The Marlborough Express.

Marlborough Express, Volume VII, Issue 458, 21 December 1872, Page 5

The Marlborough Express.

“ fiIVK me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all other liberties —Milton

The Netos contains in its current number ojie of its choicest specimens of Eillingsgj*te; nay, for spleen, untruthfulness, and venom it will, perhaps, outrival any previous effort. There is little necessity for us to notice it, for such productions generally defeat the objects of their writers, but we, do not like to pass it by altogether, although the subject is nob one we should have chosen of cur own accord. The “ articlet ” in question is supposed to be a comment upon a few words in a recent issue, wherein we sought, in the mildest way possible, to remind the liege subjects in this locality that the law had been broken, and that sundry persons, for ends of their own, were urging them on to a course which would result in injury to the common weal. Those few words have been responded to by many of our readers, who by their remarks have shown their appreciation ; and not all the rubbish and filth cast at us, bo say nothing of the motives attributed to ns by this braying ass, will cause us to swerve from that course which we believe to be right.

He charges its with “decrying some real or imaginary expression of some speaker at the late meeting/’ Well, we do decry the whole business, speeches and all. He goes on to say that he is “ delighted to see,the Express rouse itself to a consideration of our common interests;” thereby pretending that we are not in the habit of doing so—a canning insinuation, the truth,of which we leave our readers to decide, for what 'he says of the Express we can afford to pass by and feel none the worse for. His main charge,, however, is against the Government, which, he says, is desirous of shirking an enquiry into the

nauseous scandal in defiance of the wishes of almost every man and women in the Province.” Wo deny the truth of every word in the sentence, and in proof challenge the publication of the correspondence upon the subject which has passed between the Committee and the Government, and which the promoters of the late meeting did not dare to lay before it. We say that scarcely an appreciable portion of the inhabitants of the Province have sought an inquiry, and but a very tew since the Government expressed their intention of waiting the result of the enquiry instituted in the Supremo Court before doing anything. We say, moreover, that neither the Government, nor yet the subject of all this outcry, has sought to prevent or evade an enquiry, but on the contrary the latter person applied for it, besides commencing an official one in a court of law. We are next told that “ the law will take care of itself,” a sad truism ; but we should greatly regret, apart from any public loss, to see a number of really well-intentioned people falling into its clutches for want of a gentle reminder. His next insinuation is that conveyed in the figure of u a drowning man,” which we can afford to fling back at its author, at the same time practising a degree of forbearance for which he will not give us credit. Let us rather pass on to the charge that we are “ seeking to arouse the sympathies of the public for a dear friend and patron.” This is another lie. What we have done is. in all fairness, to insist that a just and equitable enquiry, before a proper and responsible tribunal, should take place before any man is condemned and punished, be he whom he may; and a revulsion of public feeling is setting in already in that very spirit among the people who were lately so ready to condemn. It is strange to find that even the News begins now to speak doubtfully, referring to “ imputed ” crimes, which “if true,” &c. It goes so far as to say that we are “ too cowardly to defend the Commissioner.” Then, on his own showing, we do not defend him ; and, moreover, therein is all the difference, for it is not as Commissioner that the individual in question is the object of so much outcry, but, to the detriment of his enemies, ho happens to hold that office, his conduct in which not one Ims impugned. As for “ cowardice,” the mean tool who wrote the word has not pointed to a sentence to bear out the assertion, and we wonder at his audacity, since his course, from the earliest days of the Province, has been the most undecided upon any public question of any paper in oir- experience, and nothing but the peculiar circumstances of the time would have made him take a side now. We have taken no side | with regard to the private scandal which I the News and its friends have so carefully fostered of lute. We condemned the practices complained of in no measured terms —emitted no uncertain sound—but we foreborc to denounce a man as guilty against whom wc have as yet had no tittle of evidence beyond the mere ipse dixit of those who are well-known to be bis personal and political foes If this is taking a j side, or playing a double game, wo have! only to say that it is the game we shall continue to play, whoever the present or future victims may be—were it the editor of the News even—-so long as we have the ability to write a line. As to patronage, we have never sought it, nor have wo ever cringed or sneaked about anyone to get it. No, nor when we had it, have we ever sought to deprive anyone else in the same profession from getting a share, but the News has done all this repeatedly. We come now to the last sentence of this precious “ articlet ” —shade of Webster mark the word—in which he says “ —Such protest is made by a paper that has never uttered a whisper of sympathy with the public at imputed moral crime, so transcend antly villainous that if true we shudder to think what monsters of iniquity things, which the Almighty has created in his own image and likeness, may become.” —lt is not often that we get a compliment from {'this source, and therefore when we do, we feel bound to record it. He says that we “ have never uttered a whisper of sympathy at imputed crime.” Mo, nor shall we ever, even if every member of the public demanded it. Right is right, no matter how few, or how many believe in it, and we are not to be carried away by the clamour of a defeated party of scheming politicians. As for Mr Eyes, his merits are not before the public at present, nor has it any thing to do with his personal demerits until they are brought before it in a legal and proper manner.

The attack upon Mr Noswbrthy in tins week's yewa is so ilagrantly snobbish and scurrilous, that we cannot pass it by altogether without notice. That gentleman lias spent perhaps more time and trouble in arriving at a thorough com'

prehension of the Municipal Corporation Act and its working, than any other Councillor; he has been most assiduous in his public duties, deriving no gain, pecuniary or otherwise, and therefore he had as good a right to share the honours of the Mayoralty as any person in the town. He has twice been elected by the Burgesses at contested elections, while his opponent was rejected at a contest, and succeeded by entering at a sort of back door. Mr Nosworthy’s career has been patent to everyone who has taken any interest in our Municipal proceedings ; his character and reputation is sans repeoche, and yet he is blackened and abused as fif ho were a pickpocket, because, forsooth, he dared to stand against Mr Henderson. With all respect, we submit that Mr Noaworthy is quite as good a man as his opponent in every sense, as well as in position, only that he had no friend who could give him fifteen votes in a lump, and taking that fact into consideration, we have no hesitation in saying that we believe more persons voted for him than for Mr Henderson. So far from being the “tool or puppet ” of any one, our reports of the Council proceedings show that ho has initiated the greater part of the business done. Let the Eeius draw a farther comparison if it dare, and we may possibly follow it up by stripping his idol of its glitter.