REPLY TO "SHAREHOLDER."

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7773, 20 October 1886, Page 3

REPLY TO "SHAREHOLDER."

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —There is something almost heroio in the self-sacrifice which would lead anyone to consent to write in defence of Mr. Chamber*: lin's conduct—let us hope it will not.go unrewarded. Now, in reply to "A share* holder." 1. From beginning to end of my letter there was not one word of " abuse," scurrilous or otherwise, whioh is a weapon I do not employ. Your correspondent evidently does not.understand the meaning of terms. 2. He denies that the honourable speculator, in making that rash offer of ss, said that the shares " Were not worth more." On inquiry, I find that the actual words he was heard to use were "I will not give more," from which it may be fairly inferred that a gentleman of Mr. Chamberlin'a phenomenal financial genius believed they were not worth more. The denial is a quibble, at best. 3. The analogy whioh I drew between Jacob's conduct and " the means by which our Solon got seized and possessed of the coveted initials M.L.O. fc "Shareholder" speaks of as beneath notice. Well, the circumstance is a matter of history, and has been more than onoe contemptuously referred to by the Press of the colony. However I apologise . to— Jacob. He sneeringly refers to the fact of my nos being re-elected. Had there been any voting, my election would have followed as an absolute certainty. But, unfortunately, that*, portion of the business was taken out of ita order and unexpectedly, as it was not supposed that it would be brought on until the scrutineers had finished their duties in connection with the voting for directors, about one-half of the shareholders, includ* ing most of my supporters, left the room, intending to return in ample time. The) usual mode of procedure, however, having been departed from, the remit was that the election, by a show of hands, was over before we were aware of it. There was do question of defeat, as there was no contest! —1 am, etc., T. Leigh White;