THE TIMES AND ITS CITY EDITOR.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 1966, 23 April 1875, Page 4

THE TIMES AND ITS CITY EDITOR.

The Times had a long article a short -tlm6!ag()Sri:th^3ii4ol 'caielfoduglit against it by aMr Eubery. In the course of the proceedings m the libel case Mrtanr disclosures were made seriously reflecting: luj>ott~j£he^hftttoter of Mr Sampson, ttte (t'tityt <rfL"4«" Tiinei City' article. We *quo£e"* the portion of the Times' comments on the libel action :— -y As between The Times and Mr Eubery, the recent trial gives us no uneas^n&y/ But there was an.otheiv'^«^sti6n;^be^w,een the conductors of this paper and the. late writer of its city article, which we cannot approach without a feeling-'bFiptfClftjunct and unalloyed mortification. The case of the plaintiff was that this attack on his trustworthiness was the result of a conspiracy betweett^Barojli^rant-Wnd1- "Mi Sampson ; and though the jury did not gi^fi him a verdict on?tMs#p'oiut;'the 5 ev£ dence extracted from Baron Grant revealed relations between him and our late employe which wo have received with mingled astonishment and indignation. ~lfr is true that the evidence is that of Baron Grant alone ; but, as Mr Sampson hadthe opportunitY, of? Fhieh Jie did* pot 'himsilii lf>ts\i%SequeMl)y itterfaing.'ind giving his own explanation of the transactions between him and his co-defeudant, we are justified m taking the. Baron's evidence as admitted by him. What, then, did Baron' Grant say!?' ?It:'was that m the year 1871—we use the Lor,d;Ghief Baron's summary—he had tp.the extent of £2,5Q0 given sums to^''Mi*'Sampson as free gifts, to recoup him for losses; ..and it must be added that m 1872 hjni-further; sums;and could oo|,(^^w^t^ejr|;tileyjdidi or jn^t; amount to £s,bw. The explanation of these gifts, volunteered by:BarqnjGrant,: is, that Mr Sampson had adventured m some speculations 'onhis recommendation,'; which had proved unsuccessful, and he i^adfthpiightjit fair tbindemnifyhis friend against the losses he laad sustained. The' Baron's generosity is high-minded, yet it* was not indiscriminate. Many persons, must have lost money m speculations recommended r by ? hiniT-rSbihe^wlio -'could wor&'afford to lose' iiithaii Mr Sampsbn* ■—y v etpf all.the ; unlucky r men and women 'wM'had;goloe:|thrpiigß/ this experienco the one lie'selected to' in.demn.ify was, the writer of the money articles; m the Times,.. he himself being by .profession, a man iwho, "inonth'by ?m6ntli.? and 'week by: ■week, introduced new ventures to the Stock Exchange. : We need say no more..; ■Whether' BarPn Grant. hoped fpr any-. thing, and whether 5 ha got anything, we did notiinquire 1.; But this^muclk^we do 1 feel at liberty, and, indeed, under the ne* cessity to say, that m allowing himself to, enter into sucM relation's ?of obligation tora; financial agent Mr Sa:mpsoh betrayed the unbounded trust that had been 7; rSppsed.in, him, and .that had.jiny..knp.w^ ledge of these transactions reached us, there would have been long since ca change-in the authorship of tlie money articles of The Times*. The honour and (independence of this paper 'must eyer-be above suspicipn, and the humiliation we have suffered is hard I;dbear—a hardships compared with whiclji-the damages, that: have been awarded to'Mr Riibery areas a feather m the air. In connection with this, too, we must protest against any observation • made by I aron (Jrant 4in his evidence. Baron G^ant .said that Mr Sampson was the editor /of the money articles of The Times, and eatitled by. reason of his positiodio allotmentsJn new undertakings.. If this means no mo^ 1 than^ that the (>ity: editor pf The •^Piines is' presumably a person ef careful: labits and resppnsible ibr his engagements' so that when he applies for shares they maybe allotted to.him, because'he.may: beirusted to hpld theia as a bond fide in* restpr, we do not know that we can quarrel with the 'statement — the city editdiTof'The Times must have the same Jiberty/of investing hi 3 savings as other people ; .but ; when :Bs.ron Grant goes on tOj refer to 'the..trouble Mr Sampson has to * undergo m, his poiution, we see that there'is some.groundfcir the.interpretation that has been put~bn the language of the ■witness—that he was referring to gratuitous allotments by ;way of gifts of shares that were quoted at a ])remium befprerkny allotment ha'd^been made. Without inaputing this 'meaning tio Baron Grant, we are at liberty to say Mihat if such- a" suggestion had been mad c we should regard it as offensive and insulting, and the acceptance 'of such benefits would immediately have determined the connection of Mr Sampson with the Times. In giving m their vordict' the jury expressed a hope that.no, further legal proceedings would be .taken m the case. tTpon this point we do, not at this moment feel free to give an unbiassed opiniou. There were questions of Jaw raised which will have to be considered by counsel to •whom they must be-romitted, but on the general issus we know the difficulty of dealing with a verdict which the presiding judge approves. Hisi brothers on' the Bench may hint a doubt as to whether they would have concurred m the verdict given, but they are rarely disposed to interfere under the circumstances so stated. But, as we have said, theverdict is to us a light matter. A barefaced fraud was exposed m its inception, by our action, and' if m the protection.of the public we did any wrong to Mr Eubery, we are ready to recompense'him teafold.