WEDNESDAY'S MEETING.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume VI, Issue 929, 20 October 1879, Page 2

WEDNESDAY'S MEETING.

[To the Editor of the Heratd.] Sir, — The notice published m your paper of Saturday calling a meeting, "to decide what staps shall ba taken with regard to that portion of the newspaper press which advocates- the repudiation policy, &c." is condemned by all men of common sense, especially by. those who are most strongly opposed to the socalled " Bepudiation party." Evidently the movement emanates from a perfect tyro m all that pertains to public matters and to the liberty of the press so highly prized and fostered by all free people of the present d <y. I cannot believe that business men like Messrs. Laurence, Graham, Maude, and Co. read and considered before signing so childish a document. The fact simply is, that there are two parties here having large interests at stake, each being represented or supported by a local paper. Should either <>£ these papers outstep the rights of propriety, the parties suffering have their remedy m ordinary course ; wherefore then the necessity of such a petty and futile attempt to gag the Press, an attempt which not only renders all concerned mit the laughing stock of men of ordinary experience, but must also injure us m the eyes of the outside world. With regard to the rights or wrongs of either party I have very little to say, merely that I believe both parties are pursuing a suicidal course, and one they would not follow were they spending their own monies. It is the old story of the Kilkenny Cats revived, at the same time is it not unfair that they should also scratch, bite, and injure bystanders having no direct interest m the matter nor desiring to be catawompously chawed up ?— Yours, &0. , J. Cuff. [Mr. Cuff, if he reads the advertisement which appeared m the Herald on Saturday evening, calling a public meeting for Wednesday, will not see anything m it which indicates a desire to gag the public Press. The wording is : "To decide what steps should be taken with regard to that portion i>f the Newspaper Press which advocates the Repudiation Policy." We suppose any number of our townspeople have a perfect right to consider such a matter if it so pleases them. If newspaper Editors claim a right of free discussion m print, have the people not also a right to discuss such a matter and express their disapproval on a public platform. If a newspaper advocates a policy which is bringing about disastrous results to a whole community, the people so injured surely have a perfect right to withdraw their support from such a paper. The liberty of the Press is one thing ; unbridled license is another. • The former is among our grandest institutions when exercised m the cause of free-loin, peace, and order ; but the unbridled license of the Press when advocating what is mischievous and detrimental to all proper interests, becomes a curse, and not a blessing to a community. Is it not better that men should meet publicly, and speaking out plainly, say why they will uot encourage

newspapers that advocate a dangerous policy ? Is it not better, we say, that they ' should do this openly instead of m secret j conclave ? It ia not the first time, by very many times, that public meetings have been held to protest against the action of the Newspaper Press. Mr. Cuff must bear m mind that the outpourings of the editorial "we" are invariably the utterances of one man, who may be a very good, or very bad, or very ignorant^ or very unfit to control a newspaper, and if any such one man is backed, by some few personally interested m abetting him, writes that which is calculated to inflict great injury upon a number of people, is he not to be impugned because his words come through the medium of his newspaper columns ? It is sheer nonsense to speak to the contrary. It is Mr. Cuff; we think, is the " perfect tyro ;" not those who have called the meeting. The Newspaper Press has great power for good or evil ; whether to keep the members of a community m peace and good-will towards each other, or to set them by the ears, causing much heart-burning and bitterness of feeling. All editors and proprietors of newspapers have to hold themselves amenable to public opinion, and are themselves responsible for their writings, and it is not gagging the Press when they are called to account. If Mr. Cuff, while sleeping peaceably m his dwelling, with his family, an attempt is made to oust him from it, are there not " two interests " concerned — his own and those who would oust him ? Would it not be the same if he were away ? So, if a man is met on the highway by another, and told to stand and deliver are there not also "two interests?" The Repudiation party have if it so pleases them, a perfect right to meet and decide what steps shall be taken with respect to a non-repudia-tionist journal. We, for one, should not object, but will be quite willing to abide by the issue. 'To say that the conduct of a newspaper may not be called into the question is to gag the liberty of the people from giving expression to their opinions ; and we are living m a land of too much freedom where any such attempt will be met by an opposition not to be resisted.— Ed.]