OBJECTIONABLE CORRESPONDENCE

Dunstan Times, Issue 761, 17 November 1876, Page 3

OBJECTIONABLE CORRESPONDENCE

(to 'the editor of the dunstan times.) Sir ;—I notice by the Editorial remarks in your last issue the decided stand you have taken against the publication of any portion of the objectionable correspondence furnished in the form of letters. That such a determination will meet with the approval of the great majority of your readers, whose good opinion you value, there can be but one opinion, and were the same stand taken by your contemporaries, it would tend somewhat to the well-being of the country districts. There are a mass of Correspondents (some hailing from Alexandra being justly entitled to head the list) who, under the pretence of furnishing the press with the new's of the district, make that only an excuse for the publication of slander and abuse against, not only the members of the various locil Committees and Chairmen of public meetings, but private individuals haVe to Suffer the annoyance of having week after week their names dragged before the public in a most unjustifiable manner. My opinion is that the Editors of public journals giving publicity td such correspondence, are almost as much at fault as the authors themselves, because a majority of the letters possess neither wit, logic, or common sense to warrant their publication, but showing on the face of them, that they fvert Written only as a vent for the display of private spleen and malice, the victims arc apt to retaliate, and mutual recriminations are carried on until the communications are either point blank refused, or hoticc publicly give* that the Correspondence is closed. Su6h a series of letters in reference'to school matters at Alexandra recently‘offended the public taste, when the terms “ lame gaol bird ” and “ Tipperary Blackguard ” were among the choice expressions bandied between the disputant's. One great objectiofi to publishing the proceedings of local Committees,—Or rather that portion of the proceedings that may suit the writer’s particular purpose, and being furnished by 4 correspondent whoso name is not made public,—is apt to cast ridicule on the gentlemen comprising the Committee, and gives the public a very .unfair account of the business tranhheted. I think that if editors refused td jiublish tho accounts of such proceedings, except they were furnished with a copy of tho minutes, duly authenticated by the chairman or secretary, the public would be better served.

None ate bettor aware than journalists, that the conducting of the business of school, hospital, library, and 'Qtbor local Committees, year 'after year, devolves on nearly the feme citizens, who have often to devote a considerable portion of their time to conduct the business of those institutions, and at the best'bardly getting 'mere thanks for their gratuitous services. It is extremely annoying tbatwpublic account of their proceedings sbfeuld be at the mercy of these letter Ivritera, who regulatly pester the papers with their productions—for being destitute of the good taste Which would make them to coniine their remarks to legitimate discussion and expression of opinion —disgust the public, and abuse the liberty of the Press, by a perfect deluge of correspondence which, as literary productions, would disgrace the veriest school boy. Trusting that the editors of other journals —-Goldfields' onfca in particular will, equally with yourself, set their faces against publishing such writings, and not falsify their position as public educators by inserting flitch objectionable correspondence ; and which also tends to prevent persons having the requisite ability from employing their leisure time by acting as occasional correspondents.—l am, &e., Jas. Rivers. Alexandra, Nov. 13th, 1876.