The Westport Times AND CHARLESTON ARGUS. MONDAY, MARCH 9, 1868.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 189, 9 March 1868, Page 2

The Westport Times AND CHARLESTON ARGUS. MONDAY, MARCH 9, 1868.

The cry is sometimes raised, more especially in a small community, " That the press has too much liberty, and that it has no right to comment upon the actions of individuals who are placed in responsible positions if they misconduct themselves." This is neither more nor less than narrow-mindedness, and the upholders of this doctrine are either time or place servers, or individuals who, having committed like actions, are afraid of their becoming known and commented on. The Sydney Morning Herald, of the 4th February, in a leading article commenting on the conduct of persons who disgrace responsible situations says : make no apology to our readers for calling their attention to facts like these. No duty of the press is more solemn or more binding. To pass over everything, to gloss every wrong, and to excuse every crime, is to abandon and to prostitute the function of journalism, and to abandon—or worse—the most sacred duty which a public writer can perforin." Such is the opinion of the leading journal of New South Wales and every right-minded journalist. Of what use is a journal if it panders to the vices of a small section of the community, or to the misdeeds of the powers that be. The duty of a newspaper is to point out abuses wherever they exist and to expose them without fear or favor, although in doing so it will, and must make enemies. Why should a poor man be held up to scorn, and a rich or influential one be allowed to escape scot free. A journal that follows this practice is unworthy of the name of a newspaper, and is calculated to bring not only discredit on itself but on the press generally. Can such an one be called an exponent of public opinion when it is at the beck and call of those who chose to bring a little influence to bear upon it. Mr Stafford is a man who does not like the press, because it has opposed some of those autocratic doctrines for which he is celebrated, and therefore in a fit of petty spleen he issued a ukase that no information should be given to the press. This at once showed the littleness of the man, and a greater contrast cannot but be shown between the leaders of the Home Grovernment and of the Australian Colonies and that of New Zealand. In England even the highest personage contributes to the press, although nobody's actions, both public and private, have been more freely commented upon. Among the leaders of the Opposition and the Ministry are some of the greatest contributors to the press, and who not only uphold but support its dignity, while some of the leading judges have been "press men." In Victoria, nothing transpires but what the press is fully informed of, and " the man" of the colony, Mr.Higinbotham, the AttornoyGreneral, is a gentlemen who has been for years connected with the press. In New South Wales the same courtesy and respect is shown, and we have only to mention the names of Mr

Martin anrl Mr Parkes, in order to shew whether the press is appeciated, and even in New Zealand, despite Mr Stafford and his example, we have Mr Chapman and Mr Wilson Gray, names not only connected with the Melbourne but the Loudon press. Therefore, we ask, should the press stoop or lower itself to serve any petty satrap or underhand influeuce that may be brought to bear against it. Mr Michie one of the ablest lawyers in the Southern Hemisphere, while speaking in the celebrated case of Bowie v. The Argus, said, " The press has a duty to society to perform, whether they please or offend, and that is to expose all abuses wherever they exist. If they do not do this a press is worthless. I am aware that a press that acts in depen :1 en tly will make many enemies, if it acts independently, but it owes a sacred duty to society, and that duty it must perform, whether it offends or pleases." Does Mr Stafford think that this petty tyranny will last, and that because ho has endeavored to imbue his underlings with the same paltry spirit, that it will continue to cast a slur upon New Zealand, as being the most beaureaucratic colony in her Majesty's dominions. This state of things will soon have an ending, and the sooner some other dynasty he it— Fox or any thing else—the better for New Zealand.