CHAPTER LVI.

Otago Witness, Issue 1866, 26 August 1887, Page 9

CHAPTER LVI.

SOME POLITE LETTER- WRITING. Afeanwliile, what was being done by those I, had promised to look into her case ? tasked that question often enough with eager pertinacity. But even to the New TnnrnaUsm it is impossible to do everything *Tnw> and political exigencies, visits to tS' and the like, enforced delay. The atter besides, was a very serious one. To eh 'it ineffectively was worse than not SchinJ! it afc all> Am W article or tWO irrht be written easily enough, but if it 3 worth doing at all it was worth doing thoroughly, and to do it thoroughly meant tlI Above all, first and foremost, it was cccssary to abandon all attempt to suppress D mea. If tne a PP ea l mus t he made to the

great public, publicity of the fullest kind was indispensable. Mrs Laugworthy shrank from the ordeal. The conditions, however, were inexorable, and at last she reluctantly consented.

Before a line was written it was pointed out that as Mr Langworthy could not be communicated with, application must be made to his solicitors and to his mother ,for any information which they might be able to give. Mrs Langworthy, knowing well how many who would have helped her had been deterred from going any further in the matter after they had communicated with Messrs Bircham, shuddered at the suggestion. It was, however, so obviously necessary and just that her objections were overruled, and the following letter was sent by the editor on the last clay in February to Messrs Bircham and Co. :—

As I am engaged in preparing for the press a narrative of the case of Langworthy v. Langworthy, as illustrative of the marriage laws, I shall esteem it a favor " you can place me in possession of any information which you have which may be necessiry for the full understanding of the case [so far as it concerns your client, Mr Langworthy). The story, a3 I have it at preseut, is full of interest, and, a^ it is certain to wtract universal attention, I am anxious to bavo all the facts, dates, etc., as exact as possible.

A similar letter, omitting the phrase enclosed in brackets, was sent to Mrs Langworthy, sen., at Maidenhead. Mrs Langworthy did not reply. After a couple of days Messrs Bircham sent the following answer : 46, Parliament street, Westminster, S.W. , „. „ . March 2, 1887. m'T- sul) J ecfc matter of the 'suit to which you « i. "X entirely of a private character, and anoctinp only the persons who are parties to it, we ™i recognise no rierht on your part to the information you ask for, especially when you tell us that it is 'or publication. You have probably heard but ono siae of the caso. There is another, which has not yet ™ en hca fd, and we should warn you against giving currency to statements which may prove to be not only inaccurate, but may lead to trouble hereafter.— l)e are, sir, your obedient servants. Bircham and Co. . The veiled menace in this letter, and the insinuation that there was another side to t"e story which had not yet been heard, were perhaps regarded as calculated to warn oli anyone who contemplated referring to JJe subject. They had^ however, exactly ™c opp osite effect. Next day Messrs bircham received the following letter :— The suVject matter of the suit to which I referred M{?& one of Krea * Public importance, and having oeen SSSr?** 1 upon b y Courtß of Justice, can in no ? .. b ° regarded as one of " entirely private vnn. "L 1 nor oan l ndmit 'o* a moment any right on oh I Jf K ot on that of the other P art y t0 tne to "Wot to the publication of tho facts, with such conim ™ v justice may demand, inf™! i . not Ba y thatl ola ta n° "g&t to demand any Mm .l m from y° u > an d I» m rather surprised at ™ tone of your reply. w tfr7 was > dealing with a matter of public interest in vnii « clien t's interests were 'concerned. I wrote csLn ♦ y before tak ing any steps "towards p'ubli»w£* ° advise y° u of my intentioi). andto ask you intnrm V you would b 0 Bo good as to afiord me \he 2 a "f n necessary to enable me to avoid any Tn fiv? Rom your olienfc 'B Point of view, one »m yo H r re P'y : " You have probably heard but XcK c of th« case. There is another which has not ti let me'h ?nd yet your - lefcter hin effect a refußal thL mm TBJ?T 8J?8 J? howev er. take exception to the statement JZ' [nave o n iy heard om) AAeQt thecase , Y ou 6 repeatedly placed your side of the case before

Her Majesty's Judges, and I could not do you the injustice of supposing that you have suppressed any vital facts necessary for the full understanding of the case of your client from tho knowledge of the Court' before which you were pleading his cause. I would therefore respectfully ask you to reconsider your objection to afford me information, especially now that you hint you have the facts in your possession which you have never laid before the Courts. To this Messrs Bircham replied as follows : — 46 Parliament street, Westminster, S.W., March 4, 1887. ' Sir,— We have your letter of yesterday, but see no reason to alter the opinion expressed in ours of the 2nd inafc.

We do not dispute your right to comment in your journal upou matters of admittedly public interest, but tne expediency or good tasite of doing so in cases where private intereata are involved is very questionable, and we deprecate strongly the idea of a journalist interviewing and seeking information from the confidential advisers of a suitor under cover of a suggestion thatHaccuracy merely is the] object sought. \Ve hope we understand our duty to our client sufficiently to decline to be parties to any such proceeding. — We are, sir, your obedient servants, BIKCHAM AND Co.

Here the ground was changed. It was no longer pretended that the case was one "entirely of -a private character"; the ground was shifted to one of "expediency

or good taste." As it was also implied that an attempt had been made to tempt them into a breach of their duty to their client by asking them to prevent the publication of any inaccurate statements concerning a .case in which his private interests were so deeply concerned, the following reply was despatched to 46 Parliament street, which closed the correspondence :—: —

I asked you for information which, in tho interest of your client, I thought you might wish to lay before anyone who waa about to publish a narrative of the ca»e of Langworthy v. Lang worthy. If you think the interests of your client arc best seived by refusing my request, I can well understand that you may have good reasons for so doing. I only regret that you should seem to misconstrue the object of my application. I aMted for no interview, and, in your client's absence iti South America, naturally addressed myself to his confidential advisers.' In order that there mny he no suspioion, however absurd, such as you insinuate, of any desire on my part to take an unfair advantage of Mr Langworthy by communicating with you, his lepal adviser 3, I shall at once send a complete copy of this correspondence to Mrs Langworthy, sen., of Maidenhead.

To this, of course, you can oflfor no ODjection,

After that, Messrs Bircham troubled the ' Pall Mall Gazette,' with no written communications until the letter which is published in the appendix, a letter which probably did more to convince the public that there was not another side to the case than anything that has yet appeared.