(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
( 50 )
the worse appear the better cause," he as- foundations of society are thereby shaken. eerted the right of the press to criticiso in It may be said that the defendant, besides the most open manner the acts of every the punishment of a verdict and sentence, is man who enters upon public life. What saddled with costs; but there were Counsel Mr Pitman did, however, was something on both sides, and both have to be paid, al- very different from an assertion of his in- though the money consideration could have dividual right to do this. By way of re- been of little account in the eyes of Mr Nel- venging a severe but fair public hit, honest son. Still the fact remains that it costs ly and straightforwardly dealt at him in a money to clear one's reputation when attacks public meeting, and published the follow- such as that in question are made. ing day, the defendant in this case, after
The matter becomes even more important five weeks' deliberation, skilfully gives his when it is borne in mind that one of the opponent a stab in the dark which might most prominent reasons given for the "falso, have proved the social and commercial ruin caudalous and malicious" attack made by of Mr Nelson. This is how the Jury have Mr Pitman upon Mr Nelson is, that the lat unanimously interpreted the charges brought ter had "long carried on a bitter, active and against Mr Pitman; and as this sort of re- ceaseless opposition to the Governor of the taliation outs at the very roots of social Colony," While studiously avoiding any life, the verdict of the Jury must moet discussion as to whether Mr Pitman is a with the fullest approval of all respectable properly constituted or appropriate vindi- mon. The punishment, however, that has cator of the Governor, the vast importance been meted out to the defendant does not of the partial developments in this case can seem to be adequate to the offence. When scarcely be overrated. To differ on political the Chief Justice sentenced Mr Pitman to or public questions with Sir John Hennessy pay the sum of $60, it was generally felt would seem to be, in the eyes of some, an that His Lordship'a remark, "I am not at offence which ought to be visited with the all sure that I am doing right in this mat-direst consequences; but it must be subject ter," was exceedingly apt and appropriate to for regret that, in this case at least, Mr the circumstances. It was a species of Pitman did not keep his keen blade quietly triumph to defendant and his friends, and in its sheath rather than by its friendly therefore it was thus far a failure of Justice. thrust to have so paraded and endangered His Lordship doubtless thought more of the valued friendship of fifteen years' stand- Meroy, which is said to be the very highest ing. The language used by Mr Hayllar, attribute of a just Judge, than of Justice; Q.C., in his admirably temperate address on and we have not the slightest doubt but this point, is well worthy of attention. He that the Judge in this case was in the path said It seemed to him to be an ex- of duty, though he did not go far enough. cessively grave question which he now laid It is impossible to know what was in the before them, and one of very grave itsport- mind of the learned Chief Justice at the ance in a Colony like this, whether any man time; but we can merely state now what was to take part in public life according to was the expectation of those who had closely his solemn convictions, whatever they might followed the case, and the keen disappoint- be, at the risk of his public character being meut, not so much that Mr Fitman Was let assailed, Bat as it seemed to him, that off so cheaply, but that Justice was not, in seemed to be the point they came to within their opinion, fully vindicated. Had the the four corners of this document. It was a defendant received a few hours' imprison- very solema question and one that same ment and been ordered to pay a fine of $600, home to all of them: they had their public it would have been much more satisfactory to proceedings canvassed, their private life the community of Hongkong, than the inade assailed, their private actions had been dealt quate sentence that has been passed upon with." him. This will doubtless he put down as To descend to a comparatively small mat- prejudice against Mr Pitman and against ter, it would have been better-as Mr his acknowledged friend at the Head of the Hayllar said in his speech--had Mr Francis Executive; but as we have already stated, left his remarks about the China Mail un- this is not a true estimate of feeling in this said. He was correct in one particular, Colony. Mr Pitman had clearly removed however, viz., that no case had ever been the fight out of the region of public pole-reported like that of Regina v. Pitman; and mios into that of social life; and every one we undertake to say that no better report knows how keenly a deep wrong of this kind than that presented in yesterday's issue has done to a member of the social body toushes ever appeared in any daily paper in the the sensibilities of a community. Every one East. The case, as Mr Francis bimself naturally asks whose turn it is to receive admits, possesses historical importance- the next blow, and the hitherto sound past, present and future; and that being so,
(Daily Press, June 10.)
( 51 )
while the utterances of Mr Francis and gentleman who might have been inimical to others will thus go down to future genera-Me Nelson, and who instead of showing it to tions in these columas, we fail to see the him might have forwarded it straight to the ground of complaint of the learned Counsel directors of the Bank, without giving him a for the defendant. As the ease was of hearing or any opportunity for explanation. sufficient importance to engage the attend-It was really, though we trust the defendant ance of a note-taker from Government did not mean it as such, a stab in the dark. House, surely we cannot be accused of Mr Nelson was necessarily thrown upon his contexipt or misconduct in merely doing defence. He had no option. Ho was com- our duty. We trust that the learned pelled to take some stops to clear his Counsel derives as much satisfaction from reputation, and he chose to institute crimin- the performance of his public duties as we al proceedings in preference to bringing an do from the performanes of ours.
action for damages. We presumas he will be content with the result. 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 The verdict of the jury in the Pitman nothing of the anxiety which he must have libel case surprised no one; the sentence felt during the last few weeks, Moreover, inflicted by the Chief Justice caused some he has been found guilty by a jury of astonishment. It was confidently anticipat-publishing a false and malicious libel, for ed that a fine of five hundred dollars and a which he has to pay the penalty, and con- short term of imprisonment would have been sidering all things, that penalty, even as it the inevitable corollary of a verdict against stands, is no light one. Mr Nelson, on the the defendant. Not so thought the Chief other hand, has cleared himself of a damag- Justice, who apparently considered that the ing imputation and set himself right with defendant had received material provocation his directors and the public. Perhaps the in Mr Nelson's remarks on him at the most salutary effect of this cause célèbre, Chamber of Commerce at last annual meeting. however, will be to once more remind the Granting that the words then used by Mr public that letters written incautiously or in Nelson produced an exasperating effect on anger with the attempt to undermine a man Mr Pitman, we would respectfully submit with his employers are apt to recoil on the that they were openly said, with a full head of their anthor. If the defendant felt knowledge that they would roach the party that a wrong had been done to him by concerned, and they were not calculated to Mr Nelson, he should have resorted to the injure the private character of, or to inter-proper means of redress. He chose to go fere with the pursuit of his profession by, another way to work, the outcome of which Mr Pitman. The letter of the latter gentle was the trial in Court just concluded.
man, on the contrary, was addressed to a cannot fail to regret his action.
He
422
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.