WELLINGTON V. MARLBOROUGH

Marlborough Express, Volume V, Issue 235, 11 June 1870, Page 5

WELLINGTON V. MARLBOROUGH

The following paragraph from the Wellington. Post explains itself, and we gladly give it publicity as tending, perhaps, to remove a little soreness that was beginning to be felt by some of our friends. The only remark we shall make is that—assuming that our Picton contemporary did ridicule the presumption of Wellington in seeking to be made the port of call—the Post’s strictures upon “ the insignificance of Marlborough and its Press” were scarcely rebutting “arguments”. While feeling the weight of our concluding sentence, with regard to the large and increasing trade with Wellington, we cannot but accept the amende honorable on behalf of our Province in the exact spirit in which it is offered : The Marlborough Express “has often wondered why the Post has such a ‘ down ’ on that Province,” and cautions us, more in sorrow than in anger, to refrain from saying hard things about our younger sister, lest a family estrangement might be the consequence. The reason assigned for these remarks is, that in a recent article of ours we found fault with the Marlborough Press for opposing, in conjunction with the Auckland papers, the claims of Wellington to be made the port of call for the San Francisco steamers. Alluding to our strictures on the Press, the Express says “ Why this savagery ? Even if our Picton brother did advocate Auckland -with Hall’s line, as the best, he has a perfect right to do so without being thus attacked. But we do not believe he has expressed such an opinion, if so we have not noticed it. Our contiguity to Wellington and the intimate relations between the two Provinces must combine our interests ; but such comments as the above are both unjust and calculated to create aversion, as well as divert the trade to some other Province, Verbum sap.” We can assure our contemporary that, whether he saw it or not, the Press contained a paragraph ridiculing in strong terms the presumption of Wellington in seeking to be made the port of call, which coming from Picton, whose interests are identical with ours, was certainly enough to provoke a reply. As to our rejoinder, we will take our contemporary’s own reasoning : if the Press had a “ perfect right ” to advocate Auckland, we had an equal right to support our own cause by attacking his arguments. As regards the charge of “having a down” on Marlborough, we can assure our contemporary that he mistakes us; we entertain no such uncharitable feelings—quite the reverse—and would as readily advocate the true interests of that Province as of any other portion of the Colony. If we do at times indulge in a sarcasm about cabbages or double superintendents, it is done in the kindliest spirit imaginable, and with the view of pointing out an error to be remedied. We trust that our contemporary will accept this assurance of our perfect cordiality of feeling, and above all that no aversion will be created between Marlborough and Wellington, nor the trade of the former diverted to some other Province.