South Canterbury Times. SATURDAY, APRIL 9, 1881.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2513, 9 April 1881, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. SATURDAY, APRIL 9, 1881.

The comments of newspapers, to be of much value or carry much weight, should be evenly balanced. In other words the Press in matters of difficulty should exhibit a spirit of fairness by assuming an impartial and disinterested attitude. The moment it discloses a special leaning towards a doubtful cause, it leaves itself open to the suspicion that its comments are governed by impure influences. These remarks are excited by certain comments that have lately appeared in connection with what is known as the St. Mary’s arbitration, case. The comments were unjoumalis'tic, because they dealt with a matter which was certainly not of a public character, —a difficulty of a paltry nature between

an architect and a contractor oyer the building 'of a church, which, however interesting to churchwardens and committees, could be of no general interest to the public. And assuming that it was a subject for public comment, the discussion was premature. The facts of the case are now well known. A triangular dispute having arisen between architect, building committee, and contractor over the color of the stone that was being employed in building the new church, the question was referred, in accordance with the terras of contract, to arbitration. This is a course pursued frequently enough in connection with building contracts and the public are made none the wiser. In the present instance, the unusual course has been adopted of publishing the award in a mutilated shape, and commenting adversely on the way in which the arbitrators have performed their duties. The publication of a legal document, which is not of a public character, is a step of a somewhat extraordinary character, and it shows that the journalist has been admitted to secrets that are not usually entrusted to dangerous tell-tales. What is still more reprehensible is the publication of a portion of the award only for the purpose of comment. The public have the text without the context, and the arbitrators are held up to public opprobium as the perpetrators of a a deliberate injustice. If the commentator had access to the award, and intended treating, what is usually regarded as a legal document of a private character, as public material, he should in simple justice to the referee have published it in full so that the public might form their own conclusions apart from editorial comments. But this apparently did not suit his purpose. The award is given in a misleading and fragmentary shape and the arbitrators are told that they have done something very wrong in dividing the costs of arbitration between the contractor and the Committee. Is this display of sympathy for a Church-building. Committee and contempt for an Arbitration Court fair to the contractor ? Is it in accordance with those sacred principles of justice that are supposed to animate a free or impartial press ? Does it savour of fair, unbiassed, and candid criticism ? We leave the public, and especially the congregation concerned, to form their own conclusions.

The comments, on the face of them, not only bear evidence of partiality, but they are obviously premature. Assuming the details of this award to have been pioperly divulged, the question we imagine is not finally settled. In most deeds of arbitration there is a clause to the effect that the award shall bo made a rule of the Supreme Court, and we presume it is so in the present instance. It is also open to cither of the parties in an arbitration suit to move in the Supreme Court either that the award be referred back to the arbitrators or that it be set aside. Under such circumstances to discuss the merits of an award before a sufficient time has elapsed for such action to be taken must be designated a great impropriety. Such discussion constitutes a direct interference with the course of the law, and is quite as reprehensible as the criticising of a civil or criminal case while under the immediate consideration of a Court of Justice.

But the author of the comments that have appeared displays a lamentable innocence of the character of arbitration proceedings, when he supposes that each arbitrator acted for one of the parties concerned. It is to be hoped, for the sake of the arbiters, that this imputation is baseless. Another error is in assuming that Mr Sibly, the contractor could have demanded an arbitration when there were three matters in dispute, and they must have been mutually agreed upon by the contractor and chairman of the Building Committee. Again, as the writer of the comments quotes a portion of the award in detail, we may fairly assume that he had access to the deed of submission. This should also have been given for public comparison, for without it the case is presented in a one-sided shape and cannot be judged on its merits. It is possible that in this instance the deed was put before the arbiters in a very impracticable shape, and that they were thus prevented from dealing with the subject referred to them so thoroughly as could have been wished, for arbitrators cannot exceed the limits of a reference. But even with what has been brought before the public, we fail to see that the contractor was cast on all points, and as for the arbitrators being in the the wrong, until the facts are disclosed as a whole, they may fairly be allowed to be the best judges of what vyas fair, right, and honorable. One tiling is pretty evident that if the chairman of the Building Committee of the new Episcopalian Church had not been mulcted in half the costs of this arbitration, the case would not have excited the very partial and interested criticism that has been bestowed on it. It is a discreditable thing for any section of the Press, to go out ol its way, and cast a slur upon an Arbitration Court because the arbiters refuse to please a Church Building Committee by jumping on a hardworking and enterprising contractor.