Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5096, 24 July 1877, Page 2

; Two weeks ago, in ; an action for libel, the i plaintiff described himself as editor of the : Evening Post ; last week a person who !gave the same description of himself appeared in the Police Court to answer an 1 information' charging him with having i used threatening language. In the Police Court, the defendant made a speech excusing a threat which he admitted having ’ used ; his > excuse being that he believed a libel upoirhimself to have been written i by. the informant. Further, in his ! speech, he talked in such a style about : the feelings of those who were libelled, as to astound most of those who know 'anything of him and his writings. It was an almost matchless specimen of impudence ; and it was but mildly rebuked when the Mayor expressed the hope that the speaker -would lay to heart, for his guidance, much of what he had talked. ; Last year the Post, under the editorship of the late, plaintiff-defendant,-dis-torted shamelessly the. contents of a Parliamentary paper, the object being to create a wholly false belief with respect to incidents connected with the £4,000,000 loan negotiations. Last. evening, the same paper, under the same editorship, gave extracts from a paper laid before the Assembly last week, respecting the “Inscription .of stock by the Bank of England.” ■ That paper shows conclusively, upon the evidence of Messrs. Mackrbll and Co., solicitors, and of Sir Julius "Vogel, that-when the latter assumed the Agent-Generalship, the whole question of the Imperial . legislation necessary to pnable the Bank to carry out the agreement made with Sir Julius Vogel, was (in the words of the Post ) “at a standstill. ” It shows that Sir J unus took the matter up ; and that, as soon as things were again in progress, he communicated fully what he had done to the AgentsGeneral of those colonies, the Governments of which, immediately they learned ,6f the arrangement with the Bank, desired that their colonies should have the benefit of the proposed inscription, instead of its being confined to New Zealand. The Agent-General for New South Wales, (Mr. Forster) replied in a spirit which suggests that he, like the editor of our contemporary, knew really nothing of the progress of the negotiations up to June, 1876, though everything was printed in papers: presented to the New Zealand" Assembly last session. It is of very little, if any, - consequence whether bad temper was shown in the correspondence between Sir Julius Vogel and Mr. Forster. It is certain that, having opened the question, Sir Julius was likely to bo earnest enough when he found matters “at a stand-still and it is certain, also, that when Mr. Forster’s appointment was being discussed, it was generally objected to in Sydney on the ground that he was too hot-tempered to work well with anybody. In addition to quoting or describing Messrs. Mackrbll’s letter —“ When Sir Julius Vogel became Agent-General, he found matters at a’stand-still, and tried to set the business moving afresh”—the Post quotes from a letter by the Hon. Mr. Bowen, in which a copy of correspondence received from London was sent to the Government of New South Wales. Mr. Bowen writes, “ As the proposal to inscribe New Zealand stock in London, and the, negotiations with the Imperial Government and the Bank of England were initiated by Sir, Julius Vogel when in London in 1875, it is natural that he should have felt much anxiety on finding that the proposed, measure was not progressing, and that, he should have taken- steps tp further the object which the Government had in view.” Yet this editor with the keen feelings about tlie wrongs inflicted by libellers, says that this letter shows that “ a perusal of the whole correspondence does not appear to have created a favorable impression upon tlie minds of Ministers here;” and he dares to' assert that Sir Julius, by his egotism, conceit, and so on, “ has caused a most important piece of public business to! be indefinitely hung up, and the period of its possible completion to be left in doubt and suspense,” In other words, this editor has been guilty of an insolent and baseless libel upon an absent man. Ho has boon guilty of it, in the hope of creating prejudice, despite the letter of Messrs. Mackrbll and Co., which proves his statements to bo wholly without foundation. He has been guilty of this libel, despite the fact, which appears in the quotations, but is ignored by himself, that Sir Julius Vogel started the movement for Inscribing Colonial Stock, is kiiown to have been most earnest in desiring to see it completed, and was, therefore, very unlikely to do anything calculated to “ hang it up.” Most men may innocently draw wrong or incomplete inferences from complicated documents : but no one who is not equal to the hazard of i libelling-an official who is 12,000 miles aajay, will! believe, after reading the Parliamentary papers on the subject, that the editor of’thb Post is in this case innocent except of the power or the desire to deal fairly with any question in which Sif J ulius Vogel is concerned.