Untitled

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 944, 26 April 1879, Page 2

The Kev. K. L. Stanford's ears will tingle, if there is any truth in ttic old idea that the cars of those who are talked aWit arc subject to sttdi irritation. KveryWly will express attrprise at what the Episcopalian parson has done, ami wonder how it is that the sanctifying influence of a bi-weekly visit to the sanctuary did not render him as impenetrable to the shaft* of Satan as they arc themselves. Ocod people: how they will in turn syinjathis)« with him and every member of his family. They will wonder, ton. how it is that they themselves' could have been so pure, seeing that they had been taught by so frail a teacher, and, with hearts banting with gratitude, will offer up the Pharisee's prayer. But what has Mr. Stanford done * If c was a journalist as well as a parson. There is no incompatibility here: for do we not read that the Press is the handmaiden to religion ? As a writer in the Ol»io Daily Times under the old rttjlmr, he preached not only on Sundays, but every day in the week. Whether lie inculcated those great moral lessons which arc inseparable from true religion or not, we arc not going to say : nor is this of more importance *» eotißvjtio:i -..ici: the if.tcstion at taatte than a passing idea. By writing for the Times Mr. Stanford supplemented his income by several hundreds a year: and !*neh an at>_:>ointtnrnt was, of course, of as mttch valise to hir.i as the good-wiii of any more practical business bringing in the sanis return. He was a large shareholder in the Times, and, so lons as he continued to W so. so long wo«M his several htmdreds a year come troopinj gaily in. Jl»' misy have bought largely rntr the concern in prefi-roiice to embarking 11 some other spccnUtio", which would hav< been Ix-ttcr than Times shares without .-.i «.,I?Mt»Mi». I<«rutse of Mse addii : o'!s: profi .... ...»r J,, ,Vrv>l>'.> from writing fo! the piper; nay, this is probable. Can any one be surprised, then, that he shoisld havi set a higher price on his sliarcs than tha which was being given to ordinary share holders? The abandonment of the pape meant to tbn tte loss of several hundreds;

I year more than it meant to any other shareholder holding the same number of shares. So that, when Mr. Stanford was asked to agree to the sale, he said that he would do so if he were given a bonus in addition to the value iof his shares. The bargain was struck I with him, and it was subsequently passed at a meeting of the directory ; but he kept the fact that a special arrangement had been made with him to himself, and if he had done the same with the amount of the bonus he might hove acted wisely. He did not tirll the otlmr directors of the arrangement, b«,;ai'« lie knew that if he did ho they would look upon it as spoil, and want a share of it. 15ut it eventually leaked out, and then the words " bribe-money, 1 ' which mnst have been so repugnant to the ears of a clcrzvman, were freely used. It appears that the other shareholders were legally entitled to their quota of the bonus, but iiivralty, Mr. Stanford's only sin was in being found out. How many are there that can honestly say that they view Mr. Stanford's transactions a worse than those transaction* which they are daily engaging in ? The only diligence is that Mr. Stanford's was more legitimate and less in magnitude. Mr. Stanford is to be blamed for one thing. He should have engaged someone who was accustomed to scheming to arrange and carry out his little business, and nothing would have been heard of it, whilst he would have been in possession of that to which he was better entitled than the other shareholders of the Times, and of which he was deprived because of jealousy.