THE STANDARD. WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 1873.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 66, 2 July 1873, Page 2

THE STANDARD.

WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 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.”

"We depart this morning from the usual custom among journalists, for the purpose of answering a correspondent, and with a view to putting ourselves right with the public, in reference to the subjectmatter of his letter which appears in another column of this issue. •** Mr. Stevakt is a Director of the Petroleum and ’ Kerosine Company, and is a “ foeman worthy of our steel.” He is a man of metal, and one who has a superior knowledge of detail work, which brings him generally to practical proof in support of any deductions he may make •or inferences he may draw. Still, granting these, we cannot tun think he has jumped too adroitly to the conclusion that we have “ conveyed a direct censure “ upon what we apparently consider the “too favorable terms granted to the “ promolfen of the now existing Kerosine “ Company and has done us the honor of quoting from our remarks of the 3 st of May, wherein we stated that “ under “ th* circumstances” the promoters had acted liberally towards the shareholders, mid expresseahis opinion that this stands out “ in curious contrast ” with our subsequent assertioh of the 21st June, that the “position of the shareholders with

“ reference to the Petroleum Company, is not so good as it might have been, “ nor, indeed, so good as it should be.”

The great respect in which -we hold hold Mr. Steuabt as a genuine colonist, make us the more regret the necessity for remarking on the somewhat inconvenient course he has adopted of quoting one paragraph only from our article, and by its light, ab uno disco omnes, to read the remainder in the sense of condemning, /// globo, the favorable terms granted to the promoters. It is far from our intention to the responsibility of what we have written ; and We ask mind —we ask Mr. Steuabt himself— is the position of the Company so good as it might have been ?• It not, the logical sequence of events —present effects answering to past causes—proclaim that it is not so good as it should be. The very fact of having to pay a large per centage in shares and oil is a direct testimony that the company is “ clogged with a coudi- “ tion which materially reduces its profits.”* No one w ill attempt to deny that if these amounts did not stand as perpetual debit items, the Company would have been in a better position than it is ; that this is so ; and holding to the opinion that this work should have been performed by bona fide settlers who vacated their right of position to outside third parties, we repeat, without fear of logical contradiction, that “it is not so good as “ it should be.”

But do our remarks, quoted by Mr. Steuabt, “ censure the too favorable “ terms ” granted to the promoters ? Do they unfavorably “ contrast” with our opinion that the promoters have “acted “liberally” in the concessions made to ■ shareholders ? It was to the interest of the promoters to make the best terms they could for the surrender of their lease. It was the duty of intending shareholders to reduce tliose terms to a minimum of liability. The promoters were masters of a position which they adroitly secured while we remained passive, and which we could only ask them to evacuate by granting an equivalent for the value of what they surrendered in so doing. They named their price, which the shareholders had to pay or stand aloof from the venture. From the very first it was apparent that we had been outwitted ; which, frith the apparently easy acquisition of the block, made that price appear extremely high, the more so as the desire to form the Company became general, At this stage then we repeat that Messrs. Cooper & Ross have made liberal concessions ; and we go further, and say that by doing so they have not by any means laid themselves open to a charge of exorbitancy in the demands they first made. But that does not relieve the Company from being “ clogged “ with a condition,” which even Mr’ Steuabt must admit it would have been better to be without ; and which, be it remembered, not only formed a great stumbling block in the formation of the Company, but was the means of preventing many from becoming shareholders ; and operated in lessening the number of shares subscribed for. We would gladly avoid the reflection that Mr. Steuakt has read our remarks as narrowly as he has quoted from them. He has (unwittingly, we believe) done us an injustice in not elucidating the exact tenor of that which, he says, implies a censure, by the context which led up to it. We purposely accepted the position of the local company, —in having to pay “through the nose,” so to speak,—to illustrate the unprofitableness of delay ; and to awaken the slumbering energies of the settlers (who seem to be unmindful of the wealth at their very doors) in any future undertaking of an associated nature. We also pointed out a fact, which it would be dishonest in the conduct of a fearless, outspoken journal to attempt to burke, that monied men in other provinces are apt to call our sagacity into question when we apply to them to join us in a speculation, having a first call on its profits which they think should have been saved to the .shareholders. It was to urge the people to avoid having to make other concessions of capital, however reasonable ; and not by inaction raise up difficulties in the management of their affairs, which they, as in the present instance, might find it both difficult and expensive to remove. We do not deny that our remarks conveyed a mild reproof on the short-sighted-ness which allowed others to come in and take from us that which we should have had spirit enough to have secured for

ourselves. We do not blame the Company for bending to a necessity from which they could not escape; but we do censure the supineness of those who made that necessity possible; still we see no reason to alter our opinion, that “ under the circumstances,” the position of the Company is as good as it can be, but not so good as it would have been if the settlers had done their duty, which we urged upon them months ago to do. The analogy instituted by Mr. Step art in comparing*the Poverty Bay Petroleum Company favorably with other mineral companies, is, we think, beside the question at issue. We have imported nothing of the kind into our view of the necessity put upon us to avoid a repetition of former blunders. We have never hinted at the possibility of failure ; or that the status of this Company is not relatively as good as that of all others similarly situated. What we claim for consideration is that we have made a huge mistake in allowing others to work in a direction which was peculiarly our own ; and we must not be ashamed to acknowledge it.