NEW ZEALAND SPECTATOR AND Cook's Strait Guardian. Saturday, April 23, 1864.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume XIX, Issue 1954, 23 April 1864, Page 2

NEW ZEALAND SPECTATOR AND Cook's Strait Guardian. Saturday, April 23, 1864.

In an article in its last number referring to the recent discussion fit the Chamber of Commerce the Independent has taken an unusual course to justify itself from- the censure conveyed by that discussion. It talks a gr e£ .t deal about its consistency and accuracy, affects to sneer at the Chamber, Mr. Woon-

avoids, and would have, its readers lose sight of the real merits of ths question. Mr. Woodward and Mr. Johnston complained, and the members of the Chhthber thought very justly complained, of the irregularity which had been committed by the Independent in publishing a report of what was said to have taken place at a meeting of the Committee of the Chamber of Commerce. These meetings are of an entirely private nature, and are never published. The opinions -expressed at them are merely ths expression of private opinions, until they are brought forward in the Chamber, when if the resolution is adopted it becomes the opinion of that body. Nowthe gravamen of the complaint was, that the effect of this unauthorised and irregular pub lication by the Independent was to convey an unfair impression both as regards Mr. Woodward, and the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Woodward justly complained that this publication “ was an entire mis-statement of what had really taken place, and especially untrue as to the part which he had taken on the occasion referred to.” All that Mr. Woodward did was to embody in the rough draft of a resolution, at Mr. Rhodes' request, the opinions expressed by that gentleniari (not his own) in reference to the Panama Contract ; and in consequence of what appeared in the Independent it was industriously represented, and an impression was received by many, that the views of the Chamber of Commerce, and especially of Mr. Woodward, were violently opposed to _the Panama Contract; and that they would do all in their power to defeat it. From what has been’said it will be seen that Mr. Johnston was perfectly justified in complaining that “an unfair action had

been taken” by the Independent and Advertiser “by allowing it to he inferred that the Chamber had expressed an opinion unfavourable to the Panama Contract,” and that it was “unfair that any individual opinion should be put forth as the opinion of the Chamber.” We may dismiss very briefly the Independent’s sneers as regards ourselves; and its statement that the Spectator had changed its opinion in reference to the Panama Contract. The opinion we expressed at the time and which we have since seen no occasion to alter was to the effect, that while the 27th clause of the Contract was objectionable both in its effect as far as the different Steam-boat Companies established in New Zealand were concerned, and as “part of the subsidy iridirectly paid for the Panama line, “ which would throw that part of the expense entirely on New Zealand,yet that' “the establishment of thePanania rbutewould be agreat boon to this colony,” that Mr. CnosiiE Ward deserved great credit for Having made the contract, and that “the advantages accruing to the colony from the establishment of the Panama route are so great that even if the contract were clogged with heavier conditions we feel assured that the colonists would gladly accept it rather than submit to the disappointment of seeing the establishment of this line indefinitely postponed.” On a subsequent occasion referring to this unauthorised publication by the Independent we observed— A great deal has lately been said about the’ Chamber of Commerce, because seme discussion took place at one of its committee meetings in reference to this contract, and the name of Mr. Woodward, one of its' members, has been very freely and unwarrantably used.. But it is wall understood that th’ese committee meetings are of a merely preliminary nature and their proceedings of a private character; and any attempt to make these proceedings public must be regarded as a breach of the ordinary rules usually observed in these tn alters.

The Independent also speaks of some weeks being allowed to elapse before any notice was taken of what had been said in reference to the Chamber, but it omits to say that the first public opportunity was taken to refute the statement, and that to have done so in any other way would have been to repeat the irregularity complained of. The Independent affects to think it “quite cleat that the Committee of the Wellington Chamber of Commerce have committed them, selves sadly, and would gladly get out of their difficulty by blaming somebody else.” According to the facts of the case it is' “ quite clear” that the only party “committed” is the Independent by its unauthorised and irregular publication of what was said to have taken place at the meeting of the Committee.

Since the above was written, the Ldrd Ashley has arrived from the Soutli and it is reported that an off?r has been’ made from the Canterbury Province to the effect that if the Wellington Province'will join it in- guaranteeing the Inter-Colonial Cdiphany against loss in carrying out the PanaO contract to the amount of subsidy sanctioned by Mr. Ward, Wellington shall be the port of' call according to the terms of the contract. If this report should prove correct we cafi only say there ought to be no hesitation whatever' in accepting so liberal an offer, and that every effort should be’ made oh our part th' g?ve practical effect to the Canterbury movement, and to show the Ministry thai we' are in earnest in the matter, and that there are other interests in the Colony to be consulted besides those of Auckland. We print belotf from the Press the memorial to the Superintendent of Canterbury now ii’ colirse of signature in thdt Province. We are glad tc be' able,' in conclusion, to add that we nnd< rstand, on good authority, the Provincial Go Ornment of Wellington are prepared, subject to tho apptoval of tho’ Provincial Council, ti' join the Canterbury Province in contributing one-half of the £30,(100 required as a guarantee.'