The Observer.

Observer, Volume II, Issue 47, 6 August 1881, Page 528

The Observer.

Saturday, August 6th, 1881

The paragraphs which have hitherto appeared beneath the single heading "Brief Mention" will, in future, be classified under "Society," "Personal," and "This Wicked World."

When a well-dressed man comes to a newspaper office and announces himself as the "correspondent" or "travelling contributor" of some world-renowned London journal, one's first impulse is to believe him and be civil. Latterly", however, so many pi these gentry have visited Auckland, and such a large proportion of them have proved to be either literary humbugs unable to put together five lines of decent English, or else brazen frauds bent on borrowing money or obtaining a billet, that our faith in "representatives" of the London Press has been to a considerable extent shaken. The Daily Neivs appears to be the journal most in favour with these casual travellers. We need scarcely remind our readers of that remarkable cadger Castleton Cox, who (on the strength of having belonged to the Daily News, and being a first-rate shorthand reporter, able to write Pitman's 10th edition) "had" the editors and proprietors of the Star, the Herald, and the Observer for sums varying from thirty shillings to thirty pence, and eventually proved to be — well, never mind what. He was the worst of them. The others (with the exception of Mr Landershut, who it may be remembered gave out that he was a nephew of the proprietor of the 'Frisco Neios Letter) have mostly been men anxious to obtain kudos and get into "society" through their connection with the London papers, and to this end they have not scrupled to tell the most transparent and easilydetected falsehoods. We know a little of Mr Labouchere (one of the proprietors of the Daily News), and mean to write to him about the frauds in connection with his paper. It is too bad that the reputation of such a great journal should be deteriorated by scoundrels swearing they are connected with it, and running up bills all over the Colony.

Since writing the above we have heard that a Mr Broom, who is said to he a representative of the Daily News, happens to he staying at the Northern Club just now. As Mr Broom doubtless holds proper credentials from his editors, it would be as well for him to let some of our local literary men see them, so that in future they may be able to bring fraudulent humbugs, who pretend to be connected with the London Press, to book.

The shareholders in the Gold Mining Company are the most disgusted people in Auckland. The directory of the company is composed of a well-known millowner and his

sons, and the business is managed on model family principles. The shareholders reposed so much confidence in their directors that they left matters entirely in their hands. However, at the last meeting the shareholders were elated at the prospect of receiving a dividend of 10s per share, as it was known that by prudent management a considerable profit had accumulated. What Avas their disgust and disappointment when they learned that this money had been diverted to other purposes, and that there was not a cent available for division ! The directors had made a loan of £2500 to the milJowners (themselves) at 5 per cent, (the current bank rate being from 8 to 9) on the security of certain insurance shares, which are by no means a first-class investment, and had advanced the available balance to another gold mining company in which they are heavily interested, in order to save the necessity of making calls. There is some advantage in being a director after all.

Unless Mr Worthington makes up his mind to exercise rather more control over his temper than he has been in the habit of doing, it is quite likely he -will find himself in trouble one of these days. The stories that reach us about the severity of the rev. gentleman's punishments when he happens to be in a passion are most extraordinary, and as there is no flame without fire, they are probably— though distorted and possibly exaggerated — partly true. For instance, it is alleged that one dav recently Mr Worthington was going to punish little Miss P. for some cause, and sent another child to fetch his cane. The girl (a new pupil) couldn't find the stick, and came back to say so ; on which, instead of asking why, lie gave her a resounding box on the ears. Another time a lady teacher recommended one of two brothers (or sisters, we forget which) for punishment, and Mr Worthington, through a misunderstanding, began to operate on the wrong one. The teacher, Miss G., tried to rectify the blunder with two or three words of explanation, but was rounded on with a "Don't talk to me, ma'am " — which of course clinched matters.

We give these stories as they were told to us, and without in .any way vouching for their accuracy. One thing, however, does seem to be true — i.c, that Mr Worthington canes the girls as well as the boys. Surely this is not very nice. There are plenty of lady teachers at City East School, and if corporal punishment for female children is imperative (which we don't believe), the women, and not Mr Worthington, should carry it out. There is something very repulsive in the idea of a great strong man (the equability of whose temper is by no means above suspicion) caning little girls.

An erstwhile pupil of Mr Worthington's, who doesn't appear to hold that gentleman in the esteem and veneration which a boy ought to feel for his old master, says that when he was at City East School the floggings were carried out after a most original plan. Instead of standing up and getting the cane across his shoulders in the traditional manner, the unfortunate victim had to kneel down and put his head "between Mr W.s legs. That gentleman then nipped the lad's neck with his knees and proceeded to whack him on the fleshy part of the back. This method of castigation is so remarkable that we scarcely think the boy can have invented the yarn. It does, however, sound almost incredible.

Another complaint made by the person who interviewed us on this subject, was to the effect that Mr Worthington, instead of address-' ing the female teachers' as Miss So-and-So, uses their Christian names. The ladies, it is said, are afraid to complain of the custom, but would much prefer to have it discontinued. Perhaps Mr W. will kindly accept this intimation ; and when thanking us for the hint, it might be as well if he woiild say how much truth there is in our complainant's other statements. We should like to know, too, whether a child who brought her dinner to school wrapped up in part of the Observer, and commenced reading aloud portions of that interesting journal to her comrades in play - hours, was caught and whacked for so doing? Also whether, since then, the children have been forbidden to bring newspapers to the school under any pretence ? You see City East is such an important seminary, and has hitherto borne such a good name, that it would be a pity if any false rumours obtained currency. We therefore conceive that we are doing you a favour, Mr Worthington, by enabling you to "take the bull,, by the horns " and publicly contradict them.

Mr Abraham Boardman certainly deserves the reputation, which he apparently covets, of being the champion twaddler of Auckland. Generally speaking the public utterances of

this gentleman are pointless, harmless, and commonplace. Even when denouncing the Observer as a " ribald rag " to a circle of his own acquaintance, his fireside diatribes are of so dreary and commonplace a character as to produce either impatience or somnolence in the listeners to the maundering monotone. Abraham _ has a pronounced jienchcmt for annual meetings of public companies, Highway Boards, etc. Well, this of course is "nothing to nobody," so long as our garrulous friend with the patriarchal patronymic confines himself to modest allusions to his own personal importance and worth. But' occasionally this amiable and retiring person conceives it his mission to make comments of a character more remarkable for their yen om than for their veracity. His speech at the recent meeting of the Union Sash and Door Company was of this nature. He is not now a director of that company, and it is well known that his late colleagues do not ardently desire his presence at the monthly Board meetings any more. Hence the surcharging of Abraham's biliary duct, which occurred at the meeting above referred to. If the most cherished wish of Mr Boardman's heart was to make himself appear inconsistent and absurd, he could not have adopted a more effective method of having that wish gratified — hoio inconsistent and absurd will presently be shown. Abraham was a member of the Board of Directors — a Board- man in fact — when the future policy of the directors, including the method of financing, w.as discussed and approved of. Did he vehemently remonstrate or protest ? Not much. Did he raise his voice in warning and denunciation ? Certainly not. He annexed his honorarium like a discerning man and a philosopher, and blandly acquiesced. And yet he has the astonishing effrontery to stand up and denounce the very policy which he himself had assisted to inaugurate. Whether it is owing to his irrepressible cacmthes loquendi, or whether Mr Boardman desires the shareholders to look upon him as the only one person ordained to protect them "from the snares and assaults of" designing directors, it is hard to say. But this much is certain, and cannot be gainsaid : If the directors are carrying out a blundering or an imprudent policy, then Mr Boardman must share the blame for the reason above stated, thus proving his conduct at the meeting to have been not only ridiculous, but uncandid. Evidently this was the view taken by the shareholders present, who administered a salutary snub by lettiwg him "severely alone," winch they also did when he sneered at Mr Monk as being only a "machine manager." No doubt they remembered how, not long ago, the now querulous Abraham was most profuse in his eulogies of the manager, and bore testimony to his versatile ability and invariable services in various departments of the business. Ah, well, there is all the difference (just as in the juvenile seesaw game) in being 'on the Board and being off But, Abe dear, remember there are other and fairer, and more rational ways of getting on again than depreciating a worthy manager and stultifying your own actions.

To the Editor : Sir, — Allow me to correct an error which " The Duchess " has fallen into in reference to the story of Mr T. B. Hannaford which appeared in your issue of last week, as I know the right version. In the first place the gentleman's name was La Nauze, not Le Noze ; secondly, lie was not in the Customs, neither did he reside at Christchuvch. He was a resident at the Chatham Islands, where he had a small farm, and the lady went direct from Auckland to the Chatham's. I wish to correct the error because tliere is a Mr La Nauzein the Customs in Christchurch, who is also a, married man, and is uncle to the young gentleman referred to by "The Duchess."— l am, etc., PASQUIN.

The infatuation which some silly, romantic girls display for the stage is strikingly exemplified in a letter recently received by an Auckland manager. The epistle, which is remarkable for its defective orthography and ignorance of grammar, comes from a young lady in . a country township. She encloses he!photograph, which is passable, expatiates, on her qualifications, and, with effusive gush, gives expression to her enthusiastic admiration for histrionics, and her irresistible ambition to be come a ''star." The latter part of the letter is peculiarly significant. She presumes that the manager is an unmarried man, and adds that fehe is ready to join the company "in any capacity." Unfortunately the manager is a very much married man.

It is only fair to Mr Pollard to state that since penning the paragraph in la^t _ week's issue condemming him for dishonouring the cheque given to Mr Reynolds, we have heard that there was some justification for the action. To retail the circumstances here would be to rake up an \msavoury scandal, which had better now be left alone. We shall therefore say no more on the subject.

To the Editor : Sir, — In your issue of this week my attention has been called to a highly improper letter signed by one "Vigilans." There is little doubt that' this communication refers to me j therefore, in common fairness and justice, I must respectfully ask you (having acted under advice) to insert this missive in your next impression. The fact is I claim to be an Associate in Arts (Oxford), and also that ■which has been ignored, viz., that I finished my education at a certain college situate in Cambridge University. I recognise "Vigilans," of course. He is one of those who are never satisfied without they are seething in some wild, foolhardy, useless argument, which is a curse to themselves and a pest to others who are compelled to listen. Even supposing your correspondent's assertion is true that I have passed the Cambridge Senior Local, I say that both those of Oxford and Cambridge are equivalent and alike. With regard to the remarks about "school boys" passing such an examination, where does the boy end and the man begin ? I assert that, none but a prodigy can succeed herein under the age of twenty years. Snoh a controversy was never raised at" Cambridge when I was in company with graduates; then why should there be this"" mud throwing" allowed in your columns? With regard to "Vigilans," "// ne vois pas plus lour/ qtte son ■nez. "—Yours faithfully, H. C. Brook, A. A.— Auckland, July 30th, 1881.— P.S. I am about to lecture shortly, when I will enlarge upon this subject.— H.C.B.

For surpassing conceit, execrable grammar, and consummate impudence, we don't think we ever read anything quite equal to this letter. It will be noted, too, that Mr Brook carefully ignores the point at issue -i.e., whether Cambridge University can confer the degree of A. A. The fact is our correspondent has told everyone it was at Cambridge he was made an Associate, and it is rather awkward to have to turn round now and swear by Oxford. With regard to the A.A. degree we can say this much : there are at least half-a-dozen men in Auckland now who possess it, but they would as soon think of affixing A.S.S. to their names as A.A. Mr J. D. Davis, of the Star, is one, and he really has some pretensions to scholarship. As to anyone passing the senior Oxford examination under twenty being a prodigy, that is rot. When the writer was at school at Reading twelve years ago, the whole of the first class (none of whom were eighteen years old) went up for it, and the majority passed. Mr Brook's claim to his much-coveted title will, however, soon be set at rest. " Vigilans," who doubts whether a man unable even to compose decent English can have passed such an examination, lias written both to Oxford and Cambridge, and intends to have the 7iiattev investigated. The questions he asks are — (1) whether any person called H. Claude Brook ever passed the Oxford or Cambridge Senior Local Examination, and if so, when and where ? (2) what degree of scholarship does the A. A. prove ? (3) is it usual or proper, or in good taste, for students who have taken the degree of Associate of Arts to affix A.A. to their names?

To the Editor : Sir, — Yoiir correspondent's remarks on Auckland banking {brings to my recollection the case of an intimate friend of mine, which goes a long way to verify what he has stated. My friend had a large sum of money placed at his disposal, by his friends at Home, in an Auckland bank, to be used for a certain specific purpose. It was of the utmost importance for many reasons that this fact should not be bruided abroad, more especially was it impoi'tant that the exact amount should not be made public. I was informed of the fact of the money being in the bank by my friend under a strict seal of secrecy. Judge of my astonishment when, on walking down the street one day, I met a mutual friend, who in the course of conversation said, "I suppose you know that our friend L. has got £ placed to his credit, to do so-and-so with ?" To which I replied, "Are you % quite sure of that?" "Oh, yes," he said, "for , of the bank, has just told me." I remarked, "Isit a usual thing, I wonder, for bank officials to chatter in this way about their customers' affairs ?" He laughed, and said, "I don't know, but I thought it rather queer his telling me." The tipshot of this story was that long before the time arrived for the expenditure of this money, everyone interested in the matter knew to a farthing the amount lodged and the terms upon which it was deposited, rendering absolutely useless the amount thus placed at my friend's

disposal. I strongly urged my friend to make an example of the bank official who had thus upset his plans, but, being the prince of good fellows, he declined to do so. In my opinion he ought to have done so, and \mtil someone does step in and "bell the cat," I suppose the banks will continue, as hitherto, to do just what they darn please. — I am, etc., H.A.A.

To the Editor : Sh*, — I have read the letter of "X.Y.Z." in the Observer of Saturdaylast, and I can from my own experience corroborate much of what he alleges with regard to the ethics of hanking in Auckland. Take the following instance :— Some years ago I received three months' hills to the amount of £100, signed by a respectable firm, and hearing a good private endorsement. I lodged them for discount at the Bank of , but was informed by the manager that he must decline the bills, as the bank was curtailing its discounts. I put the hills in niy pocket and walked up Qucen-ftreet with the intention of trying the Bank of , but when I reached Tonks mart I was over-taken, by a well-known bill-broker, who was out of breath. He said, " You have £100 worth of bills ?" and I replied in the affirmative, remarking in astonishment, "But how did you come to know that?" " Oh, never mind that," he replied ; " they are signed by — and endorsed by , are they not ?" " Yes," I rejoined, still more surprised, because I believed that no one in Auckland was aware of the fact that the bills were in my .possession. " I'll give you £80 for them," said the bill-broker. This was equal to 80 per cent, per annum ! It is hardly necessary to say that I declined the offer. But the questio arises, how did the bill-broker know that I had those bills? The only solution I can off er is that the bank, while it was unwilling to discount the bills itself in a legitimate way, was not above doing so at an exorbitant rate of discount through one of its jackals. — I am, etc., G.S.

When Mr Landeshut was allowed to leave Auckland without any proceedings being.taken against him, he professed to be very penitent, and swore that he would settle down and lead a new life. His repentance (as might be exJiected) has proved but short-lived In Welington he let in two or three fellows at cards, and now a private letter comes from Dunedinto this effect : — "Mr Landeshut has been here and "had" some of the fair sex, also several bagmen. He left for Christchurch on Saturday."

The "oldest inhabitant" of Auckland now surviving is Mr Thomas Neild, aged 89 years, and a resident in this city for upwards of 42 years. By the courtesy of Mr J. Graham we procured an introduction to the old fossil of Auckland's primitive stage. Being very infirm, he has resided for many years past with Mr Sheehan, Chapel-street, and has been treated with the utmost kindness by the whole family. The old gentleman recalls the days when Capt. Daldy kept a small store on the site of the present Metropolitan Hotel, which stood on the edge of a creek, and Avas only approachable by boat. He remembers when the firm of Brown and Campbell held a great sale of goats, cows not having at that time been introduced ; when pork was 2d per lb., and potatoes Is per cwt., forming the principle article of diet ; when the only dwellings in Auckland were raupo huts, and the current' rates of wages were from Is 6d to 2s 6d per diem. When the intlligence of the battles of the Nile and Trafalgar reached Dublin, he was old enough to read the accounts in the public bulletins. He Avas well acquainted with Dan O'Connell, and tells many amusing stories aboiyt the liberator, particularly his encounter with the celebrated fish womauj Mrs McCartney. The old man has only stirred beyond the premises where he lives on. two occasions during the past ten years, and then, only to record his vote at exciting elections.

An Auckland lady has discovered an excellent cure for drunkenness, which deserves to become widely known for the benefit of oppressed spouses generally. Her husband had given way to a passion for drink, and every night returned home in a very muddled state. Things went on this way for a long time, arid Mrs K. knew that her misfortunes formed the topic of conversation amongst her more fortunate neighbours. Tears and entreaties proved of no avail with her erring lord, and she therefore determined upon another course of action. K. became thirsty one nighty after returning from his usual carousal, and his wife volunteered with alacrity to go to the nearest pub. and purchase the pint of beer which he demanded. The suspicions of a less sensible man might have been aroused, but somehow his were not. Mrs K. bought the beer, and then proceeded to an adjacent chemist's shop, where she purchased sixpennyworth of ipecacuanha wine, which was duly poured into the beer jug on the way home. Mr K. drank the compound, and the scene in the house that night was lively. A doctor was called in, but of course his stomach-pump was not required. The husband was relieved of his trouoles in the course of time, and a soothing draught sent him to sleep. He has since become a teetotaller. It is said that the smell of beer is now so obnoxious to him that he has to cross to the other side of the road before he can pass an hotel.

To the Editor: Sir,— The public, and all who are interested in the preservation of the public morals, and especially of morality in the churches, ought to feel grateful to you for the courage you display in the exposure of j such scandals as that "which was recently published under the heading "A Clerical Gay Lothario." I have learned that since the appearance of that article the clergy and members of the congregation referred to have been making the most strenuous exertions to vitiate the testi mony of the unfortunate girl by the dissemination of various concocted stories and rumours 5 indeed it is openly stated that a certain society or organisation is lending its powerful aid in spreading these stories. From inquiries, I have reason to believe that the stories are cruel

inventions, and that prior to the circumstances detailed in your columns the girl bore a good character. I may say that I was well acquainted with her father. He was a man of exemplary morals, most industrious, trustworthy, and of no common mental attainments. He was a zealous Freemason, and occupied a, high, responsible, and honourable position in the craft. If it be true, as I have heard, that there is a solemn obligation amongst Freemasons to protect the honour of the wives and daughters of their brethren, I earnestly appeal to them to institute inquiries into this case, and to throw the aegis of their order over this poor fatherless girl, who has been so cruelly betrayed and abandoned to the scorn of the world.— l am, etc., Humanity.

With reference to this matter, we may as well confess that the allegations made by "Humanity" are correct, and that the Orange Society have discussed the propriety of proceeding against this journal for libel in order to clear the character of the alleged "clerical gay Lothario." If this is in truth the only reason which the society has for taking action we beg to submit that a much cheaper and quite as efficient a way of achieving the same end would be to forward to this journal any statement or testimony tending to exculpate his reverence. Our idea was not to hound, down an innocent man, but to expose a villain, and if it can be proved that instead of the weight of evidence being against Mr X., it is in his favor none will rejoice more sincerely than ourselves. A person indirectly connected with the Presbytery called on us the other day and explained that the consideration of the case was not closed, but merely held over till further evidence transpires. The verdict of the reverend gentleman on their brother was, in fact, the Scotch one of "not proven," which, of course, signifies that neither prosecution "nor defence could forward sufficient evidence to clinch matters.

Since writing the above the clerical scandal has again been brought up at the Presbytery, and that body have very properly determined to hold a searching enquiry into the affair. We shall be glad to send a verbatim reporter to these meetings, or if they are held privately to publish the evidence subsequently.

To the Editor : Sir, — I have taken the liberty of asking you to allot to me a small space in your columns as I Avish to express the disgust I ieel at the treatment a citizen bearing a reputation that Mr Isaacs does, received at the recent meeting of the Gas Company, held for the purpose of electing directors. Are gentlemen like Messrs Wilson, McFarlane, Newman and other directors going to let the conduct of the secretary pass without a thorough investigation? If they do I don't think they will enhance the value of the shares, as outsiders will naturally imagine that there is some objection to new blood being introduced. I, as an old shareholder, sent my proxy to Mr Isaacs unsolicited, as I believe in having directors always on the spot, who can, at all times, look to the welfare of all interested. If they neglect this we understand who to come at. I know fer a fact that a great many shareholders not only wish fresh blood but also want a commercial man among the directors. I should certainly as a shareholder like the following questions answered : 1 Why did the secretary not inform Mr Isaacs of the rules of the Company ; 2 If he did not do so at first why did he not state when spoken to on the morning of the election (when he knew no proxies were in) that proxies going in Avere informal ; 3 Why did the secretary allow the election partly to go on and have the votes on the proxy forms partly cast up before he gave his opinion as to their informality. Mr Editor, I really believe that the shareholers who forwarded their proxies to Mr Isaacs are far more disgusted at the snubbing he received than the candidate is himself. Let all the shareholders roll up at the next election and vote for the man who, when found elected, was thrown out. — I am, &c, Shareholder.

We really cannot understand how it is.that such a monstrous delay takes place in the delivery of quarantined mails. The Arawata arrived about noon on Tuesday, yet we didn't get our letters till almost the same time on Wednesday. Surely the man who does the fumigating, knowing the exact hour the steamer was expected, ought to have had everything ready and run the mails through the oven at once, so that they could have been brought up and distributed on Tuesday evening. Experience, instead of teaching Barnsley anything, seems to make him more careless.

There is now on view at Mr Halyday's warehouse, Shortland-street, undoubtedly the finest and most varied collection of works of art, elegant ornaments, and articles of utility ever exhibited in the Colony. These were specially selected to the order of Messrs Upton and Co., of this city, by connoisseurs from the art treasures of the late International Exhibition at Melbourne,' and are now oft'ered on the art union principle to lovers of the beautiful and admirers of the artistic and ornamental. The principal prizes consist of rare oil paintings by celebrated Italian, German, and English masters, all of which were prize-takers at the Exhibition. Amongst these may be mentioned pictures by the famous Carlo Felice Biscarra, Herman Corrodi, G. Tamboni, P. Celomini, Cavaliere Michael Angelo,Dr Algiano, Chierice, Mazzolini, Shelport, Meyer, Marko, Bouvier, Roberts, and others. The chromo-lithographs and oleographs are from favourite pictures by Burry, Krausse, Kreztlmuer, Landsen, and Wainwright, Hardoff, and Salingon. The Italian works of art consist of Mosaics, photographs, views and frames, vases, albums, pottery, salvers, and miscellaneous articles, from India and Japan. The value of the works is estimated at £1500, and the art union embraces 263 prizes. The tickets are sold at £1. His Worship the Mayor will preside at the prize drawing.