Untitled

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2278, 25 August 1908, Page 1

[Correspondence on public matters is wolcomed at all times, but it must bo distinctly understood that tun journal is in no way associated witli tlio opinions of its correspondents.] CO-OPEB ATI YE BAKER Y.

[To tiiu Editor.] Sir, —As. Mr. Biesso in his letter oi Saturday last asserts that 1 liave made niis-stateinonts it is essential 1 shoidd reply to that accusation. Mr. t’iosso denies having offered to get subscribers to the co-operative . bakery being promoted by the civil servants, anil states that as he ivas keeping Air. llalley’e books it was hardly reasonable to suppose he .would help to form a co-operative bakery, in opposition to the interest to his oliont. Well, Sir, Mr. l’iesso hat still evaded an answer to my statement in your issue of Friday last wherein 1 stated ho had signed for : ’ton shares,” and that he had ono ol our lists in his office anil signatures, wore being obtained therein. Further, his clerk (Mr. Witty) h is signed for “five shares,” and has obtained other signatures tlioroto. Now, Mr. Editor, if this is not giving assistance to opposition to a client, as Mr. Biesso puts it, I do not know what is. This is to say tho least somewhat inconsistent with Mr. l’iesso’s statement. Mr. Pi esse also denies my statemont as to the remuneration he is to receive for floatation of Mr. Hailey’s business. Those figures are contained ill his prospectus, so that thoro is no necessity for my again going into this matter. Mr. Biesso may call it commission or whatever ho chooses. Mr. Piesse says I can afford to give my time gratuitiously; this is such a veiled insinuation that I can only catechiso it as an argument used by one who lias a very lauio caso, and for Mr. Picsse’s information I .may tell him there are about “twenty lists” of ours in circulation, and consequently “twenty canvassers,” and let mo here impress upon him “not one”.of them are receiving brokerage. Mr. Piesso states that 1 stated at our meeting on Monday last that the lease of the premises occupied by Mr. Hailey had no guiidjwill. 1 distinctly refute this. What I did say (and 1 think those present will bear me out) was this: “I do not consider there was any goodwill in a business of this sort; that tile goodwill was ours, and could not be huckstered about by any tradesman as .lie pleased.” Mr. Piesse accuses mo of stating that one of his proposed directors was misinformed or deceived by him. I did nothing of the sort. That particular paragraph reads as follows : “Ono of Mr. Piesse’s proposed directors lias informed me that lie certainly was under tile- impression that it ivas the co-operative bakery being promoted by the civil servants ho was lending his name to.” This, Sir, was the reason I was prompted to write you and ask your assistance in clearing away any doubt with others interested.

As the company being promoted by Mr. Piesso is a public one, 1 wish to ask, through the medium of your paper, two questions, as 1 maintain it is only through this channel all can be enlightened. One is this :Tlie prospectus lias a paragraph therein which reads as follows, “As the books (referring of course to the business in flotation) have not been kept on ‘approved lines,’ no guarantee can be given the shareholders as to the -accuracy of the statement.” As Mr. Piesso in his letter of tlio 22nd inst. states he has been keoping the books in question he may bo able to enlighten us in this direction, and thus clear away any existing doubt. Possibly Mr. Piesse has only been keeping them for a shorter period than is the general opinion. I, like others, am hoping to get bread at a reduced price, and am prepared to help any association or society that will achieve .that object, and it is solid information I am seeking. Ido not wish for one'moment.to cast any reflection. Tlio only other question I wish to ask is: “Why, if a business is so good as we aro led to believe, thoro is any necessity to dispose of it to a company?” If I had a good thing, 1 tell you, Mr. Editor, I would not be -disposed to give it away to everybody unless I got a good thing for it. As I do not intend to go into print any further oyer this matter, I hope it will not be considered that I have thrown up the sponge. I only liavo, along with my comrades, ono purpose in view, and that is to see established a purely co-operative bakery, obtained at tho cheapest possible figure, and located' in a “central position,” where we will be able to command a fair slmro of the “small goods” business which is the most remunerative portion of a bakery business. We want centrally-situated premises, rent is nothing, providing we get the turn-over. No business man with any capacity wishes to isolate himself from the rest of the community ; lie wants to bo where the business is done, and must hustle. People will not go to the top of Ivaiti hill for what they can get in the centre of tho town.- —I am, etc., CECIL F. LEWIS.

COUNTY LOAN PROPOSALS

[To the Editor.]

iSir, —I must take exception to the report appearing in your last issue on tho above matter. Your reporter has not correctly reported the discuss:on. I am not going to point out all inaccuracies, but I do desire to correct the statement that said, “The Waikohu riding is severing from tho County because there are no good roads in the district.” I never made such a statement. What I did say was that the Waikohu riding was severing because of the way tho Council were delaying with the Joan proposals, and because the Council would not put its finances into order, so that each riding got its own quota, and 1 believed if. these matters were put right it would stop the severance. Again, the reference to Cr. MacDonald's position is very much mixed, and particularly that portion of tho report which states, “Cr. Lysnar then repeated his arguments in favor of the motion. Regarding Cr. MacDonald’s position he voted for £50,000 loan, which was blind and ridiculous. Cr. MacDonald : I did nothing of the kind. Cr. Lysnar: Here are the reports, and they have never been contradicted.ln tho first place, I did not repeat my arguments, but replied to the m ini points raised by each individual Councilloi speaking against tho loan, for some ratepayers had told me that while they had signed for the severance, they would be willing to sign to stop it if matters wore put right. Hlien I reached down to Cr. MacDonald s name, I stated that he liad opposed the loan proposals throughout, but it was true, according to tho nnnuto book of the Council, he had. voted for a motion to borrow £oO,OUU over the wliloe County, which I re-

gardeil as only a put-oil and a blind to tho mail/ proposals, and that ho bail also, as the minute book showed, voted against tlio motion to borrow £IOO,OOO, ami now he opposed the £200,000 loan. I fully appreciate the difficulties a reporter labors under, and know it is quite impossible for any journal to fully report everything, and I would not now have troubled you, but I rogaril tho error about the severing of tlio Waikolm riding as important. —I nm, etc., Y» W. DOUGLAS LYSNAH. REPRESENTATIVE FOOTBALL TEAM. [To the Editor.] Sir, —Wo have many samples of the intulligoneo of our Rugby Union selectors, and have by now formed ;■ very fair idea of their individual and collective qualifications for selecting representative teams, but their latest effort absolutely surpasses all previous attempts. I say attempts advisedly, for they liavo never yet proved their ability to select a truly representative team. I was i>rc.s~nt at Siturdny’s game, and faw. there liien who would bo a ciediC'-fb tlieihselves and to their Union, but who have been ignored. Instead, we have a team which is so weak in the backs that one might as well pi ice a school team to play it. Were tlio selectors really watching thy game or were they too interested in tlio ladies’ hockey match? The selection certainly requires some explanation, and even now 1 almost think it is a hoax. Perhaps the selectors, with some faint and feeblo attempt at humor, are having a joke with the players, which jolco certainly is not m very good taste. Other reasons might be given and remedies might also be quoted. The use of spectacles might assist the selectors, but to me it is quite evident that fair play and a just treatment of tho men who devote their time to tho gamo arc tilings utterly beyond the comprehension of the selectors. I would suggest that they nialco a second attemp't and I’m willing to back that they couldn’t make a worse moss than they liave done with 'this team. I trust this matter will not be allowed t 0 rest., and that some abler pen than niiiio will take up the cudgels on. behalf of the unjustly-treated plovers.—l am, etc., “SPECTATOR,” NO-LICENSE.

[To TnE Editor.] Sir, —I hopo you will oxcuso tho length of this letter, seoing 1 have to roply to the arguments (?) of “Quid Nunc” and of two others, who have recently entered the arena. I feel quite flattered that such poworful and old-established institutions as “Sh.irland and Co.” and tlio “Church” should find it worth their while to array themselves against a little chap like me. Aro they “Quid Nu'nc’s” big brothers, como to tho rescue of their little brother, becauso I have been giving him a sound thrashing—metaphorically speaking? Why should they interfere with our little fight ivhen I have not tried to pick any quarrel with them, and the fight so far has been fair? It was “Quid Nunc” who started the row when lie compared No-Liconso to tho smelling mud-geysers of Waimata, and only then did I retort with: “License another, a veritable Waimangu throwing up smell and mud.” Do L. A. Sharland and “Churchman” monopolise to themselves all the family brains, that they should consider “Quid Nunc” incompetent to think for himself, and then attack mo in the proportion of three to one? However, [ don’t mind in the least; I love a big fight; the more the merrier; “let ’em all come.” About L. A. gliariand’fi kind advice to me to leave off mud-slinging; the speck of mud ho takes exception to is contained in those words of mine: “Mr. Harnett ouglit to have been looking after his men instead of keeping an eye on Invercargill.” I consider this a fair and relevant remark, and mild enough to please the most punctilious, seeing “Quid Nunc” pinned his faith to Mr. Harnett and bis opinions on Invercargill. This is tho point' at issue botween “Quid Nunc” and myself, and therefore I was quite justified in directing niy opponent’s attontion t <> tho utter -worthlessness of his authority. I was only clearing up tho mud which Mr. Harnett on the eve on his departure for Australia (lung broadcast throughout the Dominion, and, of course, during the process of clearance a little splash might bo expected. As for “Churchman,” well, I would not like to belong to tlio same congregation to which lie belongs. He began his letter in a fit of temper. He accuses me of attempting to hoodwink the public. It’s the same old story of a man comparing another with his own standard, •and a very low one at that. The “other side” is generally credited with that kind of tactics. Mr. Editor ,perhaps you can make out what your two correspondents are driving at—l can’t. They find fault with the figures I quoted, simply because they are quoted by me; had I quoted tlio figures in favor of their side they would have been as silent as tlio grave. It was “Quid Nunc” again and not I who first launched forth into figures. He said the number of drunks for Invercargill handled in 1907-8 was 86. _ Where wa6 L. A. Sharland’s principle then, and why didn’t he and “Churchman” take tlio trouble to show the misleading naturo of those figures, knowing as they did that the No-License area of Invercargill was not identical with the police district, which includes tho Bluff, Wallacetown, and other towns —much larger towns than either Wairoa or East Cape. “Quid Nunc” took the number of convictions for tlio city of Invercargill, or rather they should be, for tlio police district of Invercargill, and I for the sake of comp irisoii between tho two towns took the convictions for Gisborne, or they should be for the police district of Gisborne. Where is the unfairness? If the comparison is unfair at all, it must be unfair to both sides, and therefore for all practical, purposes it is quite fair, the only unfortunate part is it shows Gisborne in a most pitiable condition—a fact which is no more than we know ourselves. If the figures quoted do not please L. A. Sharland and Co. I can’t help that, and it is not the figures that make Gisborne, but Gisborne makes the figures. The figures were given out publicly by the Rev. F. W. Chatterton some time back, and were published in the “Times.” and no exception wig taken to them at all, for they could not be disputed, nor can they now. After all, so far as the electors of Gisborne arc concerned, these figures are really not needed, for people sensibly and naturally will be guided by the evidence of their own eyes. They may very well eiy, “Whether ‘Quid Nunc’ or ‘What Now’ bo right or not wo don’t know, one tiling we do know —Gisborno is drunken.” As for “Churchman’s” contention that Gisborne lias a larger

floating population than Invercargill, all 1 any is: It mostly floats about in his imagination. A floating bit ol straw is good enough for a drowning man to cling to, but it won t save him. And does “Churchman’ solemnly think that Invercargill, with a largo port like the Blufl, where boats lie alongside the wharves and not out in a bay, as is the case here, with large towns around it, with severs 1 trains, including the CEmtchurchDunediii express, running in and out, does lie think Invercargill, has im» Hooting population ? Only such as, lie would think so. So long as the liquor traffic will be permanent, so long will drunkenness be permanent also. You can’t separate the two. “Churchman” was surely in or above the clouds when lie ma'do me “mantle No-License with a power almost divine.” He ought to road my list lottor the second time. All unbiassed minds admit the liquor traffic is a fruitful source of evil, and I contend, as the majority of the people in our fair Dominion also contend, No-Lic-ense is the only remedy and Ins been proved successful. My opponents offer no alternative remedy. Human nature is weak enough without placing liquor bars-with prety girls behind them to tempt it at every turn of the way. And this is our argument in a nutshell. It L A. SJuirInud and Co. arc satisfied within their own hearts with the drink record of our town lot them pinch themselves in order i-o waken and ascertain whether they are really in Gisborne or in fool’s paradise, and “fools rush' in where angels fear to tread.” —I am, etc., “WHAT NOW.”

[To the Editor.] Sir, —The only passage in “What Now’s” letter of Friday’s issue which requires any liofico from mo is that whore lie declines’to believe any statement of tlio p rid agitator at 9s per day and extras. He was then, and still is, well known to us all, and we much regretted that lie had fallen so low. He is still resident in Gisborne. Would it not he well to erect something like the barb-wire entanglements used by the Boors between tho city and those brewers? Tlio authorities would then witli modera to care be able to say on which side of tho fence the men got drunk, and score it up accordingly. Many thanks, Mr. Editor, for your courtesy, os £or a time I .may take a rest, hut still keeping a look-out for the freedom of action and future happiness of our girls.—l am, etc., '“QUID NUNC.”