Untitled

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 23, 2 November 1871, Page 2

Yesterday'air inquiry was held by the rj%>Jdfield§-Secretary to see if there was any truth in a charge brought against Government officials here of having improperly “furnished’ information 1 to private parties in reference to !the. “Providence” case. The charge was made iu a> viigufe manner . by ji/iorres..pond^ht,jofl.the Aiuc^land? The officials themselves took up ;the matter, and called for an inquiry, which the Government acceded to. The result yesterday was that not a single individual ~ dalne forward with any charge whatever, and the matter terminated withfarther; jjbeing thrown xipon the subject. We certainly think that the writer of the letter should have come forward and proved his Charges, if lie had any. ' It is a very unpleasant position for a Government officer to be placed in to haye it said that / (information has 3ecu improperly furnished by some official, and yet to have no definite charge made. It is a cowardly and most ungentlemanly thing for any man shielding himself under newspaper correspondence to make a charge which he cannot proved and from what transpired yesterday,, we are inclined to think that the statement piade was i ncapable of proof. Every official, we understand, was interrogated by Mr Sheehan from the Warden down to the Messenger, and nothing was elicited to throw blame in the slightest degree on any of them. Why did not their accuser come out and speak like a man if lie had anything to say tp substantiate his charge ? Was he utterly unable to do so ? The probabilities seem to be that he ’■as. At .all, events he did not come forward,

nor did aaybochy-eke. A number of documents arc published in another column in !connection with yesterday’s proceed we must say that tjieijc cjinnof be/ a doubt that the come out most and that the 'remarks dr*B!fvt3heehan on this subject were quite called for. It is hardly fair that because a man happens to be employed in a Government office he should be open to be anonymously libelled. As a rule, the correspondents of our local newspapers are men of intelligence and ‘SCBHFWWrite a word which they did not believe to be true, although they might sometimes be in error, but we fear.-the .correspondent in this case; -ha<l not made himself sufficiently acquainted with what he . stated, and wrote most,-inpautioy sly,. to say the least of it. uWhen the Providence case was before the Court, Mr, Beveridge made some very, strong remarks on the condudjfc* of a certain person in the matter, and is, in our opinion, from him that the truth could be obtained where the information came from, if truth could be elicited from him. The whole of the recent - Providence case-is a dirty piece of business on the part of the complainants. < An appeal from the Warden’s decision is, we understand, pending in the,Supreme Court, and if it be .possible we should be glad to hear it drawh out how and by whom" the " information upon which the cbmplaint was laid was obtained. One thing is" pretty clear, that anybody, by paying one shilling, could have searched the books and ; found. ‘it 1 out for himself/ prompted the idea We certainly should like ,fo know.,. So far.as yesterday’s inquiry goes, we are fho wiser , than before, except that we must Relieve the Government officials to be innocent, as •no one proved' any charge,agains them, and they themselves .courted' the fullest inquiry. It is not, however, even now •too r late for the author,-of the letter'Uo the * Herald ’ to substantiate the charge if he can do so, which it is' our opinion he cannot,.and therefore.that it should never, have been made. :