Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

The Daily News. FRIDAY, JUNE 18, 1902. MR W. T. STEAD'S £260 CHEQUE.

The New Zen'nnd public have waited with no little interest lo know how Mr Seddon would d ; spose of Mr W. T. Stead's £260 cheque, which the latter sent to Mr Seddon as art fund of th' sum voted by the New Zealand Parliament to the Australian Review of Rviews in payment for a special article on New Zealand and some hundreds of copies of the monthly. The facts are no doubt fresh in the mind of everyone, and Mr Stead having made public Mr Seddon's letter covering the nature of tbe cheque to Mr Steid, we are able to give it to our readers. Mr Seddon's letter needs- no comment', but it will be interesting to see what Mr Stead's next move will be. Mr Seddon's letter runs as follows: "Premier's Office, Wellington, New Zealand, March 31, 1902. Dear Mr Stead, Your letter of November 23 last reached me in dut course. Kindly j excuse the delay in replying t hereto. I was not aware wlinn tbe item for the payment of the Australasian Review of Reviews was before Parliament th <i you were the holder of tbe jnajirity of the in that journal. In a letter written to Dr. Fitchett in December, 1900, and published in the New Zealand piper?, be f-tates that tbe Review of Reviews for Australia was under distinct ownership from the English Review of Reviews. The transaction in question was between New Zealand and the proprietary of the Au«tralasian Review of Reviews, and if the amount was all profit j our share could not hive been more thm -£l4O. I am satisfied, howsve-, that the net profit did not exceed £2O, and I am at a loss I to understand by what force of reason you should fe«l called upon to send .£260? You could no"; refund that which you never received. Tersely put by Dr. Fitchett to me in his letter of March 31, 1902, alluding to your action,he says: ' He you his cheque to relieve liis own feelingp, but it is his own money he sends and not: the m( noy of the company which owns' the Review of Reviews for Aus'ralia.' It is correct that several member} ad- j versely criticised the transaction, but I cannot agree with you that a disLUgsion on public expenditure is a was'eof time. Thero is another side to the question which you seem to have overlooked, 1 viz., that the opposit'on to the item was in reality an operation cf pinpicking, which is practised by j >urna- ■ lists as well as members of Parliament, i Whilst appreciating the feeling which ; actuated you in w'sbing to avoid ra- ! ceiving public mo eys votrd under a t misapprehension of facts, I think you i acted hastily, and should hnve wai'ed j j until the profits from tha Australasian i \Reviaiv of Reviews on thu tra'-sac ion i had retched you, aid you cmld fien ( have anonymously paid, as conscience s money, the amount into the public ac- s count, although by so doi g there's would be the risk of the money so re- r turned being utilised imqu'pping con- s tirigMit-s to fight iu what you incon-lt siderately teim a su'cidil w^v; or f there was the oth°r alternative of o openly returning the moneys revived v by you as a Flisreholder in the journal a i'i question. Iu conclusion, I fo a stau» that Dr Fitchett, when making the suggestion, did so with the view of v helping the 'ol >ny, and t transac ion p WHS straightforward »'d honotr.ble b alikn to both si«!es. For my own p:\r t I I have nothing to r<gie f . I came in- tl advertentl) to erroneous conc'iinon ri from what D.- Fitchett had pu lislisd, c

but iKtwichstundiiig had ail the f'nets been koewn to members of the House, they would have passed the ' item repudiation is not in the colony's , vocabulwy. I cannot accept tuej proffered gift to the co'.ony, and return' your chfque h>rewith. The object intended ha», I anticipate, been served, and I thank you very kindly for hav- \ ing dtawn my attention to the correct! relationship of yourself with the Au3-1 trail-sUn Review of Reviews; the information supplied will tnable me to put myself light with the Houa3 of JRepiesinta'iyts at the earliest oppor- > tunity. - Youis faithfully (bigued), B. I .T Siffrmnw."

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19020613.2.5

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXIV, Issue 168, 13 June 1902, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
742

The Daily News. FRIDAY, JUNE 18, 1902. MR W. T. STEAD'S £260 CHEQUE. Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXIV, Issue 168, 13 June 1902, Page 2

The Daily News. FRIDAY, JUNE 18, 1902. MR W. T. STEAD'S £260 CHEQUE. Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXIV, Issue 168, 13 June 1902, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert