The Rights of the Press and Public.

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

The Rights of the Press and Public.

JWU DO NOT HOLD OURSELVES RESPONSIBLE FOR OPINIONS EXPRESSED BY OUR CORRESPONDENTS..] .

(TO EDITOR OF MANAWATU HERALD.) Sir, —It is not often anyone ventures to trespass on the sanctity of the “ Maaawatu Herald,” and the reluctance displayed in doing so is perhaps not altogether surprising in view of the pleasing persons! am ;nities to which such rashness leads, A good deal of your reply to my enquiry seems somewhat irrevelant to the point in issue (including the tag attached to the end of the letter, the object of which is probably not very apparent to your readers). It is not, I think, incumbent on me to allude further than this to any matter in your article of Saturday last which has no bearing on the point raised. From the unnecessarily excited explanation offered in your editorial I gather the following lucid statements— (i), That criminal cases should always be published. (2) That civil cases should .be published or not at the discretion of the press, its- discretion being directed By considerations’ of ‘‘ex te n uating circumstances. ’ ’ (3) That a representative, who is not the chief of your department never made the statement alleged* In regard to the first point there la I think little difference of opinion between us, but curiously enough one criminal case at least was amongst those omitted from your , report of least month’s proceeding*! In regard to the second point I agree with you to this extent, that either the whole of the list should be omitted or the whole list published, but not that certain names only should be selected for .publication. If there are " extenuating circumstances ” known to you which would justify the omission of certain cases, may there not be “ extenuating circumstances ” unknown to you which would justify the omission of others ? The question is—ls it right to mete out unequal treatment to different defendants by giving publicity to some and not to other ? The third ooint does not answer the question raised. It was the chief of your? department, and not anyone who is not the chief, that was alleged to have made the statement referred to in my letter; However at a later stage of your explanc- - tion you say that “ you never referred to the matter in the strain which I would have you believe,” and this no doubt may be taken as the complete denial of the report given to me, which I anticipated (as it now appears correctly) you would be able to give, and I am gratified to find that my surmise has proved right. I may add that I do not propose to carry on a paltry and undignified squabble over this matter, but I believe any member of the public is entitled to discuss through the columns of the public press any matter of public concern without the writer being subjected to violent attacks of personal abuse involving totally unjustifiable im nutations. The Press, which was iescribed by your representative it a recent meeting as being almighty ” is not above criticism, audit would be unfortunate if all enquiry is to be silenced by such methods,—l am, etc,,

R. Moor®.

[The above letter is referred to in our leading column, but perhaps •ve are right in pointing out here one slight: matter. In .his first letter, Mr Moore made it plain that our representative concerned in the present conflict was the chief of our ‘ editorial ’ department. We denied this, and Mr Moore, ' in'instancing our questions in to-day’s letter, omits the word ‘ editorial.* We may state our editorial and business chiefs are two distinct persons, despite Mr Moore's bold assertion (apparently delivered with marked emphasis) that it was the chief only to whom his first epistle referred. If, by omitting, the word ‘editorial’ in today’s effusion, the learned gent, tried to delude our readers, and thus make himself appear in the right, we cannot honestly say we feel sorry for exposing the cunning of our local Barrister. Bd. M.H.]