THE Wellington Independent. "NOTHING EXTENUATE; NOR SET DOWN AUGHT IN MALICE." THURSDAY MORNING, 21st APRIL. THE PRIVILEGE QUESTION.

Wellington Independent, Volume XIX, Issue 2051, 21 April 1864, Page 2

THE Wellington Independent. "NOTHING EXTEN UATE; NOR SET DOWN AUGHT IN MALICE." THURSDAY MORNING, 21st APRIL. THE PRIVILEGE QUESTION.

If the Wellington Chamber of Commerce were- possessed of the functions of alegislative body, it is not improbable that the report of its proceedings to-day would have informed our readers, how the printers and publishers of a certain journal called the Wellington Independent were brought up to the bar, to answer a charge of" breach of privilege," for the unauthorised publication of its Committee proceedings. As this course was not practicable, the members were content to get up a little debate on tho subject and express strong condemnation of some alleged irregular proceedings, in which this journal and an undiscovered member of the Committee are said to have had a share. The Chamber is scandalised thereat, and Mr Woodward appeals to public sympathy as the most undeservedly ill-used of men. We heartily wish we could make the amende honorable t and soothe tho exacerbated feelings of these gentlemen, but tho facts of the case and justice to this journal forbid our doing so. On the 3rd of March an article appeared in this journal on the Panama Contract, sup> porting it as a whole, but pointing out the very objectionable character of the 27th clause, which granted a virtual monopoly of of the Interprovincial services to the I.R.M. Company. The subject at that time was discussed everywhere, and by everybody, the members of the Chamber of Commerce included. It soon became understood that the Committee had taken some steps in the

matter, and after the article in question was in tj-pe we received information as to what these steps were. In consequence, considering that we were 2>erfectly justified in making jrablic, what was communicated voluntarily in the course of ordinary conversation, we added the following paragraph to our leading article : —

Since the above was written we learn that the Committee of the Chamber of Commerce has taken action in the matter. They met on Tuesday and W. B. Rhodes, Esq, brought under their notice the objectionable features of tylr Ward's contracc, viz.: the recivication of the Coleman contract of 1858, and the provision of clause 27, making the Inter-' Provincial service a monopoly. An opinion was universally expressed that these provisions were in the highest degree objectionable and unjust, as being detrimental to colonial interests, and with a view to avert the evils that would thus accrue, resolutions were drawn up by Mr Woodward to be laid before a general meeting, strongly urging the Government to annul the clauses in question. These resolutions will in due course be forwarded to the Colonial Secretary.

No one has ever ventured to question tho | strict accurracy of this statement. Not a word of denial has ever emanated either from Mr Jonas Woodward or any other member of the Committee, and it is only now after a lapse of nearly seven weeks that the subject is revived. At the usual monthly meeting of the Chamber on Monday, which is reported elsewhere, Mr Woodward stated his grievance. " Something very irregular," said this gentleman, "had taken place." The proceedings of the Committee had been reported in a public newspaper, and nothing which had occurred at the meeting would justify the conclusions arrived at in that report." It was very foolish of Mr Woodward to say this, because we shall be obliged to show that he was mistaken— and that by his own words. After explaining that at the meeting in question the subject of the Panama contract was discussed, he goes on to say : — " Now, what actually took place was really this. The document in question was laid upon the table, when agood deal of conversation took place amongst the members relative to its terms, and a general opinion was expressed that clause XXVII was objectionable in its character. One of the members spoke strongly on the subject, and his attention was ultimately directed to a rule by which they were guided, which rendered it imperative that any proposition should be put in writing before it could be considered. The gentleman alluded to then ashed him (Mr Woodward) to put the vietvs he had expressed in shape, and he ac cordinghj did so The subject subsequently dropped, and at the conclusion of the meeting he was requested to draw up a series of resolutions, embodying the views expressed, to be submitted to the next general meeting of the Chamber.

Now if any one, even Mr Woodward himself, will compare our statement of the 3rd of March with that just quoted, it will be seen at once that there is no difference whatever between them. The thing is self-evident. Captain Rhodes makes a speech condemnatory of a certain clause in the contract, and a general opinion of a similar character is expressed by the members. Mr George Hunter then calls attention to the fact that there is no distinct proposition in writing before the meeting, and Mr Rhodes suggests that Mr Woodward should write one. This request is complied with, and Mr Woodward writes a draft resolution on the spot, which is read to the members. This draft resolution or proposition, was simply in the rough, what it was intended should be laid before a general meeting of the Chamber, and the task of preparing it in a more elaborate manner was entrusted to Mr Woodward. We believe that gentleman was at the time honestly opposed to the 27th clause of the contract. The Spectator, so far as it represents any opinion at all, is usually a faithful exponent of Mr Woodward's views. We have already seen the course taken by Mr Woodward on the lsb of March, and on the sth a leading article appeared in that paper, condemning the clause referred to, and by consequence attacking exactly the same thing which the resolution was directed against. It is quite true that since that time, the Spectator has changed its opinion, and Mr Woodward has attempted to retreat from the position he had assumed, but that is no reason why the penalty of their inconsistency should rest elsewhere than on themselves,

Mr Johnston has made a very unfair charge against this journal. He says we have represented the opposition to the /clause of the contract ; as being the act of the Chamber. This, we q.hink, he will admit is a mistake. We never represented the Chamber of Commerce as having taken any action at all, and our assertion that the Committee of the Chamber proposed to bring a resolution before a general meeting is a very different thing. That statement we have already shown to bo perfectly correct. It is quite clear that the Committee of the Wellington Chamber of Commerce have committed themselves sadly, and would gladly got out of their difficulty by blaming somebody else. They adopted a certain courso of action on the Panama question, prepared certain resolutions, but got frightened and hastily dropped the whol c business. We can sympathise with their painful position, but they have only to blame themselves for being in it.