THE TELEGRAM LIBEL CASE.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3294, 5 September 1871, Page 2

THE TELEGRAM LIBEL CASE.

. — * TO TEE EDITOB OP THK INDBPENDKXT. Sic, — The Canterbury " Press" has three times, in loading articles, published a charge against me which is absolutely false : two of those charges having been published while I was absent from the colony. ' The object of the writer of the falsehoods was, no doubt, to bring the Government, or a member of it, into disrepute, not to injure me ; but I am not content to submit to libellous misrepresentations, whatever the object of the libeller. On the 11th April last, Ike "Press" in the course of a long article on the telegram case, referred to an explanatory article which appeared in the "Evening Star," during Mr Vogel's visit to Dunedin in December last. As to that explanation the writer in the " Press" says that, by the evidence given in the Resident Magistrate's Court, Dunedin : — "It was clearly pro red that Mr Yogel's virtuous indignation was all a sham, and that the article to which ho appealed as a voluntary vindication of tho Government from an unjust charge, had been concocted by his own secretary. It is not unreasonable or unfair to presume that the secretary acted under hia principal's instructions." On tho sth of May, the " Press" put its charge into this form : — " Another odd little fact was brought to light, in connection with tho English mail telegram alleged to have been pirated from the "Daily Times," which deserves notice. Among' the witnesses for the defence, the editor of the " Evening Star, the organ of the General Government in Dunedin, was snmmoned. ft appeared from his evidence that an article which had been published in the "Star," purporting to be an account of the circumstances relative to the telegram, showing how entirely Mr Barton wa3 in the wrong and completely exonerating the Government — which account has been subsequently repeated by Mr Yogel at a public meeting, with fervent thanks to the "Star" for enabling him to make a clean breast of it without violating his official duty —was in reality the work of Mr Togel'a own private secretary. Moreover, the material statement in the article, as to the dispatch' of the te e^ram, was proved to be untrue. This of course has nothing to do with the general management of the department ; but it is not without its bearing on the particular case complained of. For that a Minister, the head of the department called in question, should take trouble to fabricate an explanation, argues that the real explanation was not one which be dared to make public. He would have no occasion for subterfuge and fiction if truth and plain dealing could have served his turn." TII9 latest version ot the charge, so far as I know, was published on Wednesday or Thursday last, as follows : — " Ifc will bo remembered that, in the preliminary trial before the Eesident Magistrate, Mr Barton did not succeed in fully substantiating his charge against the Government of handing a copy of a ' Daily Times' telegram to the Wellin (JTOH Independent. How tho Independent oame by the telegram was never explained. Its own account of the matter was proved to bo false ; while that given by Mr Yogel, the head of tlio department, was conbradicted on oath by several witnesses, and turned out to have been concocted by his private secretary" v The " Press" thuß charges— -1. That it waa " clearly proved" by sworn evidence that I concocted an article which was, also by sworn evidence, proved to be essentially false. 2. That " it appeared" from the evidence of the editor of the "Star" that this false article " was in reality the work of" myself. 3. That " an account" of certain things given by Mr Yogel was contradicted by soveral witnesses, and " turned out to have been concocted by his private secretary." This third charge I assume to be but a repetition of the one previously twice made in different forma of words* I thought, on seeing the articles published in April and in May, that the repetition of the charge was due to a plentiful lack of originality on tho part of the editor rather than to an access of malice ; but the motive of tho second repetition is betrayed by the writer. He wanted to fling some mud that might stick, because he could no longer ignore the fact that the dirty slime of tho original libel on the Government had been easily wiped away. Tlie editor of the " Press," if he has read the report of tho evidence to which he appeals in proof of his charge, knows that the editor of tho " Star " began to state in court what it was I said to him, but that lie was stopped by counsel. If tho editor of the " Press " has not road the evidence ho had no right to appeal to it. He has been maliciously slanderous — either of purpose, or from culpable ignorance. No honest writer would state that evidence which is, on tho face of it, incomplete, " cloarly proved " anything ; and any honest reader of the published evidence will agrco that it does not make even reasonably probable tho conclusion that I had anything to do with the " Star's " article. But, whatever may or may not bo mudo to appear, no amount of evidence can " dearly prove " that I " concocted " the article, or that it wa3 my " work," unless that which is absolutely untrue can ba " clearly proved " to be true. I did not write tho article. I did not sup.ply or suggest any single sentence of the article, ot' tho material upon which any ainglo sentence of it was based. £ did not procure, or ask, or suggest, that the article should bo written. I did not ask or suggest that any articlo should be written. I have, the firmest conviction that the article was, in its entirety, written by Mr G. Bell, the recognised proprietor and editor of tho " Star." I believe that Mr Bdl In s i o'i said, nnd will never say, ono wove! ca'cu'ivtod to imply that he was nob the writer of tho . article, or that I prompted him as to its substance, its form, or its expression. I am firmly convinced that had he been allowed to givo in court the explanation he dosirod to give, he would have said (in substance) tins: — That I did not have any form 1 1 "interview" with him, but that, as an old fellow-worker with him in Dunedin, I made to him, in confidence, n statement of what I believed to be a fuct j that ho thereupon mado inquiries in his own office; and that, becauso of the result of those inquiries, he, of his own motion, wrote and published tho avfciclo in question. A word as to vhy I ask you, sir, to insert this lottov in the Independent, I think lam justified in fearing that, had I written to tho editor of the " Press," he would have flung my letter in(o his wasto-paper basket. To refuse redress to one whom he has slandered, would probably scorn good policy to a person capable of the mean maliciousness of which (in my view) tho " Press" editor has been guilty. But even such a writer might possibly secure believei'a in hid falsehoods, if he were permitted to continue repeating those falsehoods without denial of them being published. I desire that those -who wisli fairly to judge of facts in the " Telegram Libel Caso" may nob be misled ; and by the publication of this letter you will enable me to say to many who have no ofchtr

desire" than to judge fairly, that the " Press's" charge against me has not for basis one word of truth, nor even a shadow of reasonable probability. With tho cliarge must fail all the elaborate sneering and insinuation indulged in by the editor on the assumption that tho charge was well founded. — I am, &c, E. FOX. Wellington, 4th September.