PERSEVERANCE COMPANY.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume V, Issue 264, 10 November 1870, Page 2

PERSEVERANCE COMPANY.

To the Editor of the Nelson Evening Mail. Sir — A letter signed J. Burnett appeared in the last issue of the Colonist, in reply to a previous one signed " Original Shareholder," endeavoring to explain away the dissatisfaction that is now universally felt by the holders of scrip, or unpaid shares, in the above company; but 1 do not think the matter is represented quite fairly yet, at all events not what I consider fairly, and though I may be somewhat like the Scotch Divine who, when asked " What is Orthodoxy ? " answered " My Doxy," with your permission I will give my view of it fairly. Ido not believe the shareholders charge the Provisional Directors "with deliberately or fraudulently deceiving them by making false statements in the prospectus." The Nelson portion of those gentlemen are too well known and too highly esteemed to allow such a suspicion; the other two men) bers are comparative strangers. I believe the shareholders think it a great deal more possible or even probable that the Provisional Directors were fully convinced they were giving forth a plain statement of facts in their prospectus, and that they gave it forth in all good faith. Still they did give it forth, and because they gave forth what they did, and because it came headed by the names of gentlemen in wliom the public had implicit confidence, the shares were taken up at once. That prospectus states, in very definite language, that " Water, consisting of three full sluice heads, has been led at a large expense a distance of over eight miles from the river Parapara on to the ground; onehalt of the water, or one and a half sluice heads, amply sufficient for driving all necessary machinery, and for washing the crushings, is the property of the Company, on condition that it contributes one-half the cost of maintaining the lead." This is the language of two professional gentlemen who are supposed to know whereof they affirm. Mr. Burnett in his letter tells us that their calculation was fully endorsed by Mr. Thompson. I understand by this that it was the opinion of these three professional gentlemen, that one and a half full sluice heads of water, delivered on to the ground, was sufficient to work the Turbine that was ordered, and fitted up at the mine. The Turbine is amply large j

t enough and strong enough to work twenty head , of stampers; that is all we want. This water was laid on from the river Parapara, which is I am informed larger than our Nelson rivers, and i 9 of '■ course running night and day. Now then I ask i are there one and a half full sluice heads of water 1 running night and day, delivered on to the ground, available for the use of the Company? Is 1 not this the plain and only question with which the scrip or non-paid up shareholders have to do? ; If there is not this full quantity, ought not those who have been paid for such distinctly specified I supply by 1680 five -pound paid-up shares and i £1600 in cash, to make their part of the contract ' good, or else come to some honorable terms in i reference thereto, as did the Culliford Co. under precisely similar circumstances. If there is that , full quantity of water, the fault must surely be in the Turbine, if so, let it be at once superseded by 1 something else, say a large waterwheel on the , most improved plan, for which the ground is so admirably suited, and which I cannot help thinking, would with one and a half sluice heads 1 (which is I believe a continuous stream of 30 square inches of water) work a battery of 20 head i of stampers. That is all we want. If the lead re- . quires repairs, of course we shall have to pay half. Is not the waterwheel used on the West Coast? ' Can anyone tell us any thing about it ? I did intend to notice some other particulars, but fchall occupy too much space. I would very much like, however, to know what the £2600 worth of gold spoken of by Mr. Burnett cost in getting. I am, &c, A Shareholder.