Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 996, 8 November 1881, Page 2

There is a matter so seriously affecting the conduct of our public institutions, their officers, and supporters, as to plead our cause of justification in alluding to it in our columns. We had hoped that whatever asperity of feeling (from which there is no hope of escape while human infirmities exist) had been engendered, owing to the independent action of the Standard during years of injustice and personal opposition, would have been allowed to subside, on the change of its proprietorship. We are aware that not only one but several bands of opponents have existed, whose object was to make the late proprietor of the Standard feel the virulence of their hostility through the breeches’ pocket. They could not “ rub him outnor could they stem the current of his journal's influence on all public questions. Its arguments and principles were unassailable, but still opposition was kept up, and carried itself from the arena of polities and public strife, to our ordinary business relations, and public institutions. The weapons we have been fought with, have been malice, and a malignant desire to cowardly kill that which could not be overcome by fair means ; but we survive, and shall do so, and with a strong hope that our enemies may yet see the error of their ways. We are led to these remarks through a fact lately come to our knowledge, and which bears it own significance. It is this : Our advertising collector waited ou Mr. Matthewson, in due course of business, for a portion of the printing and advertising work required for the recent Agricultural Show ; and he was met by a refusal, accompanied by the remark that, as Mr. Webb had made himself so politically obnoxious to several members of the Society, its advertisements would not be given to the Standard and they were not given accordingly. Now, although if matters assume this form, we do not care two straws for the Agricultural Society’s patronage, we must say that the Secretary’s refusal to give this journal a share of the work was based upon a paltry, and exceptionally mean excuse. If the line of advocacy of political questions pursued by' the Standard was opposed to some of the members of the Agricultural Society, what effect should that have on their patronage being extended to us, who give our liberal support to the Institution of which, after all, they are but the guardians ? Certainly not in the direction of playing off one card against another. Whatever Mr. Webb, or any other writer in our columns may have said about members’ politics, it has nothing to do with the present question ; while it serves to show how injudiciously the Society is worked. No journal in the world, cwt er is paribus, has laid itself open to a greater extent than the Standard has done, for the promotion of local interests and industries; nor have its owners sub-

scribed towards them with greater liberality than Mr. Webb has done ; and yet, forsooth, in the face of that patent fact, Mr. Matthewson, as the mouthpiece of the Agricultural Society, says, in effect, “ Oh, Mr. Webb is, or “ was, politically opposed to a cer- “ tain clique in" the Society, and as “ they rule the roast, the Standard “ shall have no support from us.” It is the first time that we have met with one possessing the nerve to explain so clearly the reason that underlies action, or cause, and effect, as Mr. Matthewson has done —although we are well aware that a similar feeling actuates individual officers of other institutions. Mr. Matthewson very naturally throws the blame upon the Society, althogh it is quite on the cards that Mr. Matthewson is only nursing his own little drop of wrath to keep it warm. And as far as political mosity, or friendship, is concerned, we would lay claim to the latter from Mr. Matthewson, were we not undesirous of putting ourselves under an obligation to him. We claim his gratitude and not his animosity. If Mr. Matthewson, as the Agricultural Society’s mouthpiece, accuses us of unfair political opposition, or obnoxiousness, we throw the allegation back with disdain. As a Society of Agriulturists we support them, and not as politicians. We may disregard them as the latter, but as the former —as settlers doing good in their day and generation, we may and do applaud them.

We do not think the members of these local Societies are aware what mischief they lend themselves to, in relegating to their officers the duty of uncontrolled patronage. We refuse to believe that the Agricultural Society, or the Race Club, as a body, endorses its Secretary’s action in refusing us advertisements, on the ground of political differences. The fact is that these officers take upon themselves to introduce private and public feeling into their duties, and then cringe behind the members’ backs for an excuse. It would be far better for a committee or a general meeting of members to resolve on an ascertained expenditure, and divide it fairly between the two journals. It is a course we have always advocated, and one that common justice should dictate as reasonable. The statements referred to above can be verified. They are, in their present ugly deformity a great scandal on our Institutions, and members 'ought to look to an avoidance of a repetition of the cause of our complaint.