The Westport Times AND CHARLESTON ARGUS. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1868.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 423, 8 December 1868, Page 2

The Westport Times AND CHARLESTON ARGUS. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1868.

Both in point of time, and in the direction of any remarks which we might be disposed to make on the case of Apted versus Kynnersley, we have been anticipated by a correspondent whose letter we published on Saturday, and by the editor of the Nelson Colonist, whose admirable essay on the subject we quoted in yesterday's issue. It is only left for us to do, from our humble perch, what we can well imagine the Judge did not do from his elevated position on the bench with regard to the verdict of the jury—to "nod assent" to the sentiments expressed by our correspondent and our contemporary. By both we believ e that the popular and the correct view of the case has been stated, and for us to supplement their strictures on the subject would involve only a large amount of paraphrasing, and, probably, some amount of presumption. "We shall refer only to a few side thoughts suggested by the case, and to these very briefly. Both by our correspondent and by our contemporary much has heen said as to the protection which the very liberty of the Press implies should be extended to it, and to those connected with it, in cases where the conduct of public men has to be animadverted upon or condemned. They have, in fact, only repeated, in varied forms of expression, well-recognised maxims of British law and British feeling as to the purposes of the Press, and to the amount of protection to be afforded to it in the execution of those purposes. It may, at this time of day, be taken for granted (notwithstanding any verdict to the contrary by a Nelson special jury) that it is a purpose and a privilege of the Press either to report or to condemn any outrage upon decency or upon the common proprieties of life, whether that outrage be committed by the humble offender who is " fined five shillings and taken away," or by either the instrument or the authority by whom, in the infliction of such fines, lessons in public morality are taught. The precise manner in which such outrages are to be referred to is not, however, so clearly defined ; and, although we fear we are giving them credit for more than they deserve, it is possible that the Nelson jury have so refined a discrimination as to the manner of managing newspapers that it is upon a presumed departure from the ordinary rules that they partially based their verdict. Their argument may have heen this : " Here is an editor who had the columns of a journal at command, either for use or abuse. Had he used them for good purposes, he would, in this case, openly, and in the name of the journal, have condemned the immoral bravado of the Commissioner. But he abused them by not only admitting, but writing, anonymous and covert references to the Commissioner and his ' friends.' He did not deal openly with the cause of complaint: he 'stabbed from behind.' Therefore he is not entitled to our verdict." "We are, of course, putting a purely suppositious case, and we are probably flattering the Nelson special jury by imagining that they gave the matter any thought whatever. But, from expressions which we have heard outside the jury-box, it is possible that such expressions and arguments may have been used in that mechanical contrivance for the elucidation of intelligent human opinion. If they were used, it does not require much ingenuity to illustrate their fallacy. "We all know how potent as correctors of abuses are such publicationsasPwMcAand The Tomahawk; yetitisnot by stiff statement of facts or direct denunciations that they expose or condemn social sins and follies; often it is not even by

words of any kind. And to go no further than the Colonies for examples, weJiave the letters of " Jaques" in the Argus, and of the writer " Under the Verandah," in the Age sketches whose popular style gives them an influence superior, perhaps, to writings of a more staid and serious character. How far the letters of " Bohemian" which appeared in the Westport Times a year ago may bear comparison with these, we are not, at this moment, competent to judge; but, supposing them to have been of au average character in temper and tone, they were as legitimately a medium of reflection upon social abuses as could be the leading columns of the journal. At anyrate, that question, so far as the plaintiff in tins case is concerned, was one more for a jury of editors than for a jury of his countrymen. The asseveration on the part of the plaintiff was that what was published was a statement of facts, and that was not even denied by the defendaut. It is quite possible, however, that a statement of facts may have a more injurious influence upon the character of a man than such a statement would be, with fair and necessary explanations. There is no doubt that, in a new and not thoroughly assorted community, like that of Westport, a " statement of facts " as to the disposal of a man's time and his behaviour might alarm his best friends, and shock the sensibilities of a community whose circumstances and surroundings are different. If we remember correctly, Mr Verdant Green, on his return from the University, astounded his maiden aunt by the summary of his attainments which he gave when he stated that he had learnt to "grill a devil" and to " chaff a cad." In Westport, if a man had to detail the disposal of his leisure hours, he might have to confess himself a frequent loser at "pool," a daily victim of misplaced confidence in the skill of the billiard-marker, or limited, with respect to female society, to the probably agreeable though not elevating company of the "young ladies" of the casino. Unless be chooses to become a miserable recluse, or can purchase, by professions, the " sesame" to some holy circle, he has really no alternative. And any one acquainted with the easy and accommodating disposition of the defendant in the late case can sympathise with him if he did not always maintain any more severe and unseemly dignity than was maintained by those around him. But " the statement of facts" in question referred to other and different circumstances, which need not be alluded to more particularly than that, with other circumstances, they formed the subjects of representation on the part of persons so " respectable" in position as even Bishops and Prime Ministers. Why such a " statement of facts " should expose the unconsecrated and the unofficial—such as a newspaper editor—to the application of physical force, and brutal treatment, without protection, from the law, is known only to a Nelson special jury, and to their limited or unlimited conscience.

There is just one other remark th at ma v be added to this discursive reference to the subject. The Colonist observes : —■" The only thing that will act as a deterrent to any man whose sense of shame does not prevent him from parading it, will be that the assaultee in posse may, taught by this verdict, resolve to be a much uglier customer than was the too placid plaintiff in this remarkable case." Shall we say thatthis is a very reasonable deduction on the part of the Colonist, and may we hint that, literally and locally applied, it means this—that any one calling at the Westfort limes office in future on a similar mission to that of Mr Kynnersley, must do so expecting to find his desire for " gentlemanly satisfaction " to be a matter in which there will be a happy, if not to him an altogether harmless, reciprocity of feeling ?