COLONIAL “OWN CORRESPONDENTS.”

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume IV, Issue 197, 21 October 1864, Page 3

COLONIAL “OWN CORRESPONDENTS.”

The Southland Daily News has the following just and truthful remarks on this subject; and we regret that the “ own correspondence” of so many journals in New Zealand should fully justify the severe censure which our contemporary’s temperately worded remarks contain. We know several instances of the hind referred to, where the strongest condemnation is merited : “This journal for a long time past repudiated the system of employing the services of correspondents in the neighboring colonies and provinces. This course has been the result of a deliberate conviction that the office of the ‘ correspondent’ is one that is habitually abused to the partial and dishonest representation of facts, and the indulgence of personal animosity. The correspondent of a first-class London newspaper is generally a gentleman of education and attainments, engaged for a specific work in virtue of his specific qualifications for it. Such was Russell, sent by The Times, first to the Crimea, and afterwards to India, to paint those living word-pictures of contemporary history which contributed alike to his own fame and the reputation of the journal that had the sagacity to employ him. Such is George Augustus Sala, the correspondent in America, of the Daily Telegraph. But the “ Own Correspondents” of the colonial press are usually gentlemen who are members of the staff of some local jonrnal, and who by those extra labours add to their emoluments. They are attached to some special school of politics—they represent Jand embody all; the petty antipathies and partialities of their own immediate entourage, very often adding to these prejudices feelings of personal resentment and animosity. Their a distant newspaper affords them an ample and safe opportunity of gratifying these feelings, and we seldom glance over a letter from an ‘ Own Correspondent’ without meeting with evidences in every paragraph of narrowness of view and personal antipathies. We have often wondered on what principle a correspondent of a public journal is allowed to obtrude his inuendoes against public persons upon the readers to whom he is employed to narrate news. Amongst the public men of Victoria, few have held a more conspicuous position for many years than Mr. Edward Wilson, who has unquestionably rendered vast services to the colony with which his fortunes have so long been identified. Ho has fought its battles manfully, contributed to it unsparingly of his substance as well as his labor. It is well known that he has long felt intensely the wrongs inflicted on the free provinces by the continuance of transportation. He is a newspaper proprietor, and his views are of course denouneed and himself derided as a visionaiy, by the journals that seek to base their prosperity on undermining the influence of The Argus ? But is that any reason why a leading newspaper of Now Zealand should allow its anonymous ‘ own correspondent’ to have his fling at this gentleman by describing him as ‘ nondescript Edward Wilson’ and insulting him with his commisseration in such terms as these ‘ Poor Edward Wilson is fast taking leave of his senses. Even his friends are begining to take him to task for his obildish conduct, and before long, unless a change takes place, his name will become a bye-word and a reproach.’ We regard the whole system we have referred to as unsound, unless the correspondence is specially restricted to the just and natural contents of the news-let-ter.”

Ladies’ Dresses and Wet Paint.— The case “Levyv. Bartlett,” heard in the Sheriff’s Court, London, recently, was an action to recover £2, value of a dress, alleged to have been damaged by some paint in defendant’s shop. It appeared that the plaintiff went to the shop of the defendant, a

cheesemonger, and, on entering^her dress swept against the newly-painted doorpost. A shopman called, “ Mind the paint.” Thereupon she caused herself to be painted upon the othe side. There was no written notice up that the paint was wet. His Honour censured the defendant, who was bound to keep his shop so that no harm could come to his customers entering for a lawful purpose. The idea that the plaintiffs crinoline was exceedingly large, was a bad plea. She might reply she was entitled to follow tike paeeaeiEng fashion. If .a tradesman wishes to protect himself particularly, lie ought to put up a notice, “No * ladies with large crinolines served in this shop.” Verdict for plaintiff, with costs.