MR A. N. FIELD AND "THE COLONIST."

Colonist, Volume LIV, Issue 13441, 12 June 1912, Page 4

MR A. N. FIELD AND "THE COLONIST."

In his somewhat hysterical protest against our treatment of his reply to Mr Atmoro, "Mr A. N. Field, of Wellington, indulges in one or two assertions so directly opposed to fact that wo owe it to ourselves to put him in the riglit. Wo may first be' permitted to say that wo have no intention of allowing ourselves to be embroiled in the quarrel between Mr Atmore on the one hand, and Mr A. N. Field and our local contemporary on the other. On the merits of that dispute we offer no opinion. Tho special telegram to which exception has been taken by Mr Atmoro appeared in our contemporary Mr Field apparently boing the authorityi It was neither published nor commented upon by us. Tho only references which have been made to the matter by "The Colonist" werea statement made by Mr Atmor© and published at his request/denying the accuracy of the telegram, and a condensation of his remarks on tho subject in his recent address at tho Provincial Hall. Tho publication of our report of the Provincial Hall meeting gave Mr Field an opportunity which ho seized upon— as he was perfectly justified in doing— of replying to Mr Atmoro- in our correspondence columns. His letter was moderate in tone, and it was inserted by us without alteration of any kind. It drew a rejoinder from Mr Atmore, in I which the latter criticised Mr Field's explanation that the words he especially complained of in tho message published by our contemporary were introduced into the text by "a slip at the Nelson end," and he asked how an accidental slip of that naturo could have occurred. We did not construe Mr Atmoro's letter as an attack upon Mr Field, nor do we now so construe it. The attack was directed against a quarter not specifically named—the quarter in short "at the Nelson end' 1 which was responsible for the slip. That we allowed Mr Atmore tho utmost possible latitude to charge Mr Field with tho enormities tho latter mentions is not the case. This letter drew a reply from Mr Field, portions of which we wore under the necessity of excising. We made an explanation to that effect in an editorial footnote. To say, however, that we mangled it and omitted sentences and portions of sentences for no other reason than that they might not be palatable to Mr Atmore' is a gross misstatement of fact. There was no mangling. It was a complete and clean, amputation. The portion of the letter w ro" omitted —the concluding portion —we considered unsuitable for publication in our correspondence columns. Of such a matter we alone must be the judge. The omission, moreover, did.-not affect our correspondent's case or diminish the weight of his argument in the slightest degree. On the contrary, by preserving a general dignity and moderation which would have boen destroyed by the publication of the letter in full, its effect was enhancedWhether the omitted portion was or was not libellous is besido the point. That ra any case is a matter on which wo should not bo prepared to accept tho opinion of a disgruntled correspondent. As a journalist Mr Field must know that letters on similar subjects to his may fall -short of actual libel, but be exceedingly objectionable, nevertheless. VV* have at all times been extremely loth to open, our correspondence columns to attacks upon individuals, and we have never permitted abuse of the privilege they offer to legitimate discussion of matters of public interest. In making use of them Mr Field and Mr Atmore are on precisely the same footing as everyone else; all must comply with the customary conditions.