A WELLINGTON LIBEL CASE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume VI, Issue 915, 7 October 1879, Page 2

A WELLINGTON LIBEL CASE.

HOW THE CHRONICLE APOLOGISES,

We take the following letter and the reply thereto from a late issue of the Wellington Chronicle. The article complained of was at the time thought to be rather severe on the candidate for the Manawatu District, but the Chronicle does not seem to think that the remarks were other than to the point : — The Proprietors of the Evening Chronicle. Gentleman, — In your issue of your paper of the Ist instant appeared an article referring to Mr. A. W. F. Halcombe m terms which it is impossible for that gentlemen to allow to pass unnoticed. Ihe article contains statements reflecting upon Mr. Halcotnbe's private character, education, and attainments, which are all solutely incorrect, and go far beyond the limits of fair criticism upon a political opponent, We are therefore instructed by Mr. Halcombe to demand that a proper apology shall be published at your expense m the Eapers circulating m Wellington and the [anawatu District retracting the offensive statements; and that you shall pay the sum of £50 to the Feilding Church of England Fund, and the expenses incurred by M. Halcombe m the vindication of his character. Failing your compliance we must ask you to name a solicitor who will accept service of process on your behalf. This letter is entirely without prejudice. Yours faithfully, „, „. IZARD AND BfilL. Wellington, Sept. 25, 1878. It will be observed that Messrs Tzard and Bell deal with the business m hand m a spirit of the utmost courtesy. They want the £50 for the Feilding church, and their own costs, and an apology to Mr Halcombe besides ; but they ask for all these things m such a charmingly polite way, that we cannot feel m the least offended at them. It sorely grieves us, therefore, that a stern sense of justice, right, and duty, compel us to decline absolutely any compliance whatever with the demands of these gentlemen. We have-not written and published anything concerning Mr Halcombe which calls for an apology. Therefore, we shall not apologise to Mr Halcombe, and if he wants to attempt to put us to expense and trouble, by going into the Supreme Court on an utterly frivolous pretext then to the Supreme Court let him go ! We are quite ready to meet him there, should he be so foolish as to adopt a course of action which will simply have the effect of making all the world laugh at his over-weening self-conceit and egregious folly. And as we are not going to apologise— having committed no fault — neither are we going to enrich the coffers of the Charch of England at Feilding by a single coin of the realm — much less by £50. The article of which Mr Hal- 1 combe complains contained no reference whatever to Mr Haloombe'a "private character." Mr Halcoombe was a candidate for a seat m Parliament for the Manawatu District at the time the article complained of appeared. In his position as a candidate, Mr Halcombe was a fair and legitimate subject for public criticism. It was only right and just and fair that Mr Halcombe's previous career m the Provincial Council, and as a member of the Provincial Executive should be subjected to a searching and rigid review, so that the Manawatu electors might form a correct estimate of his claim to be sent to Parliament. In the public interest, and on public grounds, we reviewed Mr. Halcombe's public career. We showed that he had eyer been petted and pampered, and put into important public positions for. which he was unfit, through the influence of his relative Mr Fox and Dr. Featherston. We showed that his incapacity and mismanagement while Provincial Secretary plunged the province m a gulf of debt and disaster, which all the efforts of Sir W. Fitzherbert and Mr Bunny could scarcely extricate it from. We described Mr Hutchinsons's political career as forming a record of m incomptency, mismanagement, stagnation. In short, we described Mr. Arthur William Follet Halcome. — " the Nephew of my Uncle" — or rather, the " Nephew of my Aunt," as a political noodle and nincompoop, who being placed m political office through the influence of powerful friends, contrived by his incapacity to do much mischief to the interests of the Wellington province. It is no libel to say such things concerning Mr. Arthur William Follet Halcombe, but an absolute truth, which can be proved by the irrefragable testimony of the records of the Provincial Council itself, and by a host of credible witnesses. When a public journalist sees a man whose incapacity has been shown by his past public career, putting up for a seat m Parliament, he is bound m the public interest, to speak out plainly what he knows about the candidates and to warn the people not to elect an unsuitable representative. This is exactly what we did m the case m question. Our words told, and Mr. A. W. F. Halcombe was very properly rejected by the electors of Manawatu. Doubtless, it is painful to be beaten, but if Mr. Halcombe were a brave man, he would take his beatiing quietly and m silence. Being, however, but a poor selfconceited, shallow, and rather dullpated creature, he wants to go to the law courts to obtain satisfaction against his critic. To the law courts let Mr Halcombe go ! We are quite prepared to meet him m that arena, and we challenge him to come on.