The Daily Telegraph WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1881.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3003, 9 February 1881, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1881.

We have delayed any reference to the Hawke's Bay Herald's report of the meeting of the committee of the Agricultural and Pastoral Society until we could unmistak ibly prove its untruthfulness. The meeting took place on Friday morning, the 4th instant, and the Herald's report was not published until tbe following Monday. A sufficient time had therefore elapsed for tbe secretary to write up his minutes, and furnish an accouut of the proceedings to our morning contemporary. The account of these proceedings, so far as regards all reference to this journal, is absolutely false. We shall not say that the secretary is to blame. For ought we know he might have furnished a truthful report, which, in tbe editorial sanctuary of the Herald, was intentionally and maliciously garbled and falsified to suit trade purposes. Of that we know nothing, nor do we desire to learn anything. But we have a right to complain that a report bearing upon the face of it an official stamp should have been allowed to go unchallenged by the secretary of the Society. it was scarcely within tbe bounds.of our business to ferret out the truth ; it was his proviuee to do that, and to take every means in his power to prevent the members of tbe Society, whose servant be is, being made stalking horses of to farthur the ends of an unscrupulous newspaper. Believing that the secretary would feel tbe false position ia which he was placed by the publication of such a burlesqued report of tbe committee meeting, we refrained from any reference to it. Thus we gave him the opportunity of denying complicity with the publishers of tbe report, of vhicb, we regret to notice, he has not availed himself. Although we could not but have been aware that the printed report was both false and malicious, we lost no time in obtaining the evidence of the gentlemen who were present at the meeting. We are now in possession of the facts of the case, which in no way coincide with the Herald's report. In its account of the proceedings the Herald said : —

In reply to an enquiry from Mr Heslop as to whether any complaints had been made as to the management of the arrangements for the ram fair, several members spoke of the general efficiency of the arrangements, Mr Miller also stating that thers was nothing to complain about, and that the yards had given satisfaction. Mr Heslop considered, under these circumstances, some notice should be taken of a scurrilous article which had appeared in the I)ai__ Telegeaph reflecting on the management. Mr Fitzßoy thought that no notice should be taken of the article, as he considered the greater abuse from that quarter the greater the compliment. The subject then dropped.

So much for the Herald. What really did take place was this: .Mr Heolop, senior, alluding to what bad appeared in the T_l_o_*ph reflecting on the arrangements of the Ram Fair, asked the meeting whether there were sufficient grounds for the unfavorable paragraph. The members thereupon conversationally discussed the subject, and come of them suggested various improvements that might be made. It was, however, the general opinion that, if tbere had been complaints, that if the TbleobaPh's strictures bad been called for, tbe blame rested with the auctioneers as the arrangements bad been carried out by their instructions. Mr Heslop then said that under those circumstances tbe paragraph he had alluded to should not go unchallenged. Mr Fitzßoy thereupon turned to Mr Heslop, and said in a perfectly sotto voce and jocular manner, tbat if the committee were to take notice of every adverse criticism which appeared in newspapers tbey would have little else to attend to ; and, he added, tbat some people even took adverse criticisms as a compliment. All this, we have Mr Fitzlioy's assurance, was in purely conversational tone, and no one bad tbe remotest idea that it would appear in public print. The Herald's report of what took place, and the account which we now give are so different that further reference to it is needltss.

We shall now, however, say a few words in support, or rather justification of our remarks concerning tbe arrangements at the Ram Fair. One of the most promiuent members of tbe Society came to our representative and requested him to " severely criticise" tbe arrangements for the inspection and disposal of the stock, and he stated that those arrangements were giving general dissatisfaction. The " cue" having thus been given, our representative made it bis business to discover bow far tbe suggestion tallied with public opinion, and be found no one on the ground who could say a good word for the arrangements. The fact of the matter was there were no arrangements, and after our criticism was published we received the thanks of very many settlers for drawing attention to the matter. The auctioneers also have informed us that our remarks were welltimed aud well-called for. Had we remained silent, it is more than probable that tbe committee would have received complaints, but those who had every reason to complain were satisfied with having attracted attention to tbe subject through the columns of thie journal. Recognising as we do the importance of the Agricultural and Pastoral Society to tbe best interests of this provincial district, we should be tbe last to weaken its influence, or impair its usefulness.

Whatever we have said with reeard to some of the details of its management has been said with a view to increase the efficiency of the Society. We utterly repel the base insinuations of those who have endeavored to create a breach of friendship between the Society and this journal, and their machiuations having now been exposed we feel tbat we can safely leave the rest in tbe hands of the committee. We shall therefore conclude ty tendering our thanks to the members of the Society who so kindly and promptly came to our assistance while engaged in clearing this disagreeable matter up.