Seddon V. Stead.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XL, Issue 7320, 13 June 1902, Page 2

Seddon V. Stead.

The £-260 ChwuieSKotunied

Mr Seddoirs Ueply

(Auckland Herald correspondent.! Loxdox. May 10. I am indebted to the courtesy of Mr V. r. T. Stead for being able to "nubh<h the letter which Mr Seddon wrote to Lini in reply to that from Mr Stead of November 23 hist, in which the latter gentleman forwarded Ins cheque for £200, being a refund or the sum voted to the Australian Review of Reviews by the. New Zealand Parliament at the instance of the Premier. Mr SedJo-fs letter ruus as follows:—"Prc'-:.--v\ Office. "Wellington. .\e\v Zea! m>J M»^-:i :U, ll>oi Dear Mr Stead.—Your k':tVr of November "23 last readied me ::i .hie cou-rse. Kindly excuse tlie delay in replying thereto. I was not aware when the item for the payment of the Australasian Review of Reviews was before Parliament that you were the holder of the majority of the stock in th.it juiirnal. In a letter written to Dr. Fitchett :■> .December, 1900, and published ::> : ho New Zealand papers, he states that the Review of Reviews for Australia was under distinct ownership from the English Review of Reviews. The rransaetioii in question was between New Zea!.Ti:cl and the proprietary of the Australasian Review of Reviews, and it the amount* paid was all profit your share could not have been more than I'loO. lam satisfied, lnwc:vjr, that the not profit did not eseicd £-0, and I am at a loss to understand by what force- of reason you should feel called upon to sond £"2GO. You could not icf.-nd that which you never recriv-sl. Teiveiyput by Dr". Fitcheit tr> iiic- :.! bis je;:er of March 31, 1002, allu«::-.g to youi- action, he says : ' Ho sends you his cheque now to relievo his OW!! feelings, but it is his own money ho sends aud ant tlia money of tho company which owes ihe Review of Reviews for Australia.' It is correct that several members adversely criticised thi transaction, but I cannot agree- with you that a discussion on public espc:uiirj<\; is a waste of time. There is auoth-jr side to the question which you seem to have overlooked, viz., that the opposition to tho item was m reality an operation of piu-prickiag, which" is practiced by journalists as wull as members of Parliament. While apprccU::u.,- tho feeliug which actuated you i:i wishing tc avoid receiving public m incys voted under a tnisapprehcujion of facts, I think you acted hastily, ■■'.■■■.l should hivo waited until profits from tho Australian Review of Reviews o.i tlu transaction had ro.ieho.l yei:. aud you could then have a:io:;wiiJ^=.'y paid, as conscience money, tho a nount into the public anoint, aitliJtiait by so doing thuro would be tiV- risk of the money so returned bc:>i^ mili.-edin equipping contingents t.> iuht :u what you inconsiderately ten.; a >uir-idsl war; or there was the "other alternative of openly returning the moneys received by you as a share" holder in the journal in question. In conclusion, I desire to state that Dr. Fitehett, wuen miking the suggestion' dhl <o with the view of helping tho o-lr.ny. and the transaction was straightforward and honorable alike to both >idrs. Lor my own part I have nothinto regret. I came inadvertently to ail erroneous conclusion from whY Dr 1-nchett had published, but notwit!,.' stauumg this, had all the facts been Known to the members of the House they would have passed the item—repudiation is not in the colony1., vocabulary. I cannot accept the proffered ant to the colony, and return your cheoue herewith. The object imended Ins' I anticipate been serred. and I thank You very kindly for having drawn mv"u< tention to the correct rolationshn, ef yourself with the Australasian Review of Review?; the information muk.lv.! will enable me to put myself ri.ht VlrJ, the House of Representative- at ,!„< earliest opportunity.—Your, faithful:v (signed) R. J. Seddox."