AUCKLAND COMMERCIAL MORALITY.

Observer, Volume 3, Issue 64, 3 December 1881, Page 185

AUCKLAND COMMERCIAL MORALITY.

Commercial morality (writes a correspondent) seems to be at rather a low ebb in Auckland, at least tliat is how it strikes me, fresh from the conventionalities and corruptions of the old country. Everyone knows that commercial morality is in as bad a way at Home as here ; but what strikes one here is the indifference with

which it. is regarded — the absence of any indignant protest ugainsfc the system — the want of the " ten righteous " in the community who might save the city from destruction. The low state of morals which prevails in commercial relations seems here to be taken as a matter of course; and even when a public expose of disgraceful tactics is made, the party making use of such tactics docs not fall in the public estimation, and, so far from losing all self -respect, rather gains a greater confidence in his own powers and a firmer faith in his business capacity. Public men appear to have no respect for character, in the sense in which it is understood at Home, and they allow themselves to be insulted, slandered, and libelled publicly in a way Avhich (whether deserved or undeserved) no Englishman would sxibmit to at Home. These conclusions have forced themselves upon me by a close observation of Colonial manners, but the present remarks have been immediately suggested by the xmseemly wrangling over a matter of fact presently being carried on by two Auckland tradesmen — Mr Coombes and Mr Linabury. Let me say that I know neither of these gentlemen, save by their public j>ositions, and, until I saw their letters in the Star, looked upon both equally as being men of probity and gentlemanly instincts. The state of the case seems to bo this : — After a recent fire at his premises, Mr Linabury claimed and received from the insurance companies the value of the goods alleged to have been destroyed or damaged. The salvage stock was bought from the companies by Mr Coombes, who thereupon announces a great bargain sale. Mr L. (evidently wishing not only to get full vtihie for his damaged stock, but also the extra " run " of a salvage sale) condemns Mr C's statements as untrue,and accuses him of trying to " gull the public " by foisting upon them slop goods of his own. That is " lie direct," No. 1. Mr L. also asserts that all the goods bought by Mr C. were rendered worthless by fire, to which Mr C. retorts that so far from this being the case, £300 worth had suffered absolutely no damage, and he condemns as dishonest the action of Mr L. in claiming compensation for such goods from the insurance companies. That is No. 2 ; and Mr C. aggravates the denial by branding Mr L. as a coward, slanderer, liar, etc.

Now, my wonder is — not that business men should do the things here ascribed to these two — not that that they should denounce and vilify each other — but that they are utterly callous under the accusations made. Perhaps, from long acquaintance with the low moral tone of the Colony, they are unaware of the serious nature of the charges they make and lie under. In the first place, the charge of " gulling the public " made against Mr Coombes is, if true, distinctly libellous, because quite destructive of that gentleman's business character, and the libeller should not only be mulcted in substantial damages, but should be held up to universal execration. On the other hand, if the statement is untrue, why does the libelled individual not appeal to a court of law to vindicate his character and punish the traducer ? If the allegation be false, Mr Coombes should know that he is not only entitled to recover damages for libel, but also for injury done to his business ; and if he wishes neither of these, he should take steps at least to clear liimself front the disgraceful imputation. Then, again, the accusations of swindling and lying brought by Mr C. against his brother-in-trade are either true or untrue. If true, then Mr L. is a " swindler " and the insurance authorities are dolts, the one by claiming, and the others by granting compensation unjustly. If false, Mr L. has been most maliciously libelled, and has the power to punish the traducer and establish his own reputation. The strange thing is that lie does not see the necessity for doing so. Mr Coombes does make an attempt to vindicate his character and the truth of his statements ; but how ? By a bet — itself an immoral transaction, and a mode which in respectable English circles would conclusively stamp the individual as wanting in true character. I am not fond of recommending going to law ; I have never done so, and never will if I can avoid it ; but there are cases when it becomes the ultima ratio, and when it is absolutely necessary to invoke its aid. The case I have been referring to seems to be clearly one of this class. Failing a judge's decision, both disputants lie under foul suspicion in every honest man's rnhxd, and neither is deserving of confidence. And let me add, in conclusion, that for the unworthy attitude which. they assmp.e I do not so much blame themselves as I do the public of Auckland, whose utter want of public conscience, or collective sense of honour, makes such a condition of things possible. I am not hasty enough to say that " all men are liars" in Auckland ; but I do affirm that, by their moral apathy, they tolerate and encourage the practice of lying. [We publish the above communication in conformity with our rule of giving free expression to public opinion on questions affecting the social morality of the community, though we entirely dissent from some of the views therein expressed ; and some portions of the letter which, did not affect its general tone and scope, but were distinctly libellous, have been eliminated. For example, we do not go the whole length of saddling the responsibility for commercial immorality, real or alleged, upon the entire community ; nor do we perceive that it is its business to become deeply agitated over the cacoethes scribendi of two hot-headed drapers, both of whom probably regret many of the hard things they have said of each other. Whether they chose to invoke the aid of the law in vindication of their respective characters is their affair, and not that of the public. Moreover, the prudence of appealing to the " glorioiTS uncertainty of the law " in vindication of one's character against every hasty aspersion that may be uttered or written in a moment of anger, is extremely problematical, and often productive of worse consequences. — Ed. Obs.]