The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning. Thursday, May 23, 1889. THE S.P.P. COMPANY—HOW THE MONEY GOES.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 302, 23 May 1889, Page 2

The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning.

Thursday, May 23, 1889. THE S.P.P. COMPANY—HOW THE MONEY GOES.

Be jnst and fear not; Let all the ends thou alrn’et nt be thy country's, Thy God's, and truth’s.

While the shareholders in the South Pacific Petroleum Company are still existing on that blessing which is afforded to us mortals here below, the blessing of patience, our readers generally may be entertained in another way. Figures are not usually good food to appease an appetite for humor, but we have just had an opportunity to examine the balance sheet of the South Pacific Company, and it certainly has a most comical aspect;— of course we are not taking into consideration the feelings of the shareholders—they can be safely left to stew in the juice of their own happiness. At any rate the balance sheet affords material for serious reflection on the part of the sober-minded, and those who take things more gaily are not likely to be disappointed in a subject for mirth. The receipts from March 30th, 1888, to April 30th last (thirteen months) amount to £2620, of which the whole is expended, less /32. We must remember the well was as deep in March, 1888, as now; where, therefore, has the money gone, or what have the shareholders received to represent the sum of £2588 ? We will analyse the balance sheet and see for ourselves “Travelling expenses of Mr W. Flemming to Melbourne and Gisborne, £t s3 ss; travelling expenses of Mr W. Flemming to and from Gisborne and works, /40 17 s.” Mr Fleming appears to have done very well so tar; then follows :—“ Secretary’s salary, Sydney office rent, and clerical assistance (Sydney), /6?8 155." Now, as Mr Jopling is Mr Fleming's clerk, and the office is Mr Fleming’s office, it appears that Mr Fleming has done exceedingly well on this count also. In order that our readers may not labor under any mistake in the matter, we may state that the sums above mentioned are'incorporated in the general balance sheet, under the head of “ Printing, advertising, office expenses, buggy hire, salaries, directors’ fees, office rent, etc., for the last 9 years— £f>i 13 5s yd.” This does not include the preliminary expenses in floating the Company, which are set down at £27(1.

The total amount received from subscriptions, calls and premiums to March 31st is /23,55 s 3s Bd. It will thus be seen that over 35 per cent, of this amount has been expended in manage* men/ (save the mark), and nearly "the whole of it at the Sydney end, as the meagre salaries paid the agents at this end cannot total up more than about /1000 of the whole. The above sum of /01J3 5s yd is for purely office and management expenses and does not include any expenses connected with the actual works, such as Mr Weaver’s salary. These are worthy of a column to themselves. We now come to the Waitangi well, or No. 5, as it is called. So far it has cost/6114 12s Bd. Thia amount is for drilling operations only and does not include machinery, tools, or tubing, which are put in a separate account, at £4187. We then turn to the man who is the working head (or tail) of what the Napier Telegraph terms the " monetary sinkhole of Poverty Bay." We refer to Mr Washington Irving Weaver. There is little doubt but that the largest part of ths /6114 above quoted has gone Into his pocket. We impute poking wrong In this—he has put a

price on his work, and got it paidWhat we do find fault with is the continued misstatements made by Mr Weaver with respect to his monetary transactions with the Company. When Mr Weaver left here for America he informed many people that the Company was indebted to him in a considerable sum, and his cousin, Mr F. Weaver, also very industriously circulated the same report after Mr W. I. Weaver’ departure. When Mr Fleming was here in May last he distinctly denied the report, and stated, “ Mr Weaver is paid up as far as he can be, until the well is measured up.” Mr Fleming’s statement is borne out not only by the balance sheet now issued, but, strange to say, by Mr Weaver’s statements after he returned, he having apparently forgotten his previous misstatements. The balance sheet shows that Mr Weaver was paid /40 for one month’s salary in January, 1888. He has also been pa : d /105 for the 21 ft which Mr Fleming stated he could not pay until the well was measured. Who measured the well ? Is it not a monstrous thing that money should be paid on the contractor’s bare word ? Is it done in other contracts ? Is there anyone who can say positively that the well is 1321 ft deep ?

There is also an amount of /6/5 9s gd for “ Wages and other expenses in connection with re-building of derrick, recovering tools, etc." As the “Watchman’s wages while work was stopped ’’ are in a separate account, it follows that after allowing for rebuilding the derrick (about /zoo) and wages since October last (say /150), that the bulk of the balance has gone to Mr Weaver—at least, we shall believe so until the contrary is proved.

Our readers will remember Mr Weaver calling a meeting of shareholders on the 12th March last, his object being apparently to show why certain calls had been made. He said the 6d call was made in September to pay off an overdraft then owing of about £6OO and to obtain new rig irons. Now, in March, 1888, there was a credit balance of £167, Mr Weaver was away in America, and no work going on; Mr Fleming absorbs in his pleasure trip some £2OO, and the building of the two derricks probably accounts for the balance. But where, oh I where, are the r ‘g irons ? We have heard a good deal about these " rig irons," and have made >t our business to enquire thereon. Now, it does not appear that any rig irons were purchased. When shareholders here remonstrated in regard to some of the boring tools being lent to the Water Boring Company, the answer was that the Pacific Company could not well refuse as the Water Boring Company had lent them rig irons. It will also be remembered by our readers that late in January Mr leaver cabled to Sydney, “ Can do no further work without new rig irons,” and pending their arrival went on a holiday trip to Auckland. The rig irons came the following week and were despatched to the works at once, by Mr Piesse. They are still at the works, and have never been used to the present day. The cost of a set of rig irons delivered in Gisborne is, we are informed, about /20, but as the Company apparently bought none, the 6d call was not strained on that account. We again quote from Mr Weaver, “ The next call was one of 3d, amounting to /540. The new lease might cost/500, which would eat up that amount.” The balance sheet shows, “ Legal expenses, cost of lease, etc., /90 4s sd.” This is a long way off /500. Mr Jopling has already informed us what the 5d call, amounting to /914 18s 4d, was made for—“To provide funds to pay wages, to remunerate officials, and pay office expenses, which had been accumulating some years.” It is quite clear that Mr Fleming was well aware that he had little chance of being re-elected on the new Board—the mismanagement had been too gross for that, and the feeling against him here and in Sydney was too pronounced. He also knew that unless he could get his friends on the old Board to pass his “ little bills ” for office rent, etc., etc., totting up nearly £7OO, there would be small chance of the new Board passing such payments.

We are driven to this conclusion, that it would be advisable in the interests of the Company that a new Secretary should be appointed in place of Mr Jopling. We do not for a moment insinuate anything against that gentleman, but he is a servant of Mr Fleming and as such is not a free agent; therefore his connection with the Company should cease.

As to Mr Weaver our opinions have been openly stated many times, and we see no cause to alter them, rather the reverse; they are considerably strengthened by what has transpired. Since the meeting on March 21st, when Mr Weaver threw his resignation in the faces of the shareholders, and which the bulk of the shareholders now regret they did not accept, what has Mr Weaver done ? Has the promised test advanced one step ? We unhesitatingly answer? No. We give Mr Weaver now, the same advice we gave him on the 19th March last—that “since he does not feel inclined to push on the test vigorously, to stand on one side and let some one else develop for him that rapid fortune which he well knows now lies within his too apathetic grasp.” If no one here can be found to carry on the work, there are many first class drillers now in Australia; let us have one or two over and complete the test.

The above had hardly been handed in to the compositors when we received information that indicates that what we have previously said has had good effect. From the later information we understand that the new Board of the South Pacific Petroleum Company are endeavoring to make arrangements for a local borer to lift pipes and put the bore in working order. Whether this means that Mr Weaver is not returning or that the new Board desire other authority and testimony than his as to the state of the well, and the nepessity for lifting the pipes, we do not know. Time is running on and those two weeks of Mr Weaver’s have been consumed over and over again while the Board of Consolation have been relying on him. The present, move is at least progression and betokens a much more healthy state of things than has existed for years past, and we really now begin to hope that th? work will be pushed on in earnest.

At the last meeting of the Harbor Board, Mr Matthewson took the opportunity to accuse this journal of having grossly misrepresented what he said at a previous meeting ; it was not a mistake, he made it plainly understood, it was a misrepresentation. We can quite endorse what Mr Matthewson said, that it was not mistake, but if there was a “ misrepresentation ” it was the fault of no one but Mr Matthewson himself, through not being more lucid in the expression of his views, We should not think it worth while to take notice of the accusation were it not that the subject introduces one or two pointe which may well be commended to the careful attention of the ratepayers. Il Mr Matthewson denies that he intended to convey the only meaning that could be taken from words previously used by him, the explanation is sufficient to obviate any wrangling over the matter. But what does the explanation itself . mean ? Mr Matthewson says he advocated a system of “ give and take ” between the contractor and the Engineer. Surely there is a further explanation required ? A “ system of give and take ” sounds well, but when Mr Matthewson uses it he ought to explain the meaning he intends to convey. However, as the matter has been set at rest for the present, there is no need to puzzle ourselves on questions which do not greatly concern the ratepayers. What may be more fittingly referred to is the spectacle of a member of a public body sitting at the Board table and positively refusing to give his vote on a matter of much importance. First he said it was time enough to give his vote when it was demanded— the inference being that the Chairman must always demand the votes of members, Then Mr Matthewson expressed himself in sympathy with both the motion and amendment, but when his vote was demanded, ha absolutely refused to give it, and did not comply with the By-law that a member not voting must leave the table. It we accused Mr Matthewson of not having the courage to express bis opinion on one of those matters which we assume it is his duty to attend to, we suppose he would tell us that if he had supported either proposition his opinion would have been “ misrepresented." Mr Matthewson is always ready to express his opinion on engineering questions, and yet when a simple question coming within the ordinary scope of his duties has to be decided, he does not know his own mind sufficiently to vote upon it I If other members acted in the some way, what a delightful state of things there would be. Mr McLoughlin may consider himself fortunate that he got let off so easily after the burden of additional expense that has been imposed on the ratepayers, and he can thank Mr Matthewson's hesitancy tor the result. Only one vote was required to decide the question and, as stated, that vote was not forthcoming. We only wish, for Mr Matthewson's sake, we could say he had been “ mis. represented " on this occasion, because it would help to restore a confidence which has now been sadly dissipated.