A Correction.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 416, 4 October 1876, Page 2

A Correction.

Sir, —I have read “ Peeping Tom’s ” letter in Friday’s Herald, the object of which is very obvious, namely,,to curry favor with Mr Head. He talks about abuse in your columns, 1 have seen no abuse. I notice that you, very properly, and as was your duty as an impartial journalist, animadverted on Mr Read’s incapacity to represent us, and as one of tlie public I felt obliged to you for pointing out the mistake vve had made in electing a person entirely unfit and incapable of upholding the honorable position into which he had thrust or bought himself. “ Tom ” is surprised that not one word had been said on the other side, that only proves the justness of your remarks; there was no one but this tailor to come forward and dissent, aud so he had to do it himself or leave it undone. He speaks about the “ corrupt motives ” which have actuated you with regard to Mr Read. I can’t understand that sufficiently to argue it, had he been more explicit 1 might; and then he goes on to say “ we all know who started him, (i.e., you) in his paper &c..” Before going any further I should like to remark that “ Tom ” seems entirely to ignore that your remarks were made viewing his idol as a would-be representative and consequently a public man whose conduct is very properly amenable to editorial criticism; but “Tom” leaves that and flies off into a subject untouched by you aud addresses himself to blowing the mercantile and business trumpet. I humbly contend, that ’ referring to your business affairs is no reply to editorial strictures. I don’t think we all do know who started the Standard ; at any rate he does not seem to know much about it. I should have said that it was started by H. E. Webb on a guaranteed or partly guaranteed capital subscribed by many old settlers in the Bay, and that Mr Read advanced the money to buy plant &c., which I presume has been paid back with interest. One would have thought from “ Tom’s ” way of putting it that Mr Read had made the proprietor a present of theplant&c., sineea business transaction is cast in his teeth. “ All therunownershehas started &e.,” yes, he started one or two certainly, (out of their holdings) and dropped in himself ; how about Parker, since “ Tom ” will., go into business matters to tryand have shy at you ? But he is far too general in his remarks, he tries to make out that Mr Read is deserving respect, and by implication you the reverse, but he does not give us your words and then prove them untrue, in fact not one argument or assertion of yours is pulled to pieces or even attacked ; merely in one sweeping clause you are accused of abuse. I presume then that those who view Mr Read in his true colors and speak plainly will bo taxed with abuse, because they don’t happen to agree with “ Mr Tom ;” a course of proceeding open to, and always taken by, men of the feeblest capacity, because it requires no argumentative power or strength in facts, merely to cry outand say your opponent is all wrong, and then chuck a little dirt and retire imagining yourself victorious, a course entirely unworthy of “ Peeping Tom ” who is capable of very fair argument, given a fair standing ground as regards facts &c. “ All the good he has done the bay &c.” Now I think Mr Read has more right to thank the old settlers than they to thank him. Perhaps “ Tom ” was not here in November 1868, if he had been be would know how Read left, everything and weut with the women and children

to Napier, and how his property was protected, and removed in his absence as much as possible into safety by those who remained. How would it have been with Read if those settlers also had gone ? Where would Read’s stores and goods &c., have been ? and mind you, these settlers had lost everything movable, and their possessions were in the hands of the enemy so they had nothing of their own to stay and protect. Yes, and some of those men are here now and can relate the thanks they got for their pains. Mr Editor I could go on in this strain till yon were weary, replying in the same vein in which “ Tom ” has written, but I think it an error of his to plunge into personal and business matters. You wrote from a public point of view let him then reply fmm the same; it will pay better than raking up old coals ; besides I don’t see that the public will care two straws what Mr Read’s private business is. I can quite believe what “Tom’’says about your having supported Mr Wilson first, and then Mr Read ; they were both local men, and it was agreed that Wilson should retire in Read’s favor; what else could you have done seeing the cry was “ a local man." Your late article, in which you admit that you were carried away by that local cry and regret your error will answer his paragraph about the election. Then he runs on about 121 per cent., and says you need’nt have borrowed of him as though you had complained. I don’t know where he gets this idea from, I saw nothing in any of your articles about it, and then we have him back al the abuse again. He reverts to the placarding and says there was “ a great deal of provocation ” for it. Now. if he thinks that criticism of a man in his public capacity ought to be met by private and domestic matters as a reply to that criticism, then he would say he thinks anything. As an illustration of “ the old man’s good points ” he refers us to the improvements he has made on “ his own property," and that he spends his money in the district ; I am perfectly willing to freely admit this without the faintest attempt at contradiction ; but Mr Editor I ask you and all the public through you whether we don’t aZZ do those two things to the best of our ability ? Yes. “ fair play is bonnie play,” but does ‘ Tom ’ mean to say for one moment that he would go to his idol for that commodity.—l am, &c., Truth.