CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1124, 16 August 1882, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

[We do not hold ourselves responsible for opinions expressed by our correspondents.'] TO THE EDITOR. | Sir, —Would you kindly publish these few ' remarks concerning the paragraph I saw in the I " Evening Herald” of the 25th July, headed ; “The Poverty Bay Oil Springs,’’ signed “ Fair Play.” In reading it 1 was very much surprised at some of the remarks he makes. 1 have been on the Rotokautuku Block a great many times (that is now the S.C.P. Co.’s ground) years before ever “ Fair Play” knew there was such a place, and also I have been there when “ Fair Play” was Working there, and I have heard him say they would never succeed in getting oil with the tools they had tv work with. My opinion was then that they did not know how to use the tools, or else they knew nothing about oil boring, and while “ Fair Play” was receiving pay for nine months he did not say then that he was fattening on the Gisborne gulls. Also in that part of the paragraph where “ Fair Play” says that Mr Knox knows nothing about boring, “if I have a moat in my own eye I don't tell my brother to pluck the moat of his eye until I have plucked the moat out of my own eye first.” Some part of the time “ Fair Play” was at work, I be- • lieve, Mr Knox was overseer, so I cannot I say whether there was any ill-feeling bej tween them. When Sir Charles visited the Rotokautuku, j the S.C.P. Company’s ground, he did not i stay there long enough to find out whether ! there was then appearance of the paraffin | mineral in sufficient quantity to pay for i working. My opinion is that he did not . stay long enough to look about him. If he , stayed one hour and a half it was as much as he did, and I consider it would take that time for hospitality; and “Fair Play” says says it is quite true that the Natives took : possession of the works, and refused to let j the contractor’s men on the ground, which is quite time, but I think it would have been i more manly if “Fair Play” had stated the i reason why the Natives took possession of ; the works. However, I will state the reason for him ; it was on account of the lease not ' ■ being dated from the time when Mr Clarke i negotiated for the lease; thereby the Natives • lost a month or two’s rent. This would not 1 have happened, I believe, if Mr Clarke had thoroughly known the Natives. However, this was soon satisfactorily settled, and the contractors started to sink a shaft. If this hitch had not happened the works would have been lying idle, as the late men, including “Fair Play,” that were at work there, had to stop the works, as this was their third trial at boring, through having got some tools or something else Jammed in the bottom of the pipe. From what I could hear they were trying an experiment, which was a failure. “Fair Play” goes on to say, “The land has been leased by ; the Government, ” which was true, but I don’t • think they have any claim on it now, as far as stopping the Natives from leasing this j block to any one else, and my reason for this

i is, some seven years or more the Government ' leased this block from the Natives at £lOO ; per annum and so much per gallon the petro* ' leum. For the first three years the Govern- ' ment paid the rent, and since then they have i paid none, to the best of my knowledge. I | think it is nearly two years ago a good many • of the Native owners of this ** Rotokautuku I Block” applied to the Government for the . back rent or else to return the lease, but they (the owners) got neither to the best of ■ my knowledge, and besides the Government I have got no title, for the lease never was I completed. i I think if the S.C.P. Co. had employed a : thoroughly practical man at first instead of , those they did, it would have reflected great i credit to them for so doing, and then “ Fair Play"” would not have been receiving pay for nine months, and I suppose this pay came j out of the shareholder’s (Lyttelton gulls) ! packets, as “ Fair Play” calls them. On the , 10th August, 1882, the contractors in sink- ' ing the shaft at the S.C.P. Co.’s works ; strtick a vein of oil at 109 ft., which was re- . ported in the Gisborne papers when boring 1 at 105 ft.-— Yours, <fcc., A Subscriber, TO THE EDITOR. • Sih : —I made a wager on Friday afternoon : last.about the Trotting Match which was to j liave taken place on Saturday morning, I ; backing Mr Proffitts mare “My Pony.” ' The match, however did not come off owing j to the indisposition of “ Shooting Star.” , Now sir, as I hear that Mr Smith has paid • a £lO forfeit to the owner of “My Pony,” ; through not coming to the scratch, do I not | win the wager ? By answering this small ' question you will greatly oblige, “ Kir ARE.” i [We cannot answer this question directly, I as there are no framed rule for Trotting • Matches obtainable. Our opinion, which is i simply equal in value to any observers, is • that no bet can be claimed. If we had any 1 rules to guide us, we would not hesitate in j deciding, but in the absence of such rules we can only offer an opinion.—Ed. P.B.S.]