reply to the real question at issue.

I sought to show that the true discoverer of the goldfield was Mr Anstey,
and not Mr Colreavy.  I did not claim for Mr Anstey "the honour of
discovering the first gold in the eastern districts," as Mr Huggins put
it.  I will not deny that gold was reported to have been discovered out
eastward by Mr Glass some months prior to either Mr Anstey's or Mr
Colreavy's expedition, but the locality of that discovery was many miles
distant from the present goldfield, and from all accounts the country
thereabouts cannot be said to be auriferous.  Mr Anstey, and I believe Mr
Colreavy also, after carefully prospecting there came to that conclusion.

I can see, and I presume everybody else does too, a great distinction
between the discovery of gold, and the discovery of a gold field.  Gold
enough to swear by, such as Mr Glass's find, has been discovered in many
places in the Darling Range and elsewhere, take, for instance, Cardup,
Bindoon, Kendenup, and the Wellington District; but who would dare assert
that a gold field exists in any of those localities.  I do not profess to
know as much about mining matters as Mr Huggins does, but common sense
tells me, and I hope my friend will agree, that a goldfield means a
considerable auriferous country containing payable gold.  Mr Anstey's find
was in auriferous country, and is part of the belt which has been traced
to below Parker's find.  Mr Anstey not only reported the discovery of
gold, but also the existence of a large extent of auriferous country.

Mr Huggins does not, nor can he, deny that Mr Anstey's find was prior to
Mr Colreavy's and that both were within the limits of the goldfield.  It
would be interesting to know if Mr Colreavy would have gone out again had
Mr Anstey not made his discovery.  Mr Colreavy and Mr Huggins were not the
only prospectors who set out on the strength of Mr Anstey's report.  What
induced Mr Riseley and his party to prospect still further South then
Golden Valley?  I think I am right in saying that they set out for
Southern Cross before Mr Colreavy's find became known, and if so they are
entitled equally with Mr Colreavy to claim the credit of being the
discoverers of the goldfield.  I do not deny that both Mr Colreavy and Mr
Riseley — and later on Mr Parker — have earned great distinction in
respect of their discoveries and the good work they have done in
developing the goldfield.  A simple test for anyone to apply in this
matter is to ask himself what would have been the result had Mr Anstey
reported, as Mr Colreavy did, that the country he visited was not
auriferous.  I do not hesitate to answer that this important goldfield
would have remained hidden for many years to come.  That country then
offered no attractions to any but explorers, and I well remember how
sceptical people were when the two first expeditions were started.  They
were regarded, or any rate Mr Anstey's party were, rather as enterprising
enthusiasts upon a wild goose chase, and reckless in the expenditure of
their money.

That Mr Colreavy's find is more valuable than Mr Anstey's is beyond doubt;
but I cannot admit that it was the primary cause of subsequent
discoveries.  Mr Anstey appears, unfortunately, to have played the role of
the unsuccessful pioneer, the advantage of whose discovery has been reaped
by others.

I see no reason to modify the remarks made in my previous letter, and
still claim for Mr Anstey and his party the distinction of being the
discoverers of the Yilgarn goldfield.
Yours, &c.,
GEORGE LEAKE.
7th September, 1889.