416
( 38 )
跚
Pitman's business, even if it were in his speech having been made with reference to power, to do so in this formal method; the Mr Pitman, and the speech being question was a public one, under what circumstances then had this arisen? In what way were they prepared to defend themselves from the present charge? This was a letter written to Mr Jackson, Mr Nelson's superior officer, as Mr Nelson himself told them, an Inspector of the Bank here, with the right, title, and authority to enquire into on behalf of the directors everything in fact connected with the management of the Bank here, with, he had no doubt, and he believed as he had said, even to suspend him. That this was simply a complaint, pure and simple and privileged, which was one of the grounds on which he intended to rely. It was simply a complaint made by Mr Pitman, a person to whom such a complaint could lawfully and properly be made, a person aggrieved, a person who had the right and duty to enquire into the matter, and who could investigate the matter in the manner he thought most advisable while he was here on the spot, who was the only individual here who could do anything, who was fully empowered to do whatever he thought fit to right what he found wrong.
who had an interest in the subject matter, and duty to enquire into the matter, and who should the facts warrant, to reprimand Mr Nelson. With reference to the second portion of the letter, he would submit that the public conduct of Mr Nelson, as taking part in the public affairs of the Colony, was as open to comment in the same way and to the same degree, as Mr Nelson was at liberty to adopt and to advance any opinion he thought fit on a public occasion on H.E. the Governor. The moment Mr Nelson came forward as a public man and expressed himself by his acts or words as opposed to the policy of H.E. the Governor, that same moment, he would submit to the Court, did Mr Nelson submit to lay himself open to the public comment of every man in this Colony or elsewhere, and invite criticism upon his public acts and sayings; that from that moment every man became entitled in the same proportion to express his assent to, or dissent from Mr Nelson's views, his opinions as to the wisdom or unwisdom, propriety or impropriety, of so differing from the Governor. Putting himself forward as a public man, like every public man who puts himself forward in political or other matters, he invited criticism of his public acts and speeches, it was to the interest of the public that all public acts and speeches should be justified and discussed, and no question had been raised as to the words used in that criticism.
With reference to Mr Nelson's speech in the Chamber of Commerce, and with reference to his whole conduct as a public man, these were matters open not only to Mr Pitman but to any person here. It was open to any one to have discussed them in the public press of the Colony. He would ask his Lordship to instruct the jury whether the first part of that letter would not have been a reasonable, proper, and fair criticism of Nelson's speech in the Chamber of Commerce? The subject treated of in these two first paragraphs was one open for public discussion, and if a letter written by any man to the public press was justifiable and proper, it could not be said that a letter written by a public man who had been attacked by Mr Nelson, and addressed to a person intimately interested in the matter, and from whom some reasonable redress might have been obtained, he being empowered to visit any irregularity with more punishment, however slight, came under the same privilege with reference to that speech in the Chamber of Commerce.
Incorporated now in the body of this letter, he would ask their careful attention to what it contained and he would ask them in considering it, to bear in mind what the history of this colony had been for the last three years, so that they might fairly consider what meaning they were to put upon these words. Mr Nelson was discussing in the Chamber of Commerce whether the Japanese yen should be legalised as legal tender for this Colony, a perfectly proper question for the Chamber to discuss, and a perfectly proper question for Mr Nelson as a member of the Chamber of Commerce representing the Chartered Mercantile Bank to discuss. Mr Nelson knew, as they all knew, as they, the jury-men must know, that there was a certain amount of prejudice against His Excellency the Governor of this Colony. In that prejudice, because of his intimacy with H.E. the Governor, Mr Pitman shared; so much so that he had been made the subject, in the newspapers of this Colony of as much if not greater abuse than any man now living in the East.
Mr Pitman was charged in the columns of one of the local newspapers with practically swindling the Opium Farmer of a large amount of money; it was represented that the Opium Farmer was anxious to have Mr Pitman back again in the Colony so that proceedings could be taken against him; why should any one in that Chamber of Commerce have thought of introducing a reference to Mr Pitman such as Mr Nelson had used? Why was Mr Pitman dragged into the matter at all? Or if he had, for a purpose to be referred to, why was he not warned? Why attempt to identify him by these covert allusions? Why instead of discussing legitimately the legitimate question of the legalisation of the Japanese yen currency here, was there an attempt to work on the prejudice known to exist against the Governor." Why refer to "a gentleman well-known,” “an intimate friend of the Governor," and "mixed up with the Opium Farm and several other matters," "in the employ of the Japanese Government" and so on, save to utilise to the utmost the prejudice existing against the Governor, and through him against Mr Pitman as a friend of his, and to prejudice those who heard him further against them, and against the proposal with which the speaker alleged Mr Pitman to be concerned, the legalisation of the yen, a question which should have been discussed as he had said without reference to such differences and prejudice.
( 39 )
reasonable, proper, and fair criticism of Me Government,-Why were these references made that he had mentioned? It was an attempt to work on the prejudice known to exist against the Governor." Why refer to "a gentleman well-known,” “aù intimate friend of the Governor," and "mixed up with the Optum Farm and several other matters," "in the employ of the Japanese Government" and so on, save to utilise to the utmost the prejudice existing against the Governor, and through bim against Mr Pitman as a friend of his, and to prejudice those who heard him further against them, and against the proposal with which the speaker alleged Mr Fitmax to be concerned, the legalisation of the yen, a question which should have been discussed as he bad said without reference to such diffər- ences and prejudice. What was the effect of these references on those who beard them and on those who read the report in the newspapers? Any one who read the account published of the meeting could not fail to see that that was a deliberate attack upon Mr Pitman by Mr Nelson. Whether well-founded or ill founded there they had an attack made publicly on Mr Pitman by Mr Nelson, in his place in the Chamber of Commerce.
The Chief Justice pointed out that in the Manx case the Bishop was not only justified in using strong language in his own defence but was justified even when he became abusive.
Mr Francis agreed. The Bishop used much stronger language than Mr Pitman had used in his letter. Mr Laughton, a barrister, had made certain statements affecting his Lordship before the Keys, the Parliament of the Isle of Man, and the Bishop in convocation had described whether his assertions as false and slanderous statements, and had referred to Mr Laughton as a calumniator and a wicked man. He