ALAS! POOR YORICK.

Otago Witness, Issue 2318, 4 August 1898, Page 37

ALAS! POOR YORICK.

Of the three principal actors in Ike m-eai. Dunlop drama of May, 1896, Mr Dv Cro<Mr Hooley and Mr Kucker-we place ihem in order of ability— the first-named alone presents that financial solidarity to tho world which might naturally be expected aftei so magnificent a coup. *To couple Mr Dv U-oss name with those of mere speculators is, however, to do him an injustice. Whatever fortune Mr Dv Cros may possess has been earned by the exercise of tho most brilliant genius that has" over been placed at the disposal of the cycle trade. He founded the Dunlop Company ten years ago, when Iho pneumatic tyre was derided by those who are now its most devoted adherents; he persevered with it in the face of unheard-of ob,staeles at a lime when even its inventor was dubious of its future; and that his personal fortune should expand with the development ot his life's work only serves to establish the truth that merit and industry are sometimes rewarded ever, in this world. Mr Hooley last week filed his petition in bankruptcy, and publicly declares that he is not worth a penny— a statement possibly les3 open lo the charge of exaggeration than to some others he has made. We profoundly regret that Mr Hooley should have ended his meteoric career in the bankruptcy court ; for we can by no means agree with some of tho harsh and cruel judgments that havo boon passed by ignorant critics upon his association with the cycle trade. Some of his promotions ha\e turned out disastrously, granted ; but is there a man in commercial England to-day who has succeeded with every venture he has undertaken?

The cycle trade owes much to Mr Hooley. But for his daring pui-chase and reflotation o*" the Pneumatic Tyre Company there would have been no cycle boom. A transaction of such Napoleonic magnitude alone could have startled tho United Kingdom into a true appreciation of the value of the safety bicycle and the air tyro. To the Dunlop deal wo attribute the enormous trade of the past two years, bringing in its train capital undreamed of in the old day 3. It would of course be absurd to say that fashionable society' did not know of the bicycle before May, 1896 ; but it knew precious little.

With two exceptions, the Cycle Manufacturers' Tube Company and "the Simpson Lever Chain Company, none of Mr Hooiey's cycle flotations were bad flotations. And even with regard to Hl9 two we have mentioned, everybody went in perfectly well knowing that they were speculative enterprises. Who is there, being in the cycle trade in the spring of 1896, not to-day better off on balance than he was then? Very few of whom we know, and our acquaintance with the inner working of cycle finance is fairly extensive. It may ba urged that the general public have lost their money. Possibly. But are we concerned with the general public ? We are in the cycle trade to make a living, and if speculators in cycle stock choose to give more for a comjrany than it is worth, we can only reply in the words of the legal gentleman, caveat emptor ! Mr Hooley over-speculated and ruined himself. But not in cycle companies. Had lie never gone outside his own particular province he would have been a rich man to-day. That is why wo have no sympathy with the petty howlings of the miserable, greedy puntors who have ventured into something they didn't understand and lost their money. There could have been no cycle boom but for the rapacity of the fringe which always follows a boom, whether it be in gold mines, American railways, or any other form of speculation which presents an apparently easy road to wealth. The only people wha have made money in the recent prosperity of the cycle trade are the same people who were in it when times were hard, and are still in it now times are hard again. We much regret Ihe over-capitalisation o£ many companies. It cannot go on. But it was the fault of the uninformed speculating public. Those who had businesses to soil cannot bo blamed for getting the best' price they could,, because a market ence missed does not recur. Even Mr Hooley is not responsible for all this over-capitalisation. He did not float one-fiftieth of the concerns offered to the public, and besides, it must be remembered to his credit that in nearly every instance he took the public entirely into his confidence, and told them exactly the profit he was making. What could he do jnoi&l<»» BJoycliaK News,