in future, consult me before printing accounts in which I am the principal subject.
THE DEPUTY OF THE WARDEN OF THE SLUICE
[The editor accepts the correspondence in its broad spirit. The editor notes only that the deputy was at no point asked for an alternative account of the period in question, and until this letter had not offered one. Her field study is welcomed and, when complete, will receive due notice.]
From a long-resident frog of the southern waters
Sir. Saturday’s report on the object now lying on the north shore observed that the present correspondent had not, in his time at the pond, seen the like before. I write to clarify that I did not intend the remark as the conclusion of a position. I intended it as the observation of a fact. The position itself remains, at this hour, unsettled. I undertake to communicate it, when reached.
A LONG-RESIDENT FROG
[This paper is grateful for the clarification. It awaits the eventual position with what equanimity it can muster.]
From a household on the west pier
Madam. We wish it stated, for the third week in succession, that we have not at any point been unsettled. We are not unsettled by the heron, by the absence of the fish, by Friday’s storm, by the object on the north shore, or by any of the rumours now circulating in connection with any of the foregoing. We undertake to remain not unsettled in the weeks ahead. Letters to the contrary may be filed in the customary direction. We will read them at our own convenience.
THE FAMILY OF DABCHICKS, WEST PIER
[The editor accepts this. It is offered with firmness, and accepted in the same.]
From a drake of no particular acquaintance
Sir. Concerning the object on the north shore: I have a theory. I believe it to be
[Here the letter was held back, on the Clerk’s advice. The theory, the Clerk indicates, is not wholly without merit, but it rests on a personal grievance against a party not presently before the gazette, and printing it would invite a response the Subcommittee cannot take up before its next session. The letter will, with the writer’s permission, be returned to him for resubmission in a more discoverable form.]
Further correspondence is held over to the next column. Readers are reminded that the editor undertakes to read each letter in full (ish), and to reply as the week’s mood permits.