THE COLONIST.

Colonist, Issue 77, 16 July 1858, Page 3

THE COLONIST.

NELSON, FRIDAY, JULY 16, 1858,

" As truth is truth, Aud, told by halves, may, from a simple thing By misconstruction to a monster grow, I'll tell the whole truth."

Sheridan Knowles,

The Examiner has thrown the mantle of its own undoubted position and respectability over a scheme which we honestly confess we do not think deserving of it. On the broad grounds by which all must judge a public measure, it does not offer sufficient security for a rash act on the part of the Provincial Government. The Examiner impugns the accuracy of our facts; but it has done so hastily and imputed to us words and meanings not our own. They say Mr. Gjbbs was not a 6harer in draining a Dutch swamp. No more do we: we give him the credit of sharing the honors in such a prooceeding; and the Examiner says that "he had the honor of the achievement." We differ but in degree. "We did not say, except upon the authority of one of Mr. Gibbs' own supporters,- who publicly stated so at the meeting, that he had exhibited quartzcrushing machinery. We only alluded to similarity of name in the Holmfirth affair, and would not drag Mr. Gibbs' own words before the public. ..A little more attention would have saved the trouble of imputing to us the assertion that there were one hundred diggers on the land in question. It is quoted as-the "dictum" of a gentleman but seven days from the spot. The very information which we give as to the real numbers is authenticated by themselves.

It is said by the Examiner that it will be time enough for Mr. Gibbs to prove his power of doing whatever he may engage for when his application is entertained. We conceive that some proof of his ability should be given before the land is granted. A later European experience would have satisfied the supporters of Mr. Gibbs that a clever man may assume the possession of a large capital, and by that means induce a large confidence. We should be chary of giving credence to unbacked assertions. This fact is incontestible, that when called upon to give a guarantee it was refused—the land was to be granted unconditionally. Tho district is too valuable to be rashly parted with for twenty-one years. Had there been the slightest appearance of deposited means available when necessary, we should not have viewed Mr. Gibbs' proposal as we now do. Time will shew which is right. We have done our duty in supporting a Government, unjustly, as we think, attacked. But be it clearly understood, that we do not bind ourselves to the support of any party or set of opinions. That which is fof the general good of all, shall be upheld by us; and in the next political matter it may so chance that our opinions are advocated by our contemporary also." It can bo a matter of no personal interest to. us to decry any scheme of real good. We are unconnected in any way with Mr. Gibbs or his company, and can he but shew his solvency, may yet be found to advocate the granting him some land, in proportion to his means. The truest test is to grant him a claim for each laborer he employs, as done in Australia. If he can fill four square miles with active laborers, let him, but no monopoly to the exclusion of the individual.

Of Mr. Gibbs sufficient; and here let us add a few words about ourselves. Our readers are aware that the management of this journal has changed hands; and it may not be amiss for the present Editor to publish his own opinion on the conduct of a newspaper.

A Press properly organised in a free country .should be not only the exponent of public opinion, but should by careful attention be enabled to direct its fellow citizens on matters both of domestic and foreign import. In the columns of a journal should be found not only the results of past experience, but a carefully digested means of future improvement. It should occupy so high a position in the estimation of its readers as to preclude the suspicion of party or venial motives being attributed to it. The privacy attached to a large Metropolitan journal cannot be attained by one provincial, but at the same time it should study to preserve inviolable the privacy of others. Personal attacks upon the political opponents of its measures are too degrading. A newspaper should speak fearlessly on the public acts of any individual, but beyond that it should never go, and no more miserable spectacle can be (in our opinion) paraded, before the public eye, than ajournal seeking out of private bickerings and heartburnings, to raise a popular outcry. That which is brought before the public let it sift thoroughly. Let it sift the capability of all who assume or attain a public position: but there let criticism cease. The hand that pens these lines would consider journalism prostituted did it ever assail a man and not a measure. Where, as in a Province like Nelson, there is room for two journals, there should be a free and open discussion of opinion. The rights of labor, the interests of property, and the capability of public men are fair fields to meet on. We may sometimes hold opinions at variance with our neighbours, but if they have been formed by mature reflection they should be sustained as long ag

conviction lasts. A custom more honored in the breach than in the observance has become too rife in many thinly populated districts, of two journals constantly opposing each other for the mere sake of opposition. A paper war and wordy sentences filled with abuse instead of argument form their best way of giving information. Far be it from us to follow such a course. Where merit is, there shall the palm be given, and that courtesy which is the necessary associate of true integrity shall never, we hope, be found wanting in us. Much as we may be called upon to differ from the opinions of others, never shall these columns contain vulgar vituperation or personal attacks.

We have been the more induced to make these remarks on account of a recriminatory paragraph which has appeared in the columns of our contemporary. We consider argument is all that is necessary on matters of public opinion; and beg once for all to state that this journal shall never again be induced to "repeat its present course, of replying to any personal attacks. Let each buckle on his armour, and should we meet on the field of adverse opinions, in the language of the Knights of old,

"Let Heaven defend the right."