Sin,—I have pleasure in answering the criticisms of " A
Public Prosecutor" in the Spectator of July 30th. The railway bridge is about a mile and a quarter from this house ; there. fore I could not have heard any "dying yell." There is no doubt the dog was killed there. Patting aside all other evidence, the finding of its collar upon the track proves this. The reason that the men, Arterton and Algar, did, not inform me of the matter sooner was that they did not know to whom the dog belonged. The collar had no name upon it, but has been identified by my daughter and by the stableman as that which belonged to 'Bob.' As soon as these men heard that I was advertising for a black retriever they told me all they knew. It is unnecessary for "A Public Prosecutor" to state that he does not " believe " that I saw " any coagulated blood," as I never said that I did. My words are: " where they showed me evidences of its death." Those evidences consisted of blood-stains upon the sides of the rails and sleepers, and por- tions of the hair and skin of a black dog. I did not imply that the animal's death was " by way of alternative " dreamt of " five hours before that was to happen to it." I said plainly that it would seem it must have been killed either by the last train on the Saturday night, the 9th, or by the first train on the Monday morning, the 11th, as " no trains run on Sundays." I added that " if it was living the dog would almost certainly have come home during Sunday." The dog could not have " whined for ten minutes," or for any other length of time, at my door, as it was never admitted into the house. Generally it slept in the porch in summer and in the stable in winter. Being capable of various interpretations, my narrative is necessarily "inconclusive," but the ascertain- able facts are accurately set out, and to adhere to their basis simplifies argument.—I am, Sir, &c., Ditchingham. H. RIDER HAGGARD.
Previous page
