The Southland Times. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1866.

Southland Times, Volume III, Issue 220, 23 February 1866, Page 2

The Southland Times. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1866.

Newspapees are one of the necessaries of life in the present day ; all acknowledge their utility and desire to possess them. Still few understand the principles upon which an independent journal is conducted. The particular idiocrasy of the reader is what he imagines should be those of the Editor, and if the latter admits anything to appear which ruffles his velvet susceptibilities, he writes him down a personal enemy. The embryo politician expects that all the sayings and doings of his party should be religiously chronicled. The religious section of the community imagine that unless the world's history of the churches appear, that the paper and conductors are irreligious, and others conceive that because a journal has expressed views contrary to their opinions, it is bound to refuse to give publicity to opposite sentiments. Some expect to find in his local paper all the particulars of every political discussion which takes place in any part of the world ; others, that every crime or accident, no matter where the locality, should be detailed; and others again, cannot understand why the whole paper should not be devoted to the reports of meetings of the Ecclesiastical Court, the Presbyterian Conferences, the meetings at Exeter Hall, or the „*.,*,. k,*. i.ioun^v.ujiMou, aim similar matters. Such parties when they find their pet man or pet subject is not an idol at which the writers of the particular paper they receive bows down and worships, after scanning its columns, fling down the " rag " as a miserable production, a thing of but little utility. The editors are looked upon as partizans — mere automatons, who dance to the tune of a party who, behind the scenes, pulls the wires. It is true that in some instances the press has thus been degraded, but they have been the exceptions to the rule. An independent journalist is one who thinks for himself and fearlessly gives utterance to his conclusions, while affording others the greatest latitude to express antagonistic views — while strong in the caase he believes right is determined in a desire to facilitate a fair and gentlemanly discussion upon any debateable subject. It is in the ranks of such men that we ambition ever to be found. These remarks have been called forth from the number of communications which we have received and which the writers, in the private enclosure, appeared doubtful as to their publication. The last one which appears in to-day's issue, signed "A Large Investor" is so outspoken that we feel it incumbent upon us to take some notice of it. He says : — " I send you a few lines only, because I presume that if I wrote at length upon the many grievances of the Province you would deem it policy to suppress it." It is not our intention to censure our correspondent for the language he has employed ; we know that whatever he may desire to say, will be honestly conceived opinions, however much we may deem them to be erroneous. Eor his satisfaction and that of others, we assert that our " open column " is free to all who choose to write without personalities and abuse, to every one who desires to ventilate a subject of public interest, regardless of class or party. Should our correspondent enunciate views, and advance principles adverse to more matured convictions, it would be our duty to attempt at least to refute them, and we should endeavor to do so with decision to meet; our antagonist, fairly giving him an even chance Avith ouraelve3. There are matters, however, on which it would be unwise, if not unjust, to prejudice public opinion ; but the discussion of which, if honorably carried out, might, eventuate in a greafe public good. la Buch case we should be ready to hear both sides of the case, and give judgment; whenlho arguments ftftd

evidence, pro and con, have been advanced. While thus placing our "open column" at the disposal of all who desire to write upon public matters, it must be distinctly understood that no personalities or scuriltty will be admitted— nothing will appear which a Christian " might not read, or a gentleman indite. In this portion of the paper we in no way identify ourselves with the opinions or sentiments expressed. In this day's issue we publish letters of a conflicting character: — one party wants to know why we have not reviewed the Eailway Engineer's report, and another why we have not refuted the statements made by a writer in another paper, as to the blunders of that gentleman. Our answer is simple and distinct — when we are in a position on clear and definite evidence, to pronounce judgment upon any subject, we . will do so boldly — we are ready to study any charges which may be made impartially, and when able to arrive at a verdict, give it in untnistakeable terms. "We are not influenced by any party — all exponents of public questions will receive justice at our hands. But we reserve to ourselves, the right to comment upon the various opinions of antagonistic disputants, while we give th£m every opportunity to fully discuss the subjects they desire to canvass.