HAS THE EXHIBITION PAID?

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2587, 22 July 1882, Page 3

HAS THE EXHIBITION PAID?

To the Editor of the Globe.

Sie,—l always understood that journalistic etiquette compelled a reply to a letter to be first sent to that paper in which the latter has appeared. I wes also under the impression that your contemporary tho “ Lyttelton Times’’ had established a hard and fast rule that no letter would be inserted in its columns unless some guarantee were given that a copy had not been forwarded to any other paper. It seems now that only supporters of the dailies, no matter for how many years, are so affected, for lo! Mr -Toubert, a stranger, comes amongst us for a abort atay, and etiquette and hard and fast rules are at once placed on one side at his bidding. Mr Joubert calls me an anonymous Paul Pry who won’t have his “ privacy unbroken.” Ha forgets that it is he himself who has publicly stated that he will make nothing by his venture ; and learning that he did not come here to acquire paltry pe.f, but simply for tho pbilanthrophio purpose of making frienda, it is merely the act of one of tho latter to try and show him that ho is in a far better position than what he believes himself to be. As to his coming here as a private speculator and asking no favor, ho is sadly mistaken, for he asked for> great number of favors and had them granted too. It may bo as well first to say that having read that Mr Joubert stated ho had attended thirty-two Exhibitions, when my friends who have travelled all over the world cannot remembe ‘ being present at a little more than half that number; having read it implied that his language is always of tho purest, when wo hear of the intellectual traat two wellknown and respected citizens (an exhibitor and an amateur horticulturist) were subjected to; and having learnt of the peculiar action taken to damage a critic, who wrote bis honest opinion of a musical farce called a " Musical Contest," I cannot take one single statement oa trust, and must pin Mr Joubort to hard facts, as if he wore only an ordinary Christ oburch resident like myself. And now for this extraordinary statement, “flapclashed” up in the lump, although Mr Joubert, as principal of the firm, has not yet had time to look through his accounts. Expenditure 11 Cost of building?, £lo,Bßo.’’ As 1 know something of the amount paid for materials, I should like Mr Joubert to tell us what he puts down for labor. " Gas and cost of fittings, £BS9 15s Id.” I must not forget the penny hero; but where is the allowance for the weekly payments of gas by exhibitors which the secretary used to collect with such punctuality P and where, also, is the large allowance for tho sale of the gas fittings which won’t be taken back ? “ Advertising and printing, £709 10s 6i.” This ocemod so largo an amount, that I have made the most minute enquiries relative to this, I find that the Exhibition advertisements, ranging from Auckland to Invercargill (Christchurch executed), cost considerably less than £IOO This will leave £609 10j 6d to ho divided between the Christchurch papers for advertisements solely, as little or no printing has been done. Need I go further into thio item ? I think not. “ Gifts to various clubs, ohorit.ies, &■} , £805.” Shade of all that’s kind, who are the clubs that have received this money? 1 know on one occasion the papers said half the admissions were to go to the Timaru Disaster Fund, while the Promoters’ adver-themr-nt said a “ moiety” (a distinction with a very great difference) would be given. On that occasion tho ” moiety” was balanced by an additional shilling being charged to tho concert hall. I have never heard since the amount which that moiety reached. To-day I observe the Sunnyside Recreation Fund has received £25 ; but where on earth the £BOS can have gone to I cannot for the life of me discover. “Medals and csrt’ficates to date, £350.” About £SO would pay for printing all tha certificates required; and fancy the number of silver and bronze medals £3OO would procure, even at Christchurch retail prices. “ Band, music, &0., £932 ! ” Can oven the most credulous person believe this, especially when it is remembered that a good proportion of tho money contributed by the Christchurch citizens was spout in music at the Exhibition. I do not think this item need be further dilated upon. "Outstanding accounts, £3oo’’ (a very rough guess I should think, with advertising, gas, and everthing else paid, and " wage* and labor to date, £586 lls 3:1.’ The 11b 3d make a the item look healthy, but it must not be forgotten that I stated the number of attendants daily engaged, and so far as the labour employed in tho erection of tho buildings is concerned, that ought to be fairly included in the £IO,BBB In no other way can I account for tha amount. Receipta—“ Receipts at pates, adults, children, and season tickets, £10,077 6«.” The edd £77 6i looks well, but I cannot stand this mixing at ary price. In the first place, the season ticket admissions were not registered at tho gate, and should be kept separate. The admission of the outside public were taken in my estimate to Saturday last from a morning daily whose youthful representative it was generally known was kept regularly supplied with such titbits aa numbers of visitors, and “ never mind the flooring but O spare Hagley Park I ” by Mr Joubert himself. The admissions since then are of (course an additional amount to credit. The reduction to children have only been made during the last few weeks, and for that coni' cession the little ones paid well in the Art ) Union ; for according to the returns supplied tc the aforesaid literary gentleman some

£495, even at 6i each, was received for ad missions, while the value of the toys diitri buted would be about, say—well a good man; penny and twopenny toys can bo had to £2O “ Sale of privileges, rent of stalls £194159,” This amount won’t do at all. J wrote that forty stalls brought in £1300; twe special show stalls, £l2O ; bars and luncheor rooms, £920 ; half Mr Joubert’n takings foi admission to the special Art Gallery, £156 j profit on catalogues, £300; other rights and fruiterers’ contracts, £120; total £2916, or a little over £IOOO over Mr Joubert’s rough estimate. If I am wrong let him challenge my items. “ Space in bays, £1446 6j 4d.” My estimate was £1476. and had it not been for that accurate 6j 41, I should not have oared for the £3O. Strange aa it may appear, I shall, however, still stick to the even money. The result, as it will bo aeon above, by no means satisfies “ this anonymous accountant," and when he has had time to look through his accounts, if Mr Joubert is in earnest, an audit shall be made of his books, the items in full to bs published at our expense in the Globe. Mr Joubert says the colony has gained in many ways from his Exhibition. Here I beg to differ from him. Canterbury may gain something in the future, but the colony has not, simply because for some reason or other the principal centres of population throughout the colony have pooh-poohed it. The emptiness of the building during the first week, when the exhibits might have been inspected caused a rush home North and South, with very few returns since. A letter lately received from Wellington best illustrates this outside feeling, for my friend writes, “ Your Exhibition has always been looked upon here as a showman’s affair, and it was this feeling which prevented more of the members being present,” As for 11 business trades, steam companies, and hotelkeepers” being benefited, 1 think a mistake is hero also made. Out of 100 Christchurch tradesmen, eighty will tell you that the Exhibition has slackened trade. Latterly the drapers have been busy with the various balls, but this cannot be credited to Mr Joubcr% unless, indeed, the instance may be mentioned of his exceeding liberality in connection with the first exhibitors’ ball. It will astonish Mr Joubert to learn that the passenger traffic of the Union Steamship Company has not been appreciably improved by 1 per cent, during the Exhibition. As for the hotel-keepers, they loudly complain of the state of bur’nccs since the first week or fortnight. This letter, Sir, is of great length, but I have not yet said all. My soul may not go beyond “ tuppence,” but while retaining my soul, I should like to have the “tuppence ” too. I should be very sorry indeed to injure the sale of the building, and in writing am simply doing my duty to so great a philanthropist as one of his “many friends” in showing him that as he has not yet had time to look into things generally (though he does not require sympathy), he must not give way to sorrow, tor hundreds in Christchurch would like to be similarly fixed. Yours, &c., THE OTHER SIDE, LYTTELTON HARBOR BOARD. To the Editor of the Globe. Sib, —I see some ohance of the number of members of the Lyttelton Harbor Board being increased by Mr E. G. Wright’s Amendment Act. Might I suggest that a clause should be inserted in Mr Wright’s Bill disqualifying M.H. R.’s from becoming Harbor Board members ? Mr Wright will no doubt feel a delicacy in entertaining such a wild proposal, but really if things go on, as they have been doing, the harbors will have to take care of themselves doling the sitting of Parliament, if people will persist in returning the same person for every office in their gift. Take our case for example. What does the Lyttelton ii,fluence on the Board amount to ? We make Mr Allwright M.EI.R., Mayor, and member of the Harbor Board. The duties of Mayor and M.H.8., which are of some practical utility to us as a borough, are lot slido for the periodical portfolio hunt at Wellington. Again we return Mr J. D. Macpherson. He values the honor to the extent of showing himself at one or two meetings of the Harbor Board, and then sets out for Melbourne, leaving ns to take what satisfaction we can out of the report that bo if granted leave of absence. We are about as helpless a lot of men oalling themselves voters as any pocket borough patron could wish to represent, however humiliating such a.n admission ill LYTTELTON.