Poverty Bay Standard. Published Every Evening. GISBORNE: MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1882.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1222, 11 December 1882, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. Published Every Evening. GISBORNE: MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1882.

By a telegram in Saturday’s column we learn that some shareholders of the Southern Cross Petroleum Company in Christchurch and Napier like to advertise their opposition to the objects of the extraordinary meeting, called by the Board of Directors, to consider the desirability of accepting offers for the working for petroleum of some small portions of the Rotokautuku Block. From enquiries we learn that two applications have been made for 70 acres of land in undefined positions, but to be half-a-mile from the present workings or derrick. Now it is very apparent to us that there must be a great advantage in searching for a payable quantity of petroleum to have numbers engaged at the work.. It perhaps may be considered we have no right to speak, but it must be remembered that the subject is one of such vast import, that we look upon the present attempt to “ strike ile” as of the greatest public interest. Nine years since a very

abortive movement was made to do business in the Poverty Bay Petroleum Company, but owing to the great over-estimation of the ' value of the property, looking at it from the < common sense point of “ Hudibras,” “the I value of a thing is what it will bring” ; the | management placed such obstacles in the ■ way of popularising their undertaking, that when a difficulty was reached such as the Southern Cross Company has encountered and surmounted, there were no funds to fall back upon, and the one-idea Company came to grief by the time a penetration of the earth had been made to about 100 feet. The mistake was not probably respecting the intrinsic value of the property, but in selfishly confining the interest in the narrowest bounds, in order that when the desired result was obtained the select should be the petroleocrasy of New Zealand. We trust the shareholders will not act against the advice of the Board of Directors, Who certainly, after nearly two years’ eduction for their business, should he best inform* sd as to the means of securing the future welfare of the Company. If they recommend the letting of some fractional part of th* * large area held by them, the shareholders should not oppose, presuming that suitable a dvantages can be obtained from the lessees. In our own experiences we know of one of the richest goldmines in the Colonies having’ been developed by the tribute system, and worn a public point of view we would prefeu 50 prospecting parties being placed to work rather than have years pass before a res ult can be known, however promising the present appearances are. If tributers weM wanted by the Company they would not come forward unless appearances in the earth were favorable for ultimate success.