THE STANDARD. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1873.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume 1, Issue 16, 8 January 1873, Page 2

THE STANDARD.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1873.

“ We shall sell to no man justice or right: •We shall deny to no man justice or right: We shall defer to no man justice or right.”

The -romarkH which appeared in our 1 columns a short time since, censuring in a very mild form, the careless and indifferent management «f our local Postwjflicc, haw? -not fallen one inch short of their aim. The correctness of the aim is shewn by thcfact'thatpublicindigna- • tion-'is fairly roused, and • directed to- ' wards a removal of what has almost • become a public nuisance. The mildness ■ of the form will be more apparent before the end of this article is reached, the following replication from “ a correspondent at Poverty Bay,” having furnished us with more material facts, whose superincumbent weight in the scale ■ against Mr. Stubbs, must have a more damaging effect than if his “-assumption” of defence had been left unwritten. The following appears in the ■ lI.E. Herald of the 27th December: — “A most Splenetic attack lias been made on Mr. StuMiSj.the Postmaster of Gisborne, by the ■ editor of the Poverty Bay ’Standard, and the majority of the inhabitants here greatly condemn him for inserting such an uncalled-for article. Mr. Stubbs, when he took over the post-oflice, mca tv meet ttiv rrc-rm of the public so far as to promise that if a mail came in before eight • o’clock in the evening he would deliver it that night, if at home. Tliis promise he lias faithfully carried out, so far., In the first instance • quoted by the Standard. Mr. Stubbs was out at rifle practice when the steamer arrived, anfi did not return home till nearly eight o’clock. He then had to make up the outgoing mail, as the mail agent was waiting for it. As regards the second instance, that of the Star of the South, he had private business in the evening that compelled his absence from town. The Salary received by Mr. Stubbs for his services amounts to tho large sum of £2O a year, which is certainly not sttllieicnt to remunerate him for keeping ‘open'for tie delivery of letters ’ both day and night.”

We arc quite prepared to meet Mr. Stubbs on his own ground, and to oppose him with the weapons he has furnished to our hand as “a correspondent.” We must, however, take exception to •the statement? that what we said on the ■occasion alluded to was a “splenetic “ attack.” The necessity put upon the management of this journal, to take the means at its command, with a 'view to improving the affairs at the Post-office, is notorious. For three months we did battle ’with the contention of duty •opposed to private friendship. Week after week we have been twitted with a departure from the principles on which we sought the suffrages of the settlers, or to repeat, “we bent to a stern necessity, yielding, in fact, in “ support of complaints, forced upon us “from circumstances that r can be tole- “ rated no longer.” The course we dock, was taken with much regret; but from afirm conviction thatthe unmended ■evils -we-had so long borne with, would increase and multiply, we did what it will always be our duty to do, viz. to 'promote the best interests of the public, let the consequences be what they may. The stand we take is on public grounds: the soul that moves us is beyond the Teach of either pills or spleen. Mr. Stubbs, as his own apologist, says, when the steamer arrived at 4 o’clock in the morning, he was out at •rifle practice, “ and did. not ret urn home until 8 o’clock.” We did not accuse Mr. Stubbs of returning before that hour; but it is because he returned too late to give the public the benefit of an opportunity which seldom occurs, that we both accuse and blame him. It is because, according to “ a correspon- “ dent’s” own statement, (the steamer being at anchor at the time of Mr. fr-mi home) he did

not curtail his enjoyment; but rather with the mail at his office at six o’clock, he stolidly obstructed public business by delay. Again, even if true, that Mr. Stubbs did not return until 8 o’clock, he was firing his matutinal shots, for four hours in full view of the steamer, and anyone with the slightest regard for the interests of others, — anyone not obstinately indifferent to consequences, would have gratuitously rendered a service which the public have not a right to demand: herein is the grace, foreign to some natures. That the mail agent “was waiting,” is nothingto thepurpose. The mail is often on board some considerable time before the steamer’s departure ; in the present instance there was plenty of time to receive and answer letters if assisted by the kindly services of the Postmaster,' —without it of course that could not be done. And although we do not deny that Mr. Stubbs may have acted within the pale of his instructions, we say it is inconsonant with a genial disposition, to gloat over the the miserable permission which a puny, trumpery, authority gives one to peep through his window shutters at the

effects of liis own boorishness. Mr. Stubbs is. unfortunately for the position he occupies, essentially one of these sour-hearted individuals, who, joining an unhappy infirmity of disposition to a brusque exterior-habit of doing business, derives his chief ’happiness from the disappointments of other people; he dissipates over the power he holds of causing trouble to others, rather than endeavouring to use it to mutual advantage. The two instances, quoted bv us, are not the whole sum of complaint against the Postmaster. It is often the case that nothing tangible crops up for some time, and when it does it is as much at the remembrance of what is past, as a desire to redress present grievances, that the thoughts of the public find expression. If a person enquires for a letter, the Postmaster is not bound, by the Regulations of the Service, to put it into the hand of the applicant; and one could not very well «matn.in i£ the missive, after whistling through the air, landed

at his feet. If one calls at the Postoffice a few minutes before 9 or after 5, no official complaint could be made for being detained in the one instance or refused, point blank, in the other. . In short'if any little obligation is required to be performed, a great convenience to the obligee, and but small trouble to the Postmaster, you cannot report him for refusing to comply, outside the four corners of his dry duty and prescribed hours. Put then there’s a pleasing method even in refusing, which we do not find here; and there’s a most uncivil, growling, method of compliance, which We do find; and, as w r e have said so thorough and generally-exhibited an indifference as to whether disappointments ensue or not, that it is quite time the department was in some one else’s hands. With regard to the second occurrence —that of the Star of the South—it is, if anything, worse than the first. If any official has private business to transact, between the hours of duty, which imperatively demands his attention and presence elsewhere, we decidedly accord to him the right to enjoy the privilege ; but is it not possible to make public concessions, without great personal sacrifices? It is most positively asserted that on this occasion the public might have been served co-evally with the rights and enjoyments of the Postmaster being maintained. Mr Stubbs went on his business, the mail landed, and returned before the steamer left; ’» a half hour’s grace at either end of the story, would have given us the benefits which, as it was, we lost; while Mr. Stubbs gained nothing by his inconsiderate conduct. In the face of all that has been said by “ a correspondent,”we most unreservedly deny his assertion, that the “"majority df the inhabitants here greatly condemn us for inserting such an uncalled-for article.* 1 If such be the case, why go to Napier to state it ? If “a correspondent’s 1 ’ letter was not written by Mr. Stubbs himself, why go to a community to contradict as fact, what they can have no possible means of judging of on its merits ? Why go shambling about the country to assert that •which, if true, would best carry a refutation where the cause existed that called it forth? The columns of this

journal are open to Mr. Stubbs or “ a correspondenthe or they shall have i full justice, but the people of Poverty Bay are not to have dust thrown in their eyes by his attempting to make it appear that they ate satisfied with the Post-office as it is ; it is not to go forth that a majority are in favor of the continuance af greivances, while,in truth, outside the circle df his private friends Mr. Stubbs cannot find half a dozen who disagree with us, and agree with him on this subject; but if he thinks he can, we challenge him to do it ! Mr. Stubbs has thought proper to say that he treats our censures of him, with, as he says, “ the contempt they merit.” We can only say that if he has the hardihood and effrontery io treat an united expression of ninety ninehundredths of the inhabitants with contempt, it bears out our opinion of him, and he condemns himself by furnishing an apt illustration of his utter unfitness for the office he holds.