THE Marlborough Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. THURSDAY, JANUARY 6, 1887.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume VIII, Issue 2052, 6 January 1887, Page 2

THE Marlborough Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. THURSDAY, JANUARY 6, 1887.

There is no more contemptible warfare than that known as boycotting. It is the means by which the minority strives to rule, and so set aside the good old political maxim which teaches that majorities must rule, and which thus provides that the greatest good shall be secured for the greatest number. We would even go further than this, and proclaim our chief political dogma to be the greatest possible good for all. Whilst to our mind boycotting is contemptible, it is nevertheless a very favorite practice with narrow-minded, tyrannical and unthinking people, and nowhere is it so frequently met with as in newspaper work —not from the newspapera themselves; thank Heaven they have some regard for fair play and right, bat from those who have dealings with newspapers. Some people imagine, or seem to imagine, that a newspaper is run, or should be run, entirely in the interests of those who patronise its advertising columns, but there never was so great a mistake. A newspaper so conducted would be a disgrace to journalism, and could be nothing short of an advertising ‘‘ puff" sheet. It could never have any political or other influence, Neither does a newspaper cater for individual people ; it undertakes to mould public opinion, and to lead the whole, That is one of its special functions, does a newspaper please everybody —it never tries, and the fable of “The Old Man, the Boy and the Ass” is ever present to the Editor’s mind. To make our meaning clearer we will put a suppositious case. The Times has spoken out quite recently on the subject of direct shipment, and, if need be, will speak out again quite as distinctly, Our views on the subject are formulated after close and laborious study of the whole question, and are freely expressed because we have the interests of the whole provincial district at heart. We take pride in advocating the interests of the whole of Marlborough, and should indeed think little of ourselves if we allowed these columns to be prostituted for the purpose of pandering to the interests of private merchants whose interests are purely individual and, in the struggle for wealth, often diametrically opposed to the interests of the community at large. We claim to represent, Marlborough as a whole and not any ’ particular section of the district, ( and y?e believe the prosperity of ( Marlborough means the prosperity i

of nearly every soul in the district. At any rate, in seeking to advance the prosperity of the district, we believe we are doing our best to work out the economic commandment that we should earnestly strive for the attainment of the greatest good for the greatest number, or, for preference, our own desire for the greatest pos ible good for all. We, therefore, advocite direct shipment because we believe ihat, for Marlborough, it means the greatest po3-< sible good for all. Bat that view, whilst indefeasable in itself, would not, of course, suit everybody’s pocket. If direct shipment were thoroughly established here, and the produce of our district were shipped direct to the London market, the middlemen would be minus the large sums in commission which now find their way from the pocket of the farmer into the pocket of the agent, and like the ancient Moor of Venice, the rcjjpation of the latter would be gone. Manifestly, therefore, the middleman does not like to hear any advocacy of the claims and necessities of direct shipment. For just such reasons men were so cowardly—had so little faith in themselves—as to oppose the introduction of railways and all labor-saving implements. Well, if these middlemen were advertisers in our paper they would perhaps, resent our advocacy of direct shipment to such a degree that they would withdraw their advertisements and by making us suffer a temporary monetary loss, attempt to coerca us into submission to their views. That, gentle reader, would t>e boycotting, the most contemptible and insidious means of warfare. Tt would also be a practical admission that they had not a leg to stand upon, that they dare not face an open en«« c. nter. Boycotting stands on the same footing aa the cowardly stab of the assassin. And what if we submitted? We should never be able to think little enough of ourselves for so craven an action The thing that could so far bring himself to suborn the interests of those whose trust he holds—the interests of the community at large —as to enable him to use the power he wields for the aggrandisement of » few individuals at the expense of the people would be a poor creature indeed. Some advertisers seem to think they Lave a kind of lien over the opinions of a newspaper, and sometimes exhibit much choler because the newspaper cannot fall in with their individual views. The sooner they understand that newspaper editors have no friends and do not sell their principles for the sake of half column advertisements the happier they will feel. Newspapers, of course, are always ready to help their patrons, and never object to place their enterprise or energy before the public in the best possible light. But when advertisers first attempt to coerce a newspaper and then try to boycot it by removing their advertisements it is time to take a stand. The reader by this time will think there is something behind all this—something more than supposition for the sake of example, And so there is. But we do not wish to be more explicit. An attempt has been made to boycot this paper because of the expression of its conscientious views and the advocacy of a coarse which it believes to be for the benefit and commercial progress of the whole district, but the realisation of which would be partially disastrous to one or two individuals. These persons expect us to sacrifice our views and be traitorous to the trust we hold on behalf of the whole district of Marl 1 borough in order to pander to their interests; in default they will withdraw their support. We are sorry to lose them, but we take pride in the responsibilities of our position and the faithful discharge of our duties to the community at large and we refuse to be coerced. They must boycot us if they will and the support they withdraw we must look for from the people whose cause we refuse to betray—the people of Marlborough.