THE CROWING HERALD.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 3, 1 November 1883, Page 2

THE CROWING HERALD.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —It certainly is very noticeable to discern an evil-doer trying to do good, or at least professing to do so, as shown in Saturday’s “ Herald ” (save the mark) making a cowardly attack on the late “ Standard ” and its proprietor, and to say the least of it, is a base and malicious attempt to malign the reputation of the proprietor of the late “ Standard.” That hyperbolical journal, which never possessed either name, tame, or originality, traced from its birth in the shop now occupied by Mr Craig, baker, down to its present loio position in the Gladstone Road, although haviug changed hands over and over again, its fame still remains the same, it has been held, and still is held, by a clique, who profess liberty, although practising slavt-ry, from its birch to the present day, and is only capable of tabbing in the dark when the enemy is unarmed. This is the “rag” which has the audacidy to try and impute bad principles to the “ Standard,” although, us we are all aware, it never possessed other than b»d ones itself, and can already bo discerned pandering to the proprietors of the TELEPHONE on tneir fiist appearance in the field —such is the liberal doctrine of the Poverty Bay “Herald.”—Yours, &c., Another supporter of the Old Standard. THE BEER CONTEST. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Having called at the “Herald” office in order to ask them to insert the following, I found it shut, and beg your insertion of the same, which, un ,l er the existing circumstances, I believe you will do: To the Editor of the Evening Herald t per Favor of. the Telephone. Sir,—l read with surprise, in your issue of the 31st instant, an article headed, “ Beer Trial at the Show.” 1 consider your insertion of such an article as cowardly and dastardly, and as directly opposed to all those principles which should guide the contents of an impartial paper such as you profess yours to be. My reasons for saying so are these . — Ist—That there was no reporter pi esent at the Committee Meeting to put forth to the public, through your columns, what transpired at that meeting. 2nd—That the sthtepient therein contained is a veibatim repfirt of Mr Crawford’s written statement handed in to the Committee. 3rd—That my explanation is made to say quite differently from that which actually was said. 4th—That I did not say, “with trifling inaccuracies Mr Crawford’s statement was correct.” What I did say was, that what Mr Crawford said about the agency was correct, but the peculiar color he gave to the affair would imply a totally different meaning to that which was actually the case. The whole of the five judges expressed themselves as perfectly satisfied with the award. Getting aside all the foregoing, what I complain m<>st about is the rascally one sided and false report which you printed from the hands of Mr Crawford himself, and which is not alone a breach of trust, but also a public injustice. 1 wish further to refer to the whole of the gentlemen present at the meeting as to whether the report is not a false and altogether misleading one. I am &c., C. W. Ferris. P S.—l am prepared, after laying all the evidence before them, to leave the matter in the hands of any three itnparul men in the Bay, and stand or fall by the consequences. Ar the matter is still sub I refrain from saying anything further at present. C.W.F.