Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1276, 16 February 1883, Page 2

Mb. H. Cannof writes to our contemporary, and expresses astonishment that we should have inserted “ Quien Sabe’s ” letter I n return we can only express astonishment that Mr. Cannon should have rushed into print so foolishly. If he will tak«- the trouble to look he will see under the heading of “ Correspondence ” the following: " We do not hold ourselves responsible for opinions expressed by correspondents.” Mr. C.nnon, if lie read our leader must have seen that our opinion wa l - tetally different to that which is possessed by the writer of the letter to which exception is taken. “ Queen Sabe ” forwarded US' 1 a communication in the usual manner

and complied with our invariable rule that although writiting under a nom de plume every correspondent must forward his name. The object of a o»r--reipondence column in a newspaper Is the ventilation of all questions affecting the public weal, and one side has as much right as the other to be heard. Mr. Cannon should know this, and shoulb also know that according to all rules of journalism his letter should have been sent to us. With Mr. Cannon’s indignation in regard to the pardoning of Te Kooti we decidedly agree, but of Mr. Cannon’s folly in taking umbrage at our having inserted “ Quien Babe's ” letter we can have only one opinion. It is generally accepted by Englishmen as aaw I that both sides of a question must be heard before a decision is arrived at, and although we feel as indignant as Mr. Cannon, we claim to have the right to insert a letter, even in defence of the merciless, pitiless, bowelless brute Te Kooti, if our rule ie complied with.