AN UP-COUNTRY JOURNAL’S GRIEVANCE.

Western Star, Issue 147, 1 July 1876, Page 3

AN UP-COUNTRY JOURNAL’S GRIEVANCE.

The Mount Ida Chronicle, in taking exception to the way in which the “ wes” have been treated by some of its readers, discourses as follows : This is to bo an egostistical column. We dedicate it to ourselves. Not that it is our intention to brag about our liberal support in Naseby. Nob wc ; we carry our honors blushingly ; with fear and dread lest may be they should take to themselves wings and flee away. Neither do we intend to write of our want of support, of the grievances we in common with all Britishers in good health are privileged to enjoy. Far be it from us to say harsh tilings of our foster mother Old Naseby. What we have to say is about our individuality, and the responsibility of that individuality to the public. This is not understood in Naseby. An idea is prevalent, to our sorrow, that there is a privilege existing, and to be claimed by the public, under which no privacy is allowed to the proprietors of this paper. Every Friday morning, if there is a statement published bearing upon a public individual, upon a public body, or in reference to public business, straightway one proprietor or other is waylaid and put upon his defence, and if the persecutors had their way would bo immolated in sacrificial fire in the centre of the Recreation Reserve. Wo put up with a moderate amount of this sort of thing ; but our forbearance has limits. Last Friday the outraged innocents were the Hospital Committee. This important and influential body met in solemn conclave, and sent for one of the ‘ we’ to answer, defend, give his informant (?) —out of courtesy of course. Now the ‘ we’ sot his back up, and spoke the mind of the ‘ we’ pretty freely, which is tins: —Wc claim our right to live quietly, unmolested, as private citizens ; if, in this publication, there is, as there must be occasional error, if that error is pointed out to the proprietors in writing we will correct it, or allow Any one else to contradict it; if even it is debatoable, any one can debate it. It is very rare that correspondence is over excluded from our columns. Further, if anything is published likely to be injurious to character which, when properly called upon to retract we do not see to contradict or apologise for, a remedy is open to the person aggrieved sufficiently apparent to the most uninitiated in newspaper circles. Ih the most empatliatic manner wo decline the private Inquisition business, Savoring too much of Spain and Russia to be at all in consonance with our ideas. Far ourselves and our individuality we may say that wo keep no editor. The article is too expensive. We tried it twice. In both cases the expense was great and the benefit was extremely problematical. Yet, if wo did indulge, the unfortunate victim’s errors would be our own, and we should claim for him the same privacy in private life we claim for ourselves. If this bo nob granted to us, still our pen will wage war on behalf of the destitute, the neglected, and fhe oppressed.