LIBERT!

Colonist, Volume IV, Issue 435, 24 December 1861, Page 3

LIBERT!

To the Editor of the Colonist.

Sib —My name is Liberty, but I do not know how and why I find myself bound in chains, put in a corner, condemned to be silent, and not to say another word. Yet I know you to he a lover of freedom, and come to see if you could oblige me by breaking, or at least, by loosening a little my chains, and restoring me to my former rights. All nations proclaim my name, the very man himself who put me in chains does not cease to boast that I am his favorite ; he proclaims that I shall be at the head of governments, politics and industry, free trade, free institutions, &c, «.vc. Is there a meeting ? lam called upon, there to make my appearance— liberty of opinions. Is there a Council, a General Assembly? There, again, my name is invoked— liberty of 'discussion ; and anyone who would attempt to speak against me, would soon be pointed out as profane; even should a king or an emperor silence my voice, which is heard by the organs of public papers, by restraining the liberty of the press, that king or emperor would be stamped by all the journals with the stigma of an absolute tyrannical potentate and an enemy of Liberty. »....-. < Now, sir, such has been the case with the editor of the Nelson Examiner, who, in this land of freedom, last Wednesday proclaimed his manifesto. * that in future he will decline printing his correspondent's criticisms on events.' I leave it to your good sense and impartiality to answer, Was it fair for him to take such a determination ? For I thought by the nature of those hitters which he publishes on other subjects, and which in several instances are very trivial, give no information, and only satisfy private feelings, that lie would not object to letters which lend (o rectify statements which, although taken from home papers, are incorrect. Have my two letters lately published by him been in any way oat of order, insulting or unreasonable? Will he decline in future printing my letters because they differ with him in opinion ? Then how will his readers like to be deprived of one essential side of the questions which he treats lin his articles? Will they be willing to be enlightened upon some points only, and kept in the dark upon some others? lie ought to consider also that ninny of his readers belong to that Church which is now afflicted by the nature of events; and they also would be glad to receive information from someone of theirownside. Certainly iheedifor of the JYe/so;t Examiner would not claim (lie right of infallibility, and lijs rpadprs will not rely much upon his statements, when they know that jf any of them are incorrect, those who could throw 6ome light on them are not allowed to do it.

The Nelson Examiner says that 'if they would indulge their correspondent, he (the correspondent) would doubtless give them a new version of every politifialQCCuirenco that takes place in Europe.' But I never yet spok* of political occurrences, exceot when such ey^t? feeing diieojod against roy

Cnun-li and its ministers, I was compelled, fur its own defence, to rectify what I found to be 'iocorrec\

At all events, if the editor of the Nelson Examiner lias ' declined printing in future my criticisms on events,' I am satisfied that in tbe letters which he has printed he was not able to show by any direct proof that I was not correct; he only took his right in his might, aiid as he had nothing substantial to oppose my evidence, his best plan wat certainly to silence me. But I hope he will retain judgment enough not to put in chains also 'Fair Play,' 'Justitia,' 'Hear Both Sides,' &c, along with'Liberty,'and will allow his readers to get from them information which otherwise they would never obtain. He complained that my opinions on such events did not conform with 'his knowledge of them, which he gained from the leading English papers:' but as he takes his authority from the leading English papers, I take mine from leading Catholic papers, which are not of one nation only, but of several together; and lam sure impartial readers, far from rejecting such a criticism, would be glad to find themselves benefited by the immense advantage which always results from a thorough discussion upon such subjects; and I expect when, in future, the editor of the Nelson Examiner will furnish us with such new subjects concerning the Pope and the Catholic religion, the public will be awaro that now, being free from our criticism which only represented the other side of the question, he will be more encouraged by his new position to take his own way and give us statements which we must, whether or not, rely upon as truth itself, which needs no controversy, being now stamped with the seal of his editorial infallibility. I am, &c, LIBERTY IN CHAINS. Nelson, Dec. 19th, 1861.