The Inangahua Times. PUBLISHED TRI-WEEKLY. FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 1877.

Inangahua Times, Volume III, Issue 90, 16 March 1877, Page 2

The Inangahua Times. PUBLISHED TRI-WEEKLY. FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 1877.

Fob about Ibe most blackguardly and ruffianly attack possibly ever made in public print upon a public officer, commend us to tbe letter of F Frank- « lyo, in refttenee 1o the North, Star case, which recently appeared in the columns of the Inangahua Herald That any man claiming to tbe position of tbe feelings of a gentleman oould so far transcend tbe limits of unredeemed and unmitigated vulgarity is, to say tbe least of it, surprising, but one's amasement is only still further increased at finding that a newspaper could be found so utterly destitute alike of every spark of honorable sen 4 timent and public decency, as to lend its( If to the dissemination of such a I > disreputable production. Fur Mr Frank lyn, however, we are disposed to make some little allowance. Smarting, no doubt, severely under the rent arks of Judge Weston, and feeling keenly tbe strictures passed upon him—strictures rendered all tbe more poignant to him from a knowledge which he must have possessed of their absolute truth, he naturally would seek some outlet for his wounded feelings; but what is to be said of a newspaper which, aping at a respectable position, makes itself a party to such an utterly despicable attack P Let it not be sup posed that we for an instant stand np in opposition of the undoubted right of all men to openly criticise, and canvass tbe actions of officers filling positions of high public trust , on the contrary, none will b«* found more ready to defend that right ; but it is the absolutely riotous abtiwe of it, as in the ease referred to, which We condetnn, and we do unhesitatingly condemn it a« the most unconscionable abuse of that right which has ever come' under our notice, or probably tbe notice of anybody else. Criticism of public men within all fair and reasonable bounds is tbe pulladium of tbe subject, without it we should drift speedily into a very undesirable condition of things; but because this is so, it is not that > any particular roan upon the first trivial pretext, and very often without reason at ail, as in Mr Frank tyu's case, is to be permitted to vulgarly bully in print and drag through the mire a high public officer, merely beoause there exists a newspaper with a congenial appetite for that kind of thing, and the principles of which are sufficiently lax to admit it , Coming to the immediate cause of (his out* ■ pouring, Mr Franklyn stands convicted , out of his own mouth of the very action which brought upon him, and to our mind rightly brought upon him, ( the censure of tbe Court. Tbe obvious deduction, to far as Mr Frauklyn's letter is capable, if any rational deduction at all is — to use a popular expression— that he had not a leg to stand upon, and no doubt conceived tbe idea of raising a tremendous dust, in the midrt of which he might himself escape the obloquy cast upon bis oonduot. Criticism is one thing, and uooraprouiising and pointless abu«e, such as Mr Franklyn has relieved him* self of, is quite another matter. The former is effectual just in so far as it is lair £»d unbiassed ; abuse and particularly the persona) kind of abuse, such as Mr Fraofclya indulges in, is quite harmless, aud tbe only purpose i i serves in general is, according to degree, to bear evideftoo of tbe de« , pravityand barbarity which underlies it. We have purposely refrained from referr|ng to this matter until auch time as the real facts of the case were before tbe public— they have now gone forth, and by them Mr Franklyn will no doubt be judged, quite apart from bis reckless and most ill advised letter. ' Possibly in bis calmer moments be may regret his folly, and we do him the present justice of believing that he r will, it indeed he has not already done I so, We have no personality whatever in the matter, and <Jo not wish it to be thought that we in any way seek to , stand m for tbe hard knocks dealt, go to speak, above our heads, but what we conceive to be a moat venomous and unjustifiable attack has been made —and made in such terms and in such A way as to compel ua to notice it. As to whether the attack will ever |§Mb the quarter intended is ex Iremely questionable, but should it do eg there jb little doubt that it 'will be ' treated, as it after all deserves only to a be treated— as ibe distempered ravings of a temporarily deranged rain<J»

There will be a sitting of the Beaident Magistrate's Court this morning, when the petition agtinst the return of Mr Byrne tor the Hiding of Antonio's will be inquired into. We have a copy of the petition before us. and the grounds upon which the petition is based are, sas we have already safd, of an exclusively technical character. The first ground of the petition is, that insufficient notice of the election was given : second, that insufficient; notice of the situation of the polling-booths was given : third, that in some instances tbe Returning Officer refused to put certain questions to the voters before yoting s fourth, that only a portion of certain questions were put tq tbe voters before voting ; and lastly, that certain persons entitled to vote were disallowed by tbe Returning Officer,and certain persons not entitled to vote were admitted. It will thus be seen that the first and second grounds are purely technical. As to the third and fourth grounds, it will possibly be contended that as the election was con* j ducted under the •• Counties Act " in accordance with the " Provisions for first elections " no questions were re» quired to be put. As to the la*t ground, that persons were allowed to vote who were not qualified, and vice ver»a t tbe allegation is of two wide a nature to make anything of it, and its truth or otherwise oan only be elicited by evidence. From ail this it is quite evident that tbe only point at issue really is as to whether the election was right in being conducted as a first election. That it was conducted as a first election, and under tbe provisions relating thereto, is not to be doubted, and it was so directed by tbo At-torney-General. Rverytbing'will hinye upon the nature of the evidence to be adduced, but unless there is something more than is indicated on the face of the petition we are at a loss to see in tbe allegations as they stand anything that would be calculated to defeat the fairness of tbe election, or warrant the County being cast in further expense. It is doubtful after all whether the petition has been filed in time, and this is a matter which will prubab'y have to be settled at the outset.