Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1906. OUR RIGHTS AGAIN.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 3644, 1 May 1906, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1906. OUR RIGHTS AGAIN.

Mr Moore otice again brings the matter of newspaper rights before our readers in the correspondence colums. It seems to us that by tolerating the subject further, would be covering the same ground. Therefore, on the principal points at issue, we reiterate our sentiments expressed in Saturday’s issue, without further reference. To the ordinary individual, our sentiments in regard to the publication of Court news is plain, not so with Mr Moore, who wishes further explanation. But we will deal with the other points raised by Mr Moore. To come to the most important point (to us) raised, Mr Moore apparently claims to have been subjected to “ a violent attack of personal abuse, involving totally unjustifiable imputations.” All we can say is that we are sorry for Mr Moore if the reading of our article of Saturday last influenced him to gain such an inference. We had no intention to personally abuse Mr Moore, but we dealt with the subject in as plain a manner as possible, at the same time fully instancing our rights as compared with those of Mr Moore. “ From the unnecessarily excited explanation offered in your editorial I gather the following lucid statements,” says our legal friend. We ask * ‘ Who is tendering personal abuse?” In as mild a frame of mind as possible, we are pleased to state that our other readers seem to understand the explanation given. Mr Moore should remember that sarcasm can be administered by other than himself, and we are almost surprised to note that he frames such a sentence as “ It is not often anyone ventures to trespass on the sanctity of the Manawatu Herald, and the reluctance displayed in doing so is perhaps not altogether surprising in view of the pleasing personal amenities to which such rashness leads. ’ ’ Without dealing lengthily with the proverb, “ Fools rush where angels fear to tread,” we state plainly that we have no desire to tender other than “pleasing ” —we rather think Mr Moore meant the reverse—personal amenities to correspondents. It seems to us childish to further deal with this matter, but as our legal friend wishes it, we have the authority of the chief of our department (referred to by Mr Moore) to state that he is not the editorial chief. When our legal friend wishes to further question our rights, he should look before he leaps, and make absolutely certain that he is on the right path, and not attempt to point out our errors, and at the same time excuse himself for trodding on wrong soil. Any person rushing into print cannot expect to have things all their own way, or be entirely free from opposition, i Mr Moore raised the point that one criminal case did not appear

in the columns of our journal. We cannot call to mind the case referred to, nor do we wish to bring the offender’s name into print (be who he may), all through the present controversy. However, we refer Mr Moore to our general explanation of Saturday last—the “ lucid statements ” he spoke of. Our correspondent would like to point out that perhaps extenuating circumstances prevail in many cases that we know nothing of. In answer to this, we may state that all such cases will receive fair consideration by us, if Mr Moore will only acquaint us with facts—such as he has already done in the past. In justice to our correspondent, we may state we fully realise we are not above criticism; though, at the same time, we take it upon ourselves to remind Mr Moore that the sentiments expressed by misinformed correspondents figure in the same book. We trust that Mr Moore will treat hereny with more thought in future, and that no enmity will exist between him and ourselves as the result of the present combat, durir': which we felt compelled to defe. our rights in an outspoken manner.