' Sib, —I cannot permit you to bring as you do a new element into the field such as that in your note to my letter appearing in your Saturday's , issue. Your leading article of the sth inst. charged.this company with being " hungry pro _ moters" and " a case of heads 1 win tails you ' lose," and seeking to " discount the profits for several years " by a " large present payment;" and waruiDg the public to avoid it. Now, a J journal that truly desires to guide the public should have made itself aware of the grounds for assertion so strongly made; aud not seek to , direct your attack into a side issue b7 your fur ther remarks. Did you' think what these , remarks really mean? Do you accuse the direbtors of the Shotover Big Beach Gold Min ing Company (Limited) of paying its dividends , out nf capital? You acknowledge that there a was broken time, breakages, ko. In addition I you must know that large expenses must ; have been incurred since the Shotover Com t pany began busimss in preliminary expenses, wages, &c. before any result could be obtained,. and yet you ask where has the balance of £2000 gone to. Is this asked ironically? Am I to r make up a balance sheet for your special benefit ,to enable you to retract ? Does it not strike you Jas something very remarkable in Otago gold mining that the Shotover Big Beach Company should have, so soon after getting into working order, been able to pay dividends to the amount it has ? The Frankton Beach Dredging Com ; pany you laud, and you recommend people to ' invest in its shares; that the weekly revenue would be £562 and expenditure £60, leaving a | profit of £502; aud this estimate you know to be ' problematical, and from the experience of the Shotover Big Beach, ridiculously high. 