The Press. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1867.

Press, Volume XI, Issue 1345, 28 February 1867, Page 2

The Press. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1867.

The Lyttelton Times of Tuesday contained a very strongly worded and, we think, unjustifiable attack on two men named Daniel White and John Campbell, whom it held up as specimens of our " lowest non-criminal class," and as instances of the necessity for " taking measures to raise them from the condition in which that class is unhappily too willing to remain." Now both were farm laborers, and, for anything that appears to the contrary, honest respectable n.en. Agricultural laborers may not occupy a very distinguished position in the social scale, but it is too much to describe them as the " lowest non-criminal class ;" nor do we think that the actions of these two particular members of the class deserve \ the shower of denunciatory adjectives poured upon them by the writer in the \ Lyttelton Times. Daniel White, who ' was engaged in reaping, lighted his pipe and threw the match away among - the cut corn, which being dried by a nor'-wester took fire, and the whole crop was consumed. We are not going to defend Mr White ; he was no doubt very careless—culpably so ; but neither shall we exclaim against his " lamentable and mischievous exhibition of ignorance and selfishness," \or denounce him as " a virtual ' enemy to society." Society must 'be scarce of friends if every one . who is careless in lighting his pipe or cigar is its enemy. It is notorious i that much the greater number of the many fires that have happened in and ( about Christchurch have arisen from i this very cause —from some careless smoker throwing away a lighted match among combustible matter, such as dry grass or gorse clippings. Gentlemen are just as careless as any others, but they have this in their favor, that they , are not so continually as laboring men . are in circumstances when their carelessness can lead to mischief. It is rather hard on White that he should be singled out for so unmerciful an attack for doing what scores of others have done before, merely because he had the ill-luck to cause a serious accident which they had the good luck to escape. The next case, which strikes us as really a hard one, meets with still rougher treatment. John Campbell, who was brought up from somewhere near the Kakaia to give evidence as to the human remains found in the river about a fortnight ago, complained to the Coroner that he had thus lost four days' harvest work, and refused to give evidence till his expenses were paid. This the Coroner had no power to do, and as the witness still refused his testimony he was obliged to commit him for contempt of Court. Here again Campbell was no doubt in the wrong, but the writer of the article referred to is surely not justified in describing his conduct as ! worthy only of " the vpry sweepings of the workhouse or the loafers who live next door to crime," especially as he afterwards admits that the law ought to be altered, so that witnesses before a coroner's jury should have their expenses paid as surely as witnesses before a common jury. One may talk jauntily about " submitting to an occasional hardship in the higher interests of society," but it is no light tax on a farm labourer to be deprived of four days of the most profitable work in the year. This class of men look to the harvest season as the time when, by several weeks heavy work at high wages they can hope to lay aside some , money for the purchase of land of their ' own ; and we confess to thinking ; Campbell had some ground for com- ' plaint when called on to give up nearly a week's wages over a matter in which he had no personal interest whatever. . ..-

"We see no reason why witnesses at inquests should not be repaid for the necessary expenses of attendance, as much as tlie witnesses in the Supreme Court. Iv England the medical men called to give evidence or directed to perform a post-mortem examination have their fees fixed by law, and we do not know why other witnesses should not he recompensed for the loss of time and money that a compulsory attendance at the inquest necessarily involves. The contrary system often acts very unjustly, of which tlie enquiry now going on in Christchurch into the murder at the Bealey affords a striking iustance. There are now in the town eight or ten persons who have been brought down

by the police to give evidence, and who are detained, whilst the inquest is being adjourned from week to week, away from their ordinary occupations, with no means of getting a livelihood and with no allowance for the expenses of their journey to. and fro, and their forced stay in Christchurch from Friday last to wheuever the inquest may be concluded. One of these witnesses, we happen to know, arrived in Christchurch without a single sixpence in his pocket. Society has no right to demand such sacrifices, nor in the interests of justice is it wise to do so. In some other case of suspected murder a man may become possessed of important information, but if he knows that to communicate it to the police will expose him to a serious and indefinite loss he will feel a strong inducement to keep tho matter to himself. So if Campbell should ever again come across human remains at the Rakaia he will probably decline to risk the loss of four days' work by reporting the fact The repayment to witnesses of expenses actually incurred would obviate theso difficulties, aud do away with an injustice which at present is no doubt often severely felt.