Tuesday’s recovery of two items long thought lost, and Wednesday’s session of the Subcommittee, at which both were re-deferred in the usual way, have produced a quantity of correspondence it would be remiss of this paper not to set before its readers. The letters below were chosen, from a larger postbag, for the way they bear on one another. Editorial responses appear in brackets where some further word seemed wanted. Letters have been edited for length, and in one case for repetition.
From the Coot of the Channel Sprint, filed Wednesday evening
Sir, I write to acknowledge, with such satisfaction as the circumstances permit, the recovery on Tuesday morning of the small pebble of sentimental value submitted by me as my registration in the Spring Channel Sprint, and improperly retained since that date by a Clerk of the Race who has at no point held the standing to adjudicate the matter on which my classification turned. The pebble’s surfacing alongside a quite separate filing, Drake Halford’s, as I am informed, does not in any sense diminish my prior claim. I require, in the order following: first, the pebble’s return, undamaged; second, the amendment of my classification from “Coot (ineligible)” to “Coot (third)”; and third, a written statement from the Clerk of the Race on the precedent under which the first and second may not now be deferred for a fifth occasion.
COOT
[The pebble remains, at this writing, with the Clerk of the Reed-Bed Subcommittee, having once again been referred to the Clerk of the Race in that gentleman’s continuing absence. The editor cannot forecast the date on which the third request will be answered. The first two, the editor is given to understand, are under consideration.]
From Drake Halford of the north bank, filed Wednesday morning
Madam, I should be obliged, on a matter of small clarification, if it could be set down in this paper that the recovery on Tuesday of my first census filing of the fifteenth of April, while a development for which I am sincerely grateful to the Clerk and to those engaged in the records review, does not supersede the third filing of the thirtieth ultimo. I have privately advised the Clerk of as much. The third filing is the more recent, the more accurate, and it must be said the drier of the two. A brief comparison, by my own hand, has been prepared and will be lodged at the Subcommittee’s next session, with such changes as the recovered first filing makes necessary. The fourth filing, prepared in advance, remains in reserve. I record my continued patience, and my continued gratitude.
A. HALFORD
[The editor accepts the clarification with thanks. The comparison referred to was minuted, this paper understands, without procedural objection at Wednesday’s session. One further word. Drake Halford has conducted himself throughout this matter in the manner more pondside disputes ought to be conducted in.]
From the family of dabchicks of the west pier, filed Friday morning
Sir, we write only to correct what we consider, with due respect, an unfortunate speculation in your dispatch of the seventh instant, in which it was implied that our absence of remark, on the occasion of the small fish’s appearance beneath our pier on Thursday morning, was in some manner connected with the Subcommittee’s session of the previous afternoon. We had, we wish it noted, no presence at the reeds during the session in question. We had, we wish it further noted, no opinion on its proceedings. We continue, as throughout, not to be unsettled: by the heron, by the fish whether absent or present, or by the small fish’s silver upper portion. We would be obliged if the record could be amended.
A FAMILY OF DABCHICKS
[The editor accepts the correction in its narrowest sense. The record is amended gladly. The dabchicks of the west pier had no presence at the reeds. On the larger matter of unsettlement, this paper holds its peace.]
From the Junior Member of the Subcommittee, filed Friday afternoon
Sir, I should be grateful if it could be noted, for the public interest, that my motion of Wednesday, to recognise the records review as a procedural development of merit, though deferred as anticipated, was at the close of the session minuted. The minute, however quietly recorded, is the first instance this season of which I am aware in which a motion of mine has been received in any form other than constructive silence. I record this with appropriate restraint.
A JUNIOR MEMBER
[The editor congratulates the Junior Member upon the minute. The editor looks forward to the further small drifts of his career.]
The editor declines further comment, this week.