AIR STEAD AND MR SEDDON.

Evening Star, Issue 11677, 8 February 1902, Page 3

AIR STEAD AND MR SEDDON.

TO THK EDITOR. Sir, —The enclosed letter, which I have forwarder! to Mr Seddon, explains itself. As the matter has been freely 'commented on in the Press, I trust that you will give it publicity in your columns. —1 am, etc., T. Shaw Fitchett.

[Copy of letter sent to Mr Seddon.] January 51, 1902. Dear Mr Seddon, —Mr Stead’s action in sending you a cheque for £260, the sum your Government paid me for Ihe purchase, of 10,000 copies of the ‘ Review of Reviews for Australasia,’ and the comments of the N.Z. Press ou the incident, seem to justify a few words from me. Mr Stead’s cheque is in no sense a “ rekmr’ of tire sum paid by your Government in this transaction. 'That amount was pari to the ‘Review of Reviews for Australasia,’ and it “ returns” nothing. The contract for the purchase of a certaiu number of copies of our issue of January. 1501, was a straightforward business transaction, - tered into and, fulfilled honorably on both sides. As you know, Mr Stead ‘ was not mentioned in the matter. He know nothing about it, and had notning whatever to do with it He sends you his cheque now to relievo his own feeli'ng; but it is his own money he sends, and not the money of the company which owns the ‘ Review of Reviews for Australasia.’ In December, 1900, I found it necessary to write a letter to the N-2. papers explaining that “ the ‘ Review of Reviews for Australasia’ was under distinct ownership and editorship from the English ‘ Review of Reviews.’ ” That statement is strictly and absolutely true. The ‘Review of Reviews for Australasia ’ is owned by the ‘ Review of Reviews ’ Proprietary; Limited, an association registered under the Victorian’Act. It is true flat Mr Stead owns a little over one-half the number of its shares; but he is not a director of the -company. He ’s 12,000 miles distant, and he. has a generous, mot to-say->a -chivainaiE, sense-of >the-abs<^

lute freedom which mist be accorded to the management of a great magazine like the ‘Review of Reviews for Australasia.’ As a matter of fact, he has no more dkect and personal share in its management than you have yourself. Even before the change in the ownership of the ‘ Review of Reviews for Australasia ’ there was, as Mr Stead’s letter to yon shows, an “absolute liberty’ conceded to its Australasian management; and this although the views of its editor on the Bouth African war differed toto coelo from th'>se of Mr Stead. I am sure New Zealanders are generous enough to understand and admire the chivalrous spirit Mr Stead has shown on this point. I may add that on, no o-uer terms would the present editor of the ‘ Review of Reviews for Australasia ’ and myself be responsible for the magazine. As the matter has supplied the text for much comment in the daily papers, I take the liberty of sending copies of this letter to the Press.—l am, etc., T. Shaw Fitchbtt, Managing director of the ‘Review of Reviews for Australasia.’