(50)
"the worse appear the better cause," he asserted the right of the press to criticise in the most open manner the acts of every man who enters upon public life. What Mr Pitman did, however, was something very different from an assertion of his individual right to do this. By way of revenging a severe but fair public hit, honestly and straightforwardly dealt at him in a public meeting, and published the following day, the defendant in this case, after five weeks' deliberation, skilfully gives his opponent a stab in the dark which might have proved the social and commercial ruin of Mr Nelson. This is how the Jury have unanimously interpreted the charges brought against Mr Pitman; and as this sort of retaliation cuts at the very roots of social life, the verdict of the Jury must meet with the fullest approval of all respectable men.
The matter becomes even more important when it is borne in mind that one of the most prominent reasons given for the "false, scandalous and malicious" attack made by Mr Pitman upon Mr Nelson is, that the latter had "long carried on a bitter, active and ceaseless opposition to the Governor of the Colony." While studiously avoiding any discussion as to whether Mr Pitman is a properly constituted or appropriate vindicator of the Governor, the vast importance of the partial developments in this case can scarcely be overrated.
To differ on political or public questions with Sir John Hennessy would seem to be, in the eyes of some, an offence which ought to be visited with the direst consequences; but it must be subject to regret that, in this case at least, Mr Pitman did not keep his keen blade quietly in its sheath rather than by its friendly thrust to have so paraded and endangered valued friendship of fifteen years' standing.
The language used by Mr Hayllar, Q.C., in his admirably temperate address on this point, is well worthy of attention. He said "It seemed to him to be an excessively grave question which he now laid before them, and one of very grave importance in a Colony like this, whether any man is to take part in public life according to his solemn convictions, whatever they might be, at the risk of his public character being assailed."
To descend to a comparatively small matter, it would have been better—as Mr Hayllar said in his speech—had Mr Francis left his remarks about the China Mail unsaid. The case, as Mr Francis himself admits, possesses historical importance—past, present and future; and that being so, while the utterances of Mr Francis and others will thus go down to future generations in these columns, we fail to see the ground of complaint of the learned Counsel for the defendant.
(Daily Press, June 10.)
(51)
The verdict of the jury in the Pitman libel case surprised no one; the sentence inflicted by the Chief Justice caused some astonishment. It was confidently anticipated that a fine of five hundred dollars and a short term of imprisonment would have been the inevitable corollary of a verdict against the defendant.
Not so thought the Chief Justice, who apparently considered that the defendant had received material provocation in Mr Nelson's remarks on him at the Chamber of Commerce at the last annual meeting. Granting that the words then used by Mr Nelson produced an exasperating effect on Mr Pitman, we would respectfully submit that they were openly said, with a full knowledge that they would reach the party concerned, and they were not calculated to injure the private character of, or to interfere with the pursuit of his profession by, Mr Pitman.
The letter of the latter gentleman, on the contrary, was addressed to a gentleman who might have been inimical to Mr Nelson, and who instead of showing it to him might have forwarded it straight to the directors of the Bank, without giving him a hearing or any opportunity for explanation. It was really, though we trust the defendant did not mean it as such, a stab in the dark.
Mr Nelson was necessarily thrown upon his defence. He had no option. He was compelled to take some steps to clear his reputation, and he chose to institute criminal proceedings in preference to bringing an action for damages.
The defendant has, it must be remembered, been put to heavy expenses for legal costs, and has lost much time in appearing at the Court, to say nothing of the anxiety which he must have felt during the last few weeks. Moreover, he has been found guilty by a jury of publishing a false and malicious libel, for which he has to pay the penalty.
Mr Nelson, on the other hand, has cleared himself of a damaging imputation and set himself right with his directors and the public. Perhaps the most salutary effect of this cause célèbre, however, will be to once more remind the public that letters written incautiously or in anger with the attempt to undermine a man with his employers are apt to recoil on the head of their author.
He cannot fail to regret his action.
422