Sir Robert Stout in Reply. The Beginning of our Frozen Meat Trade.

Otago Witness, Issue 1948, 25 June 1891, Page 11

Sir Robert Stout in Reply.

The Beginning of our Frozen Meat Trade.

The following letter appeared in Wednesday's Daily Times :—

TO THB EOITOfi.

Sib,— You have not attempted to n-ply to the main part of my letter. And I would not have troubled you with any answer to your note were ib not that tba interests of other persons are concerned in your strictures. I refer to the shareholders of the Pine Company.

Yoar attitude towards tbis small company is not only peculiar — it is extraordinary. You admit you do uofc know whether the enterprise should be commanded or condemned, aad yet you go cub of jour way to iDJure i. Surely it ehdu'.d have been the duty ot a.n honest j ■mnalist to have made himself acquainted with tbe company beforr. he crit r e's i -{l it It has been said that a book review< r is abU to review a treatise by smelling tbe pap*r kuife tba cut its* pages, but ou have not c -no t-ven so nfar the Bubjecfc matter of your comments as this traditional critic. Tuo reasons you give tor referriug to the compauy at nil and for calling it my company, as if I were its o»vnfr, are three. They are : — 1 I ao» chairman, and h&ve been Premier of the colony. 2 I am " political sponsor for the Ministrr of L*nds," and " general dry nurse of the Government." 3. The company holds a very large area of Crown lands. I venture to assert that

save perhaps in one of Gilbert and Sullivan's operas, one never heard of such extraordinary reason?. Let me exartine them.

1. Has it come to this, that if an exPremier holds shares in a private company and is elected to a position of trust on its directorate by his fellow-shareholders, the company must be condemned even by critics that know nothing about it ? This is certainly meting out punishment, not only to any one who may have served his fellows, but patting under the ban shareholders who may hereafter desire his services. Talk of the American press after this ! This is a lower depth than has yet been reached in auy country.

2. Suppose I had been "political sponsor" for the Minister of Lands and "general dry nurse for the Government," did that warrant you in attacking the Pine Company? Is this to be a specimen of the new party warfare you are to introduce into New Zealand ? Really, Sir, you mußt feel ashamed of such an excuse. Of course the fact that neither statement you make is true may appear to you of little moment. Were you ever in the Midland county of which Punch many years ago wrote, " 'Bre's a stranger. 'Gave 'arf a brick at 'is 'cad"? If I am opposed to you in politics, does that justify your reference? But do you know the meaning of *' sponsor " ? In our English tongue it generally has an ecclesiastical savour, and this may account for yoar using it. If you mean to say that I ever was " surety " for Mr John M'KeDzie's political upbringing you must be strangely ignorant of the history of our province. The Minister of Lands entered politics years before I did, and to him I was much indebted for kindly help when I first became a member of the Provincial Council. And " general dry nurse " of the Government ! It is not a happy phrase. Yon have mixed your metaphors in not a very graceful manner. But your statement is cot only devoid of literary beauty — it is not true. The Gvvrnment is an able and a talented one. It needs no assistance from me, and has sob asked for ,snch. But suppoße I bad advised it, are the shareholders of the Fine Company to be perhaps ruined for such an action on my part ?

3. The third reason given is the company holds a "very large area" of Crown land. This is not true. It has got directly from the Crown the license to cut timber over 2400 acres. All its other areas — licenses also, save about 500 acres freehold — have been bought from private owners. And do I need again to point out that year by year as the timber is cut the land goes to tin Crown for settlement purposes. About 10u0 acres every year will be cut by the company, and the company is paying about thrice as much for the permission to cut the timber — the land then going to the Crown for settlement — as the Crown is getting for better land, timber and all parted with, on freehold. And when that is done the timber is burnt. The dates of the applications for timber land from the Crown were : 4th September 1889, 800 acres ; 4th September 1890, 1600 acres ; and March 1891, 800 acres. This last application has not yet been granted. Mr M'Kenzie could not, therefore, have said that Mr Spence was to blame for granting the Fine Company great areas, for we had not got any such from him. And what is the company doing? It is developing a large export trade. Already one-fourth of our total output goes to Australia, and we are looking for other markets. Surely this is better than burning our splendid bush. It is paying the State better directly, and it is paying the State better indirectly, for it is~ finding employment for hundreds of men, and reserving the laud for settlement. The Fine Compaoy ha 3 invested considerable capital in its enterprise. The first costof oneaawmill and appurtenancesit now holds was about £10,000. This means that a large area of bush must be reserved for this mill to work, otherwise capital would be wasted. Further, in sawmilling as in clotbmilling, the small individual sawmiller cannot deal with the competition and business habits of to-day. As well think of returning to the single stunning jenny and abolishing the Mopgiel, the KMkorai, and other factories, as return to siugle sawmills. No single sawmiller could push foreign trade as we are doing. And I presume companies are just another mode of co-opera-tion. It is not one big capitalist, but several small ones combining for a commercial venture. I should imagine we in New Zealand have seen quite enough of failures in commercial companies without your trying, because of political animus, to injure this one.

And here I might stop. Since lam writing, however, I must refer to the other three points in your note : — (1) Mr Ritchie's appointment and thfl Times and Witness ; (2) your political leader writers ; (3) my mental attitudp, &c aud your abni=e. 1. Mr Ritebi&'u Appointment. — Aad so there is a distinction between tbe Tirae3 and Witness ! They aro under different management. I thought there was one board of direotors. Can it be that the one paper approves and the other

disapproves of the same Ministerial act? I have seen whole colnmns of matter transferred from one paper to the other without the usual journalistic acknowledgment, and I think I have read of the Witness being the weekly issue of the Times. But this is all to bs changed, and there is to be a " Box and Cox " arrangement in future. So be it. Who knows but the Witness may develop into a Liberal organ under such a board of directors as will permit one company to issue two papers differing in politics so far.

2. I note that all you say regarding my harmless catechism is that a certain gentleman is not your " main " leader writer. This means he does write notes and leaders, and this is but stale news to most of your readers.

■3. I do not kaow if it is worth while referring to the personal abuse you have heaped on me in your note. Ib is just what I expected. For some time back there has hardly been an unkind reference to me io any of the journals on your ride of politics but what yon have reproduced for the information of your readers. Any kindly reference has almost always been .suppressed. I cull, however, some of the choice journalistic phrases the Tory journalist loves. You write of " mental obliquity," " dogmatic assertion?," "uncalled-for assumptions," "misstatements," "tergiversations," "absurd statements," " offensively personal tone," &«., &o. This is not bad from a note of about a third of a column in length. What must still be left in the journalistic repertoire !

If I thought; any large number of my fellow settlers in Otago and Southland believed me to be the bad citizen you have pictured in your note and always delight in calling me, I would, much as I love Dunedin, and though I have been more than 27 years resident in the city, seek some other part of the world in which to earn my bread. I am vain enough to believe, however, that there is not; a very large number who think aboub me as you do. Of course I have enemies, some who, afraid to sign their names, always attack me, and some of these calumniators I have in the past befriended. But, Sir, I pay little heed to your strictures. You are impotent to lead public opinion. Your outpourings of wrath are akin to the strong language cf some unenlightened citizens who use " wcrds not fit for ears polite." But it is a pity nevertheless that political warfare should have become so low, and you are to be perhaps pitied, not blamed. It may be abuse is the only weapon you can properly handle. For being in such a plight you have my sympathy. Let all true citizens hope that time and training may enable you to take a higher view of the noble functions of journalism than your note and recent articles display you have yet attained. — I am, &<•., Invercargill, June 20 Robert Stout. [Sir Robert Stout is incorrigible. He calmly sets np one of those well-filled straw men of which he keeps a stock for use on controversial occasions, in order that he may have, the satisfaction of knocking it down, and haviDg accomplished this feat to his satisfaction, apparently believes he has floored a real adversary. But this child's play deceives nobody, and if it affords Sir Robert any comfort, probably no one will grudge him it. The particular straw man which Sir Robert on this occasion sets up is the assumed antagonism of the Otago Daily Times to the New Zealand Pine Company. We have explicitly challenged Sir Robert to quote anything from our columns which will in the least degree bear out his statement that we have displayed antagonism to the Fine Company, or have said anything detrimental to its interests. This challenge Sir Robert, with greater prudence than honesty, quietly ignore?, for the very good reason that it is completely unanswerable ; and yet he coolly reiterates his preposterous assertion, and takes about balf a column of our space to prove that there are no ground* for our (entirely imaginary) antagonism! Let us now for a moment deal with Sir Robert Stout's second straw man. He fays : " Tbo reasons you give for referring to the company (italics ours) at all, and for oalliDg it my company, as if I were its owner, are three," &c. Wo did not give the reasons Sir Robert quotes as warraut.ing us in referring to the Fine Company at all, but &t> reasons why he conld not be regarded us an ordinary private citizen, the actual words we used being :— " Bir •Robert will perhaps excuse us for saying th&t as ex-Premier of the colony, as political sponsor for the Minister of Lands, general dry nurse of the Government, and as chairman of a company which holds a very large area of the Grown lands of the colony, it is impossible to treat him merely as an ordinary private citizen." But Sir Robert knocks his second man of straw over with the utmost vigour, and congratulates himself, no doubt;, on this further imaginary victory. The remainder of Sir Robert's letter is iv his best, style, and its critical value will bo appraised at ita true worth by our readers without our exposing its illogical deductions. We suppose we ought to be truly thankful for and accept with becoming humility his final aspiration : " Let all true citizens hope that time and training may enable you to take a higher view of

the noble functions of journalism than your note and recent articles display you have yet attained." If it will not offend Sir Robert's vanity, may we, however, suggest that he is perhaps no better able to advise us as to the manner in whioh we should fulfil our duties than we are to tender advice to him on legal matters. —Ed. O.D.T.]

- TO THE EDITOE. Sib,— An interesting report on the progress of the frozen meat trade appears in this week's Witness, the reading of which gave me great pleasure. I thought that my challenge had been forgotten. You will perhaps be surprised to hear that- it was an exact copy of this same challenge, that I sent you in reference to the exhibition, with such a satisfactory result. There are a good many other things that a repetition of this challenge has been successful in— the debt on Knox Church, for example, was reduced by £2500 by the same process, and also the organ erected in Knox Churah. My principal reason, however, for writing you now is to show that there are only two left that took the leading, part in this meat freezing business — viz., Mr Larnaoh and myself. The other three who took a leading part in it were the Hon. B. Campbell, Mr James Shand| and Mr H. Houghton— now all deceased. Mr Houghton, I think, deserved the rqosfe credit, 'as he kept the others np to the mark. — I am, &c., Bpnd street, June 20. Robbbt Wimon.