THE STANDARD. SATURDAY JANUARY 25, 1873.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume 1, Issue 21, 25 January 1873, Page 2

THE STANDARD.

SATURDAY JANUARY 25, 1873.

“ We shall sell to no man justice or right: We shall deny to no man justice or right : We shall defer to no man justice or right.”

One of the many instances in which the Press destroys its power of usefulness ; detracts from its influence at home, artd creates a suspicion of unreliablcness abroad, is to be found in the remarks the Napier Telegraph has made on the fact that the proceedings of the Compensation Meeting held at Mr. Dalziell’s hotel last mouth, were not reported in our columns. Now it must be understood once for all that we do not intend to swell the list of those who are continually nagging, bickering, and making small flesh-wounds in the tender consciences of their contemporaries on all trivial occasions, and sometimes on matters of unimportant defitil; but we do protest in the best interests of journalism and fair play against the too prevalent disposition of some to smite back-handed, instead of straight out from the shoulder. We have no time, and decidedly less inclination, to bandy words of complaint savoring of rodomontade. We •do not intend to say anything ill-natured, ■or calculated to disturb the friendly relations which should subsist between all sections of the Press —whatever their opinions may be, or to what extent they, may differ in their expression of them ; but we cannot have imputed to us solecisms of conduct which would be reprehensible if true, and quietly pass them by without remark. The Telegraph says:—“A meeting was recently held at Gisborne, for the purpose, if possible, of moving the General Government to consider the claims the Poverty Bay settlers have upon the colony. The meeting was considered as one hostile to the Government, and a report of the proceedings was not furnished to the local journal, why w’e do not know, unless it has already been discovered that the Standard admits nothing into its columns opposed to the powers that he." The italics are our own, so as to show the undue prominence which is given to a gratuitous misrepresentation of facts. Had the Telegraph been supplied withan outside opinion to that end, the matter would not have assumed those proportions of importance which are derived from an. editorial expression, intensified too by an insinuation, that it has “already” been discovered that we do not act up to the text of our principles; that justice—the food of our daily life —is denied to those who seek it in our columns; that our advocacy of the rights of the people are assumed for a purpose, —in short, that with the small eoul of a contemptible parasite we are prostituting our professions to promote the welfare district, to a time serving, prurient truckling to “the powers that be.” Such is the intended,- although not so fully expressed, meaning of the remarks in the Telegraph ; and we refer to the pages of the Standard with a confident pleasure, as they rebut, in tote, the opinion thus insidiously put forth. The history of the Compensation meeting and a refusal to report in those columns are as follows:—Mr.

Greene, its chief promoter, called upon us in company of a friend, and enquired as to the means by which a report of the proceedings could be obtained for insertion in the Standard. Mr. Greene was distinctly given to understand, from the first, that it might not be within the power of our staff to attend a meeting 5 miles from town at an advanced hour of the evening; but if he would take notes, which might be extended afterwards, the report should be inserted, as the cause had our earnest sympathies, and should receive all the support and influence we could command. A special reporter was engaged by Mr. Greene, who, (like most people whose prejudices warp their perception) considering our refusal hostile to his project, forbade him furnishing us with bis notes. Notwithstanding which, we dedefended Mr. Greene and hisco-sufferers from the consequences of his rashness, and obtained the “outline” which appeared in due course. In the same issue, the first following the meeting, our remarks opened as follows: —“ We much regret, considering the importance of the question, the interests at stake, and the principle involved, that we should have been denied access "to the minutes of the meeting.” * * * * “ There can be no doubt of the justice, or justness of the claims, those who were sufferers by the awful calamities which have befallen this district, are preparing to press upon the attention of the Government for its consideration.” These and the tenor of our whole article will tell their own tale, and we think sufficiently convince the Telegraph that we have not “ already ” set our face against “receiving anything into our columns opposed to the powers that be,” while the doubt it unguardedly throws upon the loyalty of the petitioners to the Government whom they approach with a prayer to mitigate their wrongs, is forcibly expressed in the admission of its own suspicion that it was a movement hostile to the Government, and therefore the report was refused by us, while in truth we w r ere “ denied access to ” the records we so much desired to possess. That the meeting was intended, and purposely organized as a movement against the Government we do not believe, and had it been so, our interest in the matter would have increased rather than otherwise. But knowing the rancorous feeling which generally accompanies a self-assertion of political wrongs, we advised moderation, and avowed then, as we repeat now, that “ hostility and political partizanship “ must be eliminated from arguments “ used in support of claims to com- “ pensation for losses sustained from “ political causes.” Can the Telegraph say we were wrong? And after our explanation has it the courage to withdraw its insinuation ?