The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-04 00:00:00

Oltenbut irni

LONDON, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1851.

There is an inherent love in every true English
heart for what is termed "fair play." Prejudices
may for a time prevail any departure from the
beaten track, any novel project, however promising,
may excite suspicion, and lead to a strict investiga-
tion—a searching scrutiny into the characters and
motives of the parties concerned. This is perfectly
justifiable, and will be readily conceded by the pro-
moters of every legitimate and bona fide undertaking.
They must be willing to render full explanations, to
meet any charges that may be preferred ; and if un-
able to do so, must submit to the inevitable conse-
quences. But, in return, they have an unquestionable
right to be heard in their own defence, to be allowed
to bring forward their proofs, to repel any and every
accusation. Audi alteram partem, Is a golden rule
that has ever been recognised and respected in this
happy land. The most atrocious miscreant that ever
disgraced humanity is permitted the privilege of
meeting his accusers face to face, of hearing their
evidence, of obtaining answers to such interrogatories
as may be calculated to throw light upon the subject,
and to rely upon the legal presumption in favour of
innocence until his guilt be clearly, distinctly, and
unequivocally established. It is also understood that
the same publicity should be afforded to the answer
that had previously been given to the charge—
nothing can be more unjust or, according to our
English phraseology, " unfair," than to give cur-
rency and extensive circulation to a grave accusation,
and to refuse an equal publicity to the vindication.
The latter, if it can be given, should always be
put forward through the same medium as the
former, that none might hear of the one who
would not also have the other brought under
their notice. This may not al ways be
practicable, but so far as it can be done, it is the
right of the party or parties on trial. A public
journal may, in this respect, be assimilated to the
spear of TELEPLIUS, which can alone heal the wound
it had inflicted, which can alone provide the antidotes
for the poison administered, and no duty can be more
imperative than that which attaches to the managers
and editors of newspapers of giving insertion to the
answers of those who may be attacked in their
columns. According to the " code of honour," a
blow levelled all distinctions, and any person, how-
ever exalted his rank or station in society, who so far
forgot himself as to be guilty of personal violence
was bound to render full and complete satisfaction
to his opponent. In like manner, any member of
the "fourth estate" is bound to provide space for
any person assailed to repel the charges contained in
former numbers of his publication.

This just retribution is, however, not always freely
rendered ; public opinion is sometimes set at defiance.
The insinuations of anonymous correspondents may
be received and published, while the indignant refuta-
tion of the unwarranted calumnies by the injured
parties are totally suppressed. Such conduct is not at
all becoming, and the more unworthy in proportion to
the rank and position of the aggressors.
" The whispered hint—the shrug, the hum or ha,
These petty brands that calumny doth use"—

are at all times detestable, but more especially so
when all redress is denied to the sufferers ; and we
deeply regret that a sense ofjustice compels us to direct
attention to a very gross instance of such a depar-
ture from the ordinary rules by which the Press
should be governed.
On the 23d of October last, a furious and utterly
unwarranted attack appeared in the Times
against the directors and managers of the Anglo-
Californian Gold Mining Company. Sundry weighty
charges were preferred, but others of even a graver
character were more than hinted. The directors
acted in the manner that might have been expected
from -men of honour. A full and complete answer
was prepared and forwarded to the office of that
journal—an answer in which these unwarranted im-
putations were not only fully explained and rebutted,
but the true position of the company clearly set forth.
Criticism was not deprecated, because the directors,
conscious of the purity and integrity of their motives,
and of the legitimate nature of their speculations, in..
vited the strictest scrutiny, convinced that the light
of truth would ultimately disperse and dissipate the
mists of prejudice. The Times, however, refused to
oitnseertbparteiorhivosaiparcee, p;,which the
1e and satisfactory explanation, acting
"more honoured
eLeviathan,"
t thaen
inthe pleni-
tude
breacht ha
hoe o
of his power, occasionally ventures to adopt. In-
fluenced by a sense of justice to the parties interested,
whose reputations we know to be above reproach, we
published, the lst Noovembe,r last, the
letterbl ishfreodtn in
theTlie Sun Chair of
ofthe Company, CA'.
VENDISH STUART RUMBOLD,
Bart., which had been
u
rejected by our morning contemporary. Sir HENRY
VEBE HUNTLEY, an English officer and an English
gentleman, who was then absent in another hemi-
sphere,-
witness.onthe businessof the company, was a neces-
sary England was anticipated. He was in possession of
documents that could show the total want of veracity
of the aggressor, the falsehood of the accusations that
had been heaped on the devoted heads of the direc-
tors, and until the period of his return arrived, and