THE Marlborough Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. FRIDAY, JULY 20, 1888.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 314, 20 July 1888, Page 2

THE Marlborough Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. FRIDAY, JULY 20, 1888.

A. letter appearing in yesterday’s issue of our evening contemporary calls for comment on our part. There is an unwritten law among journalists that anonymous correspondence appearing in “ the other paper ” should not he taken notice of, but whilo acting up to that proposition in the abstract, we aro of opinion that there are occasions when the rule should he relaxed. Human foresight lias proved itself unequal to the task of dealing with every emergency that may arise. The exception proves the rule, and nothing short of a Medo-Persian enactment would meet the ever-varying changes, in time, place and circumstance, that confronts every-day experience. In ordinary cases wo could have afforded to have ignored the insinuation contained in the anonymous letter signed “ Subscriber,” for tlio reason that it represented an individual opinion only; but the fact that the letter appoarod in the position that it did, without any j qualification, warrants tho assumpi tiuu that it received the editorial imprimatur. Wo are perfectly justified in the assumption. Now let us see how it works out. We are charged with having “ ono law for tho rich, etc,” and we aro condemned fer suppressing tho names of tho parties to a prohibition suit, while publishing those of a “social nobody ” who a few days ago paid the penalty of a first offender. Wo Imre not tho ghost of an idea as to who the author may he; he may he an individual in whom the instincts of the slouth-hound aro strongly developed; on tho other hand it is just as probable that to “ point a moral and adorn a tale,” the logical production emanated from nearer home. He that as it may, we are now dealing with a principle, and on that proposition we will join issue. As wo have already affirmed, there is no rule to which exception may not be taken. While wo admit that as u ride the names of parties to a suit should be published, wo contend that there are occasions, social, domestic, moral and judicial, in which it is wise to .suppress names. The difficulty, of course, in dealing with such nice subjects is a matter of judgment, and in inserting the letter to which wo take exception, we assert that our contemporary, by its negative endorsement of the precious epistle, { has shown a lamentable want of judgment, and taken up a most inconsistent position. To establish these assertions, wo will tako as an illustration two or three cases, fresh in tho minds of tho public, and m passant, although we have not previously paraded the fact, we have received valuable testimony as to the judgment we displayed in tho matter. We contend that, under all the circumstances, we wore perfectly justified iu suppressing the names of the parties to the suit in (question, and by doing so we fearlessly assert that more good was thereby done to the “ cause that lacks assistance”--in its wider sense. On the same principle wo assort that good judgment was displayed iu these columns when, a week ago ' three lads, tho offspring of respectable parents, were indicted for the larceny of a paltry pigeon, and while giving the text of tho case in court, we for very obvious reasons suppressed names. The evidence in that case was of a very flimsy character, and certainly did not .show any criminal intent. From private enquiries instituted, we have every reason to believe that the action was a thoughtless one, and lacked a single characteristic of criminal intent. Yet what is the result P Wo find the names of these juvenile and first offenders — ( if offenders within the meaning of Hie moral or civil law they were—blazoned forth to the public and posterity. Admitting that _ they iiiui reallv broken the law in its stric t or technical sense, is it wise iu the conductors of a public newspaper to engrave such cases on its criminal records r According to our light- and to the judgment of those v*ho hu\e inado

a study of the subject, we feel secure iu the position we have taken up. The trend of modem experience is to treat such offenders as lightly as possiblo. The loss of self-respect is tho primary factor in adding to our criminal population, and we assert that nothing contributes to that result more effectually than publishing the names of first offenders, against either our criminal, moral or j udicial code. This applies with special force to our juvenile population, who from mere thoughtlessness may transgress the law. Having given our views upon that feature of the case, we will refer to the consistency of the journal that inferentially pats “Subscriber” on tho back. “Subscriber,” in the newspaqier interpretation of the term, is a very useful personage—especially when he pays his accounts regularly. But when it comes to sacrificing one’s princij)les,he is a nuisance. And now for the consistency of tho “sweet morsel” “that I am glad to he able to commend you again ” (the italics are ours, but the idiotcy of the expression is the writer’s to whom we allude) “for the fair and journalistic way of treating matters.” Where, we ask, was the keen observation of “Subscriber” or the consistency of the journal iu question when the last meeting of the Picton Road Board was reported P Did he “ observe any fair and journalistic way of treating matters ” in suppressing, for reasons that we will leave the public to judge, any reference to a most disgraceful way of conducting the business ot a public representative body ? Notwithstanding this flagrant breach of a public duty, we find a journal coolly assuming to itself tlio flattering unction as to its “fair and journalistic way of treating matters !” From such inconsistent journalism, good Lord deliver us, is our reverent prayer. We have not prociqfitated these remarks, and it is only in the interests of our own qiosition that we havo been compelled to explain.