Your own correspondent would—with all deference to the anonymous writer who who signed himself " Witness" in your issue of the 27th of July—reassert what he has before written about the Taichow troubles. The " regret" of Witness" at having to deprive your correspondent of the satisiaciron on which he counted too soon when he announced that the troubles had not been settled owing to the demands made by the Roman Catholics, must be an expression of sympathy intended to supplement his own satisfaction at having made such a "truthful" parody on Mr. Moule's letter. " Witness " must have been suffering from some kind of aberration, probably caused by the typhoon, when he wrote such a letter. tis faction " your correapondent would certainly feel if he were able to announce, through the columns of the N-C. Daily News, that n just and amicable settlement had been arrived at. This, however, is to be denied your correspondent and your numerous readers so long as the following procedure is carried out, On the 22nd inst., one of your contemporaries gave the information—evidently from a Catholic source—that the Christians (Roman Catholics) in Taichow had decided to take certain action themselves and had offered the reward of $2,000 for the arrest of Yin Wan-te, an enquirer connected with the C. 3L S, and of whom Bishop Moule wrote in your issue of the 24th inst.
Probably " Witness" had read this decision of the "Christians in the Taichow district" and thought it quite justifiable to lay the odium of this procednze upon the Protestant converts, and as an appendix to his "True version of the story" try to discredit your own correspondent. "The true version of the story s given by Witness" must be labelled Jgnis tatuus."
29th July.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.