CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1122, 14 August 1882, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

[ir<j do not hold ourselves responsible for opinions expressed by our TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In tho “ Lyttelton Tinies,” of the 20th June last, I read, with some degree of interest, a report from the pen of Mr Lance, a specially accredited agent of that journal, on the Southern Cross oil field. I need not say that tho interest I felt in the perusal of Mr Lance’s report was materially accelerated by the fact that I was, and am, personally acquainted with the circumstances with which it deals, and which are proof sufficient to anyone, not blinded by prejudice, of the bona Jides of the case. But I was much surprised to read, in another journal, the “ Canterbury Times,” of the 15th July, a letter under the signature (but not written by the instigator) of “ Fair Play,” in which the said instigator seeks to traduce the Company which, according to his own showing, has afforded him food and shelter for, at least, nine months. If I mistake not the instigator is either a contractor who could not do his work to the satisfaction of the Directors, or eno having a grievance, albeit he doos disclaim that motive, However, thia is, in effoot, what ho says i—He thoroughly denounces the correctness Of Mr Lance’s report, although he does not challenge that writer to the proof ; he says there never was a “ wine-glass'’ full of kerosene oil taken from the Southern Cross Company’s ground, neither ia there but one very small spot on tho whole field from which paraffin has been taken, and that in very small quantities. He most emphatically states that

tmo drum of oil sent, ostensibly from the Roto* kuutuku field to Melbourne, was actually fillsd at, and sent from the South Pacific Company’s works, and, by inference, if not by absolute statement, with wilful knowledge aforethought, to deceive the shareholders, and to dupe tho public, Ho endorses, in a most unqualified manner, all that Sir Chas. MacMahon has written in condemnation of tho Company ; he makes a long tirade as to tho Natives re-taking possession, and of tho Government being the actual possessors of the block; and winds up by basing his claims to belief on the fact thjit he has been working at both Companies grounds for the last nine months. Tho motive suoh a maligner may have In writing so insidiously I cannot pretend to judge ; but I do think the Editor would have but consulted the correct principles of journalism if ho had insisted on the proper name of the pseudo winter being published with the letter. Of course everyone interested has a right to state his views as to the working of a public Company, but to accuse the Directors of such wilful deception as “ Fair Play ” has done, and under a nom de pl tune t is not fair play at all. I mny say that the appearance of . this letter in the Melbourne market has, already, had th© effect intended-—-a depreciation uf the Company's. stuck thcrcfuri', a® o

shareholder, and one who has largely endeavored to promote the interests of the oil spring interests of Poverty Bay, I protest that it is the undeniable duty of the Directors of the Southern Cross Company to unearth Mr “Fair Play,” make him substantiate his words, or punish him for his most wilful libel. I may further add that, if this is not done, one cannot wonder at persons entertaining “ Fair Play’s ” belief that the “ Southern Cross ” Company will some day fkwrish, but not under the guidance of such men as those who now compose the directory.—Yours, etc., H. E. Webb. Melbourne, July 31st, 1882.