The Cromwell Argus, AND NORTHERN GOLD-FIELDS GAZETTE Cromwell: Tuesday, October 13, 1874.

Cromwell Argus, Volume V, Issue 263, 13 October 1874, Page 4

The Cromwell Argus, AND NORTHERN GOLD-FIELDS GAZETTE Cromwell: Tuesday, October 13, 1874.

The Duns tan Times in its last issue has something to say touching the Wakatip Commonage, concerning which we lately had a little discussion with the Wakatip Mail. The remarks made by the Times on the subject proper are not of sufficient importance to warrant us in wasting our space replying to them. They bring forwardnothing new, and what is advanced as a reason for conserving the commonage has besn advanced on previous occasions, in other papers, and in a much more able manner. We strongly suspect, in fact, that the remarks of the Times are put forward not: so much from. any desire to do battle on behalf of the Wakatip residents, (the writer must be surely aware that the Mail is competent for that task,) as from a wish to have a “ fling” in a small way at its friend the Cromwell Argus. We make it a rule to allow no one to touch us with impunity, but really we are getting somewhat tired of the Sisyphean task of teaching the Times to behave with something like a show of good manners when referring to other journals. The job has to be done, however, and we shall endeavour to do it as briefly as possible. The Times had a perfect right to announce to its readers that the Goldfields has everything to win and nothing to lose by the abolition of Provincialism, although the fact is capable of considerable discussion, but it was overstepping the bounds of decent criticism when it presumed to imply that this journal had become an exponent of Provincial Government opi nions, and to imply, (as an apology, we suppose, for our remarks to the Mail on that score,) that we were forced to deny the soft impeachment lest, forsooth, “ our interests should be seriously damaged,” and we should forfeit our dignity. What can the Times mean 1 Surely it must be aware that so far from injuring our interests, the very opposite would be the case, were we in a position to announce ourselves as published under authority. To the Mail we explained that such was not the case, and the Mail courteously accepted our statement on the matter. The Times , however, is moved by a different spirit, and coolly insinuates, nay declares, that a certain item of news which lately appeared in our columns was “ only put forward as a ‘ feeler.’ ” After our remarks in a previous issue, are we going too far in saying that this is simply a piece of journalistic impertinence 1 Wc think not, Rather more than a year ago, we had occasion to gently rebuke the Dumtan Times for introducing into the discussion of a subject the name of the supposed writer of any article with which it had occasion to differ: and its behaviour in that respect ever since has been so exemplary, that we thought a “perfect cure” had been established. Not so, however. The opportunity for dragging in the Goldfields Secretary, or, to use plain English, to make a point against Mr MacKellar, was too tempting to be foregone, and his name (through that of his office) was dragged in abatfdingly. Nbw we really ' are anxious

* i i, to put onr respected contemporary in the way of reformation, and, to remoye atiy temptation to offend again in this respect from its path, we propose in future to publish the names of; the writers to whom we are indebted, if the Times is willing to adopt a similar course. , Each writer’s name shall appear appended to the article which he contributes. If the Dunstan Times can pluck u'pcourage to adopt this simple method of avoiding such a gross breach of journalistic etiquette as is involved in alluding to the supposed contributors to any paper, let it show its assent to our proposition by' publishing the name of the writer of its next leader in its next issue. We shall inquire eagerly for our next u exchange.” •... If, however, the Dunstan Times does not choose to accept or act-upon our proposal, we earnestly advi§e, the editor of that paper to sin no more in the way of pointing at any One as the “chief literary head” (how supremely bleaaed to have a head of any sort) of the Argos..