Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 997, 10 November 1881, Page 2

Mr. Matthewson’s letter, in reply to our remarks in last Tuesday’s issue will be found in another column. ’ Unfortunately for Mr. Matthewson, we cannot separate Mr. Matthewson, as Mr. Matthewson, from Mr. Matthewson, “ late Hon. Sec.” Of Mr. Matthewson, as Mr. Matthewson, we have nothing to say, except that he is one of those (apparently) genial, good-natured gentlemen who is particularly bland and agreeable to your face, but the reverse behind your back. In fact, Mr. Matthewson, as Mr. Matthewson, and not as Mr. Matthewson, “late Hon. Sec.” is a living personification of one of those amphibii told of in story, and as a nautical friend of ours would say, is “an angel in harbor, but a devil at sea ;” smooth, saponaceous, and fawning to a degree, when an object is to be served ; but treacherous, deceitful and ungrateful when, that object has been served.

A man of Mr. Matthewson’s mental attainments in this direction is a dangerous man, inasmuch, as, if a strict record is not kept by which to “ hoist him on his own petard,” he is sure to double round some corner left unguarded, and then, with his finger to his nose, give the true Masonic sign to the man in the rear. This is Mr. Matthewson’s attitude to us now, but we are one too many for him. We have waited patiently for some time to catch this political-cum-agri-cultural hon. sec. tripping, and have run him to earth on his own ground. Mr. Matthewson is not going to wriggle out of the net this time. Itis Mr. Matthewson who, as wire-puller-in-chief, has done all the insidious mischief he possibly could to the Standard, while setting his friend Mr. Allan McDonald (who yet will find him out) up as the principal. Mr. Matthewson acted as pawn to Mr. McDonald’s knight-errantry. We pity him not, and spare him not; and let our readers judge,

Mr. Mogridge, one of the proprietors of this journal, and whose word is more than an equivalent of that of Mr. Matthewson, in his letter in today’s issue, gives the lie direct to Mr. Matthewson’s assertion that he did not assign as a reason that our “ politics were obnoxious,” &c. We agree with Mr. Matthewson’s written opinion that “the gentle- “ men elected to manage the business “of the (Agricultural) Society are “ quite above allowing personal or “ political considerations to influence “ their actions.” But we still charge Mr. Matthewson, as “latehon. sec.,” with having reflected his own opinions on those gentlemen, in assigning his own reasons for refusing the advertisements to the Standard. Mr. Matthewson did say the words imputed to him by Mr. Mogridge, and we challenge him to their disproof. And there is yet another reason why Mr. Matthewson’s word is not worthy of credence, not even on a stack of Bibles, and that is that for the last two or three years at least Mr. Matthewson has repeatedly laid the onus of objection to advertising in the Standard, on the Society. He has said he was “ sorry ” it could not be done for his own part, but “you know there are wheels within wheels.” And now what do we see ? Mr. Matthewson, not as Mr. Matthewson, but as Mr Matthewson, late hon. sec., saying, “ I did not hesitate to exercise a judi- “ cious economy without fear of “ censure.” We aver that Mr. Matthewson, as the then hon. see. of the Agricultural Society did hesitate, and said, with his usual pretence, that he would enquire—the result is known. Now we are not going to be browbeat by Mr. Matthewson, or anyone else. If we are politically opposed to any one in the Bay it is from conscientious motives, and a sincere desire to promote the welfare of the community to the best of our ability. We have generally attached ourselves, in defence of our principles to the losing side ; but it is principally to sueh false friends, and political tergiversators as Mr. Matthewson, that we attribute the present position of affairs. However, we have alluded to this subject in the interests of the public, who (especially if Mr. Matthewson’s defence of the Agricultural Society is correct) ought to be made aware of how the non-political institutions in our midst, are worked.