THE PREMIER AND THE NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 2930, 31 May 1870, Page 2

THE PREMIER AND THE NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENT.

The following, which we take from the Wellington Independent of May 26, gives some explanation regarding a matter which Mr Fox alluded to at some length in bis recent speech in the Town Hall : A letter appears in the Evening Post of Saturday from the Wellington correspondent of the Otago Daily Times, which raises questions of great consequence to the civil service of the colony, and great interest to the public at large, and to which therefore we invite the attention of our readers. It appears that while addressing a public meeting at Dunedin on the 27th April, the Hon. Mr Fox impugned the correctness of certain statements relative to the capture of prisoners on the East Coast, which be said, or is reported to have said, were made by the Hawke’s Bay and Wellington correspondents of that paper. This evoked a letter to the Daily Times from its Wellington correspondent, in which the writer denies having made the statement imputed to him, and goes on to boast, not very decently or discreetly, that he has access to the Government secrets, gives special instances of his publishing them, and defies the Government to find out how be obtains tbe information he trades in. He also charges Mr Fox with concealing the fact of bis having received a confidential telegram, with mystifying and falsifying figures, and expresses bis entire disbelief in Mr Fox’s statements. Mr Fox, naturally indignant at such charges being made by an anonymous writer against a public man of his standing, denounced the correspondent (while speaking at Christchurch) as a “double dyed scoundrel,” who not only resorted to the practice of worming out Government secrets, but boasted of having done it. In the Post of Saturday, the correspondent (still anonymous) returns to tbe charge, and in a letter, in which he carefully shirks tbe main points, threatens Mr Fox with an action for libel.

Whatever may be the result of this threat, there are two things which it concerns the civil service and the public to know. As regards the former, who are the traitors who habitually communicate to this special correspondent secrets which the Government do not wish to be known, such as the correspon-

dent boasts that he obtains, and defies the Government to detect how he obtains? As regards the public, it concerns it to know how the contents of a confidential telegram, and the fact of its being sent, were divulged on this occasion. If the Government are not safe, who is ? It will be a fortunate thing if the correspondent carries into execution his threat of bringing an action against Mr Fox. When he appears in the witness box, the Government can then compel him on oath to divulge the means and give the names of the parties through whom he has been carrying on his trade in Government secrets. But what will become of the boastful defiance of the Government to find out how he does it ? The screw of the Attorney-General’s examination will compel him to divulge, and the Government will get from bis own lips, the information he now defies it to obtain. We shall wait the result with much interest, both for the credit of the Civil Service, whose honour is at stake, and for the public which wi 1 naturally feel hesitancy about its telegrams till the mystery is cleared up. The correspondent declares that he gets his information “ honourably.” It will be interesting to know by what process the divulging of Government secrets and the contents of telegrams is made an “ honourable ” proceeding. If it be not “ honourable ” in the divulger, the maxim that the receiver is as bad as tbe thief characterises the transaction in the hands of him who obtains and uses the information divulged. Since the above was written we gather from the columns of the Evening Post that the Otago correspondent is Mr Gillon, of this city, and complaint is made in the columns of that paper that in consequence of what he wrote to the Otago Daily Times a commission in the Wellington Volunteers in his favour, which was on the point of being issued, has been cancelled by the Government. The writer in the Post has evidently been misinformed. Mr Gillon’s commission has been cancelled, as we are informed, not because he wrote in an improper way to the Otago Times charging the Premier with falsehood and intentional deception, but because he made a public boast of having traded in Government secrets, and defied the Government to find out how he got them. The Government would have acted most unworthily of itself if it had permitted anyone so acting, and who could make a boast of having done it, to hold a commission in any corps of gentlemen in the colony. The Post, while censuring Mr Fox for the severe terms he applied to Mr Gillon, is pleased entirely to leave out the fact that before Mr Fox did so, Mr Gillon had (anonymously') charged him with fraud and falsehood and given tbe lie direct to his statements. Very little sympathy, we think, will be felt for Mr Gillon when the facts which the Post has so carefully left out are generally known. We have reason to that had Mr Gillon allowed time for a reply to his note to Mr Fox, asking for an explanation in reference to the charge supposed to have been made against him as the Wellington correspondent, such an explanation might have been given and received. Mr Gillon, however, at the same time that he writes to Mr Fox, or even before, also sends his obnoxious letter to the Otago Daily 't met, which, of course, renders explanation of the previous matter impossible. Had Mr Gillon really wished to ascertain whether Mr Fox would give him an explanation or correct a mis-statement, he should in common courtesy have allowed time for a reply. We are able to state, moreover, — having been favoured with an opportunity of perusing the telegram mentioned by Mr Gillon, and the accounts to which it refers—that Mr Fox’s statements at Dunedin are completely in accordance with tbe Inform*-

tion which that telegram „«■ . >■ being that while the teW ra S’ the '»ct only to a transfer of certain K „f m refe Hed diture up to the 31st March m e,p «i> has evidently misunderstood it ffrom Gi »on the context) to refer to an sum total of the actual dishurl!! of the far from Mr Fox having made anv ent ’- tion with the intention of mwZ/ eservaaudience, he has, if anything. ra tv. mg his the case against himself. To sum Btat ed the whole cane— Mr Gillon’s bo a t - p th « Otago Daily Times, that lie couM A. to th « secrets of the Cabinet in spite of th l n . the ters, either meant nothing >, e Minis, veyed a grave self-accusation, in, ,°, r 11 conwilful and deliberate falsehood ~„C ' l arS e rj f Premier, is wholly unjustifiable, an , nat tlie gross insult to so old a colonist ’ r ,'l af , a , m °Bt representatives of the country ~ the position which Mr Fox now fill, e high tiqn which we occupy viiti, rt „, r ,' 6 MGißon, who has been temporarily 1 , to with onr editorial staff, and with r,f ’ Mr Fox as leader of the Gov^rnme\? re,l ' :e to we have generally supported,’ cuasion of this subject particularly - ■ , lisus. We cannot, however, but con-?, to conclusion that whatever Mr (;V| ! ' 'he suffers he has Drought it entirely n . self, and unfortunately others l/ ss V ‘ h’Oof punishment arc likely to suffer T'"' t in? quence of his act, n