MR MARKS AND HIS MINE.

Grey River Argus, Volume XXXIX, Issue 6987, 12 February 1891, Page 2

MR MARKS AND HIS MINE.

» . It is seldom that any Libel Case has excited so much public interest as that which resulted in a verdict against Mr Harry Marks, the editor of the Financial News. The marol of the case can hardly fail to be generally appreciated, and to do some good. Mr Marks himseif means, it seems, to put a brave front on the case, and promises to continue giving the public the same advice and information as before. Nobody can quarrel with that. But the question is, will the public take it? Even if the public attached no weight to the verdict of a jury, there would still be enough in the admissions made by Mr Marks himself to give the public pause. Mr Marks's repntation has been made by his exposure of "wild-cat" schemes ;but what is one to say, after the evidence in the libel case, of a scheme of Mr Marks's own 1 ? The Bae Farm was originally sold for L3OO. and after passing through one or two hands it was disposed of by one Benjamin for LI.BOO to the nominee vendor of the company. It was possibly worth |that amount as pastoral land, but there is nothing to show that it was ever worth more. The property was at once resold to the company for L 50,000, and the prospectus issued inviting subscriptions for L 75,000. The Rae Farm was by the usual hocuspocus transformed into the Gold Mine, and the promoters set to work to make their pile through the machinery, not of mining tools, but of the Stock Exchange. The expectations held out were on the grandest scale. From quartz mining alone the net profits were to give a save 40 per cent, dividend, and on the top of that there were to be the returns from royalties and Bub-companies. The |promoters pocketed the L6'OOO which fche public subscribed, and took the rest of their L 50,000 in shares. Having failed to get the money in one way, they proceeded to obtain it in another. And so , they began to unload. This process was assisted by commendatory notices in the Financial News, and the publication of reports from the engineer at the mines, which were not borne out by the facts. Mi-Marks not only advised correspondents through the columns of his paper to buy Bae a,' but wrote personal letters to the same effect. How is impossible to believe that he was disinterested and acting in the public interest in so doing? Every man is at liberty to puff his own wares if he pleases —and a good deal of laxity may be permitted in doing so— but the conditions are ! changed when a man conceals his real position and assumes one of complete independence. Judged in a most favorable light such conduct cannot but be regarded as reprehensible. At the later stage Mr Marks began to buy back the shares, and if this move were not one merely for selfprotection, because the facts were leaking out, it does not alter the character of the original transaction. / Neither does his attempts to square th| affair by the pay*

men* of L 5,000 mend the matter. If anybody, after reading the evidence in the Butterfield case, believes that Mr Marks is in this respect any better, he is one of ■ those simpletons who seem expressly made , in an inscrutable Providence for the benefit of — well, let us say "the smart City Man."— P. M. Gazette.