CORRESPONDENCE.

Marlborough Press, Volume I, Issue 19, 12 May 1860, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Marlborough Press. Sin —What a hue and cry has been got up in your last paper in proclaiming the merits of Ocean Bay for its safe anchorage ! Till now I never knew that it was a case in dispute, and I think that Mr. Aldridge, as owner of all the available land in Ocean Bay, has done quite right in his attempt to defend the merits of his port. But I think, at the same time, that Captain Scott ought to have been rnorc. guarded in his letter of praise, and knowing him to he such an old veteran in the coasting trade, I am the more surprised at his remarks. Captain Scott s knowledge of Queen Charlotte Sound is not gained from his own experience, but from the New Zealand Pilot. Captain Scott never passed Pig Island ; never dropped an anchor in the bight of Waitohi: never sailed through the south-west arm of Queen Charlotte Sound. And as for Mr. Bowler’s crying out from the Boulder Bank, I can give no reason, excepting that of Mr. Slick’s of Slickville —“ it is nat’ral “ the craft in danger.” Mr. Bowler’s howl is altogether unnecessary. I am, &c., Sentinel. Wairau, May 2.

To the Editor of the Marlborough Press, Sir —It is much to be regretted that patriotism, even in English life, is. now-a-days a much less prominent feature than might be wished; still in the old country, the aristocratic element; and to vour shame be it spoken, ye, worshippers of Mammon, that of poverty and pauperism, maintain some shadow of that principle, which was the foundation of her greatness; as it is of everything that is noble in the world, just as the struggle for individual aggrandisement is the foundation of everything that is mean. In her colonies, alas ! the sentiment seems to be almost entirely’ wanting. Where, in the various countries of the globe, using our tongue, from America down to New Zealand, are we to look for the main characteristics which so powerfully call forth our admiration in the history of the Greek, the Roman, or even the Briton? For example, let us glance at the political movements and centests which are continually going on in our own infant country. One set of aspirants for political power put themselves forward a? the advocates of ultra-provincialism, and get foiled with their own weapons. “ Division is strength ” being their motto, could they expect, or did they deserve, any better success. Another demagogue has discovered, that the North Island, having a large native population likely to prove troublesome and expensive to subdue, and moreover having a comparatively small breadth of waste lands of less value than the South, that their interests are opposed, and therefore demands that they shall be constituted separate colonies. The revenue from the land, says he, with professional sophistry, is like manure, and ought to be returned to the source from whence it is derived. Let us remind that financier for the colony, and steam navigation, that by the struggles and hardships of the northern settlers, aye. and with their land revenue (that manure which ought to be returned to its source), was the glorious hills, vallies, and plains of the south made available. With their experience, and the fruits of their industry, was the way made smooth for a successful and profitable occupation by her more fortunate settlers. Another bone of contention, which fully illustrates the absence of true patriotic principles, is the seat of government question. The Nelson Examiner has lately advocated the choice of Nelson, or Queen Charlotte Sotmd. The Wellington Independent of course takes up the cudgels, and with some tact evades the main arguments, conscious of the weakness of his own, and feigns to believe that Wellington’s claims are unquestionable, 'in all these disputes and squabbles, a thin veil of assumed desire for the common good covers the motive; it is, however, sufficiently transparent. Can any reflecting man of ordinary discrimination conceal from himself the fact, that in the discussion of this subject, whatever may be the merits of the question, as regards the real advantages offered by the different localities, they have no part in the real sentiments of the disputants, the motive being purely, How shall we get the money spent about our own doors, and secure the traffic, demand for goods large profits, and improved value of property which will follow ? Your readers will observe, that the Wellington advocate does not attack the character of Queen Charlotte Sound as a harbour of almost world-wide celebrity; no! it was left for two of our own men of Marlborough entirely to throw off disguise, in a short-sighted attempt to detract from the merits of the Sound (the mainstay of the province), and set up their own particular as its rival; so palpably gross and disingenuous is this effort to mislead the public of the province, a great many of whom are necessarily unacquainted with maritime, or commercial affairs, that one wonders at the blindness of the procedure. It is quite evident that the two gentlemen who have consented to put themselves forward as the mouthpieces of Nelson speculators and other interested parties, are too honest for their work, and have consequently overdone it, not contenting themselves with the testimonials of the various masters of vessels in connection with Messrs. Fleeceum, Cookcm, and Company, in favour of Port Underwood, the merits of which are perfectly well understood; better, indeed, than Messrs. Bowler and Aldridge, or even the master of the brig Sprav, seem to comprehend. They have committed the folly of attempting to deny the absolute complication of advantages offered by the Sound as a harbour, not only for Marlborough, but for the whole of New Zealand, in the face of testimony, borne by every naval commander who has visited Cook’s Strait, from Captain Cook to our brave, true English-hearted Cracroft. And who are Mr. S. Bowler and Mr. Michael Aldridge? some of your distant readers may ask. Answer—Almost the only two persons whose entire interests seem to depend upon the game played by Nelson and Beaverton speculators on the winning side, and the ’wool growers and

general inhabitants of Marlborough on the losing side. Can our fellow-citizens, Mr. Aldridge and Mr Bowjcr—who in their private sphere justly claim the respect of all who know them—answer the following query ? How is it that Wellington merchants, in spite of the fine holding ground of Port Underwood and Cloudy Bay, can afford to employ an agent at Beaverton, pay him two and a-half per cent, for purchasing wool, also paying a liberal freight to Wellington, landing and other expenses there, insurance, &c., and send it from there to England with a profit? It is quite manifest that wool must bring a lower price at Beaverton than Wellington by, at least the commission, freight, insurance, &c., as above, but most probable, about 1.0 per cent., to make the business worth transacting This is a question I fear, beyond the range of thought, but the fact may serve to show them and others that there are considerations besides the difference of the clay at the bottom of Port Underwood which affect this subject. . , ~ We want a port of our own ; not one virtually belonging to Wellington or Nelson. Not having a desire to occupy one-half of your paper, I must close for the present, and remain, Mr. Editor, Yours, <fec., Discriminator. Picton, May 1, 1860.

To the Editor of the Marlborough Press. g IK Those of your readers who are not blessed with any great acuteness of the perceptive faculties must fail to derive either amusement or instruction from the contributions of some of your correspondents. Being myself slenderly endowed in this respect, I can discover m them nothing worthy of ink or type.. Whether the subjects are too recondite for ordinary capacities, or whether it be that “ Your true no meaning puzzles more than wit, the result is equally unsatisfactory, and your columns are filled with sound signifying nothing to the ears to which they are addressed. If Philanthropos, like the didactic writer on the Press had confined himself to one letter, he might have been permitted, uncriticised, to inflict his dreary platitudes on your readers, but he says (Feb. 3), “ I shall recur to this subject,” “I shall return to this subject,” “ I shall return to the .subject in detail,” “I shall simply call attention to the subject in general and return to it as opportunity offers, and (March 9), I shall return to it [the subject] by itself, and he does repeat his Philanthropic efforts accoidmgly, and clearly meditates a series of easy lessons on a variety of subjects, on ■which probably few of your readers have notions more ciude than his own. On one occasion he refrains from saying anything more on the subject, as he might lose his temper and perhaps his liberty, and subsequently, on seeing some part of the \» airau river, he does “lose his temper, and retired from the field in perfect disgust.” Lot us charitably hope that the symptoms arc not indicative of incipient hydrophobia, and that if lie be subjected to any restraint, it will be self-imposed. Let him profit by his quotation from Burns. Disquisition (March 9), “ in a charitable spiiit, proposes to “ scatter the germs of the beautiful in the temple of the heart,” &c. I cannot discern that he does much towards the accomplishment of his benevolent object, indeed the rest of his letter appeared to me, if it had any meaning, to be covertly satirical and ironical. What, for instance, could be more jocose than his proposal to give bonuses for the first piece of cloth, the first anchor and chain, &c., and I would have added the first soap bubble and the first penny trumpet, all equally likely, I imagine, to realize 300 per cent; but in his last he “ disdains to poke fun at any one,” and I am greatly discomfited by the declaration. Does he then, in sober earnestness, propound for the instruction of otheis such trite truisms as the following: “ llie arts of commerce,” &c., “ Nothing in a state, &c., “ The encouragement, &c. (March 9), and “Here is need of money,” &c. Or are these the germs of beautiful Does he imagine, because he has only acquired the alphabet of social and political economy that others need be indebted to him for their initiatory lesson ? Disquisition and Philanthropos seem suited to each other ; let them indulge, if they please, in the “ iron grasp of friendship, but, oh ! let them not inflict such cruel cordiality on your innocent readers. , . ~ „ . Some wily serpent from Taewaiti would fain invade our Paradise with a ton and a-half ol apples; if Adam was tempted to his fall by the insidious offering of Eve, what would become of us in case of such a visitation : not content with this, the arch-fiend threatens us with a corps de reserve of fourteen bushels of oysters, and a quantity of fish equal to Finnan haddocks. Human nature is not proof against such an array of temptations ; virtue ebbs, and wisdom errs at the mere recapitulation, and I feel my self denial, like Bob Acres’ courage, oozing out of my fingers’ ends. Happily we need not pray that we be not led into temptation, for the steamer is faithless and the donkey and panniers are not, and there is manifestly no other mode of conveyance between Tacwhiti and Wairau. Of course I shall be accused of conceit, arrogance, presumption, and other deadly sins, but let your _ correspondents lay on and spare not; there will be an infusion of spice of one sort in your columns, instead of matter which is not distasteful because utterly insipid. I am, etc., A Subscriber.