The Ironsand Company?

Opunake Times, Volume V, Issue 212, 15 September 1896, Page 2

The Ironsand Company?

(Post.) In our issue of the 27th ult., commenting upon the discussion of the previous day in the House on the subject of a bonus to the Taranaki Ironsand Company that is popularly supposed to have been floated in London by the member for New Plymouth, we pointed out that, either by oversight or design, Mr Smith did not take the opportunity of specifically stating whether he did or did not supply the information to the English Journals from which we quoted at the time, to the evident chagrin of the Government. Mr Smith, from his place in the House, had expressed his willingness to furnish this journal with information, and we responded by asking him for a copy of the prospectus of his company as issued in London. Now, as we thought it possible that the promoters of this concern might think it advisable to issue a fresh prospectus in the colony, we expressly asked for the document that was issued in London, or, if that was not available, that Mr Smith would say precisely what it contained with regard to the Company supplying the Government with iron for the public works and railways of the colony. Now, the member for New Plymouth is not by any means a silent member, and here was a splendid opportunity for him to enlarge incidentally upon the coming glories of Taranaki; yet for all these days he has been mute. To-day, however, the Premier's Journal comes to the rescue, and, after expressing the customary righteous indignation, refers us to what is alleged to be a copy of the prospectus of the Company, requesting -us to withraw, apologise, and soforth. This might be a tenable position to take up, provided the document published happened to be the original prospectus of the Company* which we have the best reason to believe it is not. We have no desire to embarrass Mr E. M. Smith, who has worked hard for Taranaki, though his efforts may not have been weliU directed, but he knows and we know that the truth in this business is not being disclosed. He is following the example of a late Minister with regard to certain " unpledged securities " in London. The minister would have done better to have made a " clean breast " of the facts, when he might have obtained absolution ; but a great past-master in the art of bluff stood behind him, and urged him to brazen it out. This he did, and was not ashamed. Now the master has taken. Mr Smith iu hand, and we feel sorry for Mr Smith, but this, notwithstanding, we find it necessary to ask him the following questions:—l. Is the prospectus of the New Zealand Steel and Iron Company as published in the New Zealand Times, a true copy of that issued in London ? 2. If not what is the difference ? 3. Is the Company floated ? It will be much better for Mr Smith to tell the stpry himself rather than we should be impelled to a conclusive answer to the vulgar bluff of his master.