Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE WALLSEND MINE.

{To the Editor.)

Sin, —It looks as if I got into a small hornet’s nest for expressing my opinion on the Wallseml Mine. Unfortunately I had to pay pretty clearly for that opinion, being one of the shareholders ol the Greymouth Coal Co. (which name it was then called). In 1877 to 1879, that Co. spent £15,000 on the venture. The mine being opened in 1878, and in about twelve or eighteen months afterwards, the Co. went into liquidation, and the whole affair was sold for something like £OOOO. The above Company never got any first-class coal out of it, or they would never have sold for £OOOO, what cost them £15,000. It was a hard blow to the people of this district (the shares of the first Co. were mostly held in the district). This and the Brunner strike were the two worst things that happened in this district, for the prosperity of it since it was first inhabited.

It was in 1878 or the beginning of 1879 that the ship load I referred to. was dispatched to Dunedin and sold at 7a Od per ton there. The “ Pukaki ” was the second attempt, which also proved a failure to sell the same coal in the Melbourne market. If the mine possesses good quality of coal as “ Coalminer ” alleges, why did the Greymouth Coal Company abandon it for £6,000 losing £39,000. The Westport Coal Company could not have spent less than £50,000, and by all appearance, the whole of that largo sum has been totally lost, making in all a loss for the two Companies of £89,000. .

These are facts which speak for themselves, I am sorry to say: I think I have shown sufficient facts to justify mo' in not supporting any motion, asking the Harbor Board to interfere in anyway with the Wallfcnd Mine. There is no member of the Harbour Board, w T ho has been more earnest in supporting prospecting for coal by the Board, than I have been and will continue to do so in every legitimate way that I think the public’s money should bo expended. Yours Respectfully,— A Mathesox.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GEST19010323.2.28

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 23 March 1901, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
359

THE WALLSEND MINE. Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 23 March 1901, Page 3

THE WALLSEND MINE. Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 23 March 1901, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert