The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1869-01-06

We frequently hear and see the express
sion that public men are public property, "
and if habit did not blunt ones appreeia-
ton of the wonderful, it would be some
times marvellous TO see what ideas of the
rights of individuals in and to this public
property, those, in whose mouths this aphor-
ism is most often found, seem to have.
Because public buildings are public proper
ty, and differ from the kind Of property
spoken of. inasmuch as they are positively
owned by ihe public, no one thinks that
individuals have right to bedaub them
with mud obstruct their means of useful
ness to the public, dig specimen bricks out
of them, or in general to deface and abuse
them. The public acts of public men are
public property, and being matters of in
terest to the public are fair and legitimate
objects of discussion and comment, wheth-
er that comment be favorable or adverse.
So likewise. one who lives in the public
eye, makes his public mode of life, by which
is meant his ordinary bearing towards his
fellow men, fair subject of criticisms, and
so far as he is removed from obscurlty and
is more marked among his fellow citizens,
more observed, and therefore more mat
ter of interest to them, he and his charac-
ter and acts may be considered fair marks
of comment. But the impression that
seems to attain in some minds, that be-
cause man has public employment, or is
u candidate for public Office, therefore, he
is justly an object or subject of blackguard-
ism or aspersions, is not quite correct.
The public instructors of morality, from
the pulpit or rostrum, would hardly venture
the proposition that it was less sin to
bear false witness against one holding pub
lie position, either high or low, than against
merchants solvency or integrity, mat
ron's or maiden's chastity, or a elergyman's
or physicians general propriety of conduct
We even venture to put forth the idea
that one who statesathing to be true,
not knowing it to be so, or perhaps not car
ing whether it is true or not, is equally gull
ty in point ofveracity, or rather want of it
as he who deliberately asserts falsehood;
and ought it not to be the idea that pub
lie mans character is public property, SO
that every one should be interested in it,
to see that it is not unjustly assailed, but
that he and the public get the full advan-
tage of that property.
Ones thoughts are naturally directed to
this subject in looking over the newspa-
pers from the United States during the
late campaign" for the Presidential cleo
ton. Not that the candidates have been
assailed with more vituperation than is
usual--on the contrary, it may be said that
they got off rather lightly. The Nation,
a paper which we can recommend to our
readers as one of the very best which
comes to hand, says that "the way Mr..
Colfax escapes is something wonderful and
proves his popularity to be almost unpre-
cedented." The same paper says that the
only charge brought against him is,
THAT of hlving-in order to receive anoth-
er visitor who sent in his card on "silyer
waiter''--snubbed a soldier who had asked for
an interview. The soldier had been previous
ly requested by pampered mental to deposit
his card or the same evidence Of wanton lux |
ury, but the veteran, not having his card-ease |
about him, refused to comply, and the snob-
bish Colfax, disgusted with his vulgarity, |
haughtily refused to converse with him. This |
story Mr.. Colfax disposed of by peremp tory |
denial, and added that he never owned a "sil- |
yer salver." Disheartened by the result of
this first attempt, the party troubadours have |
ever since let him severely alone"
The same Paper-after recounting the
absurd stories circulated regarding "Gen.
Grants having stolen Shetland poney-
on one occasion-which his boy rides. with |
two black grooms behind him." and on an
other, "a silver tea-set, which Mrs. Grant
and himself habitually use, at their resi-
dence in Washington" and to Gen. Blair's
having sliced off somebody's nose with
carving knife makes the following very hap
py remarks about the habit and art of
newspaper lying:
"The Ckiccgo Tribune is displeased with |
us for not marking, in cur account of cam
paign stories, our appreciation Of the essential
difference between stories, such, for instance,
as stories of Blair's drunkenness and stories
of Grants drunkenness-the former being true I
and the latter false. Let us say, in the first
place. that in every reference we have made to
the campaign stories in the Week, we have
noticed them simply works Of art, and not /
as instruments of persuasion. OF their utility
we have not thought, and do not mean to
think, in this place We enjoy them, simply
to others we leave the task of analysing them.
If the Tribune chooses to take cold ultiiita-
rian view of them, let it. We shall do moth
ing of the kind. Let US say, in the second
place. however, that if, as instruments of per-
suasion, campaign stories do not count for
much, one party is as much to blame as the
other. The great reason why our stories of
Blair's drunkenness do not produce much ef-
feet is, that some of us who now tell them told
similar stories of Grants drunkenness before
he was nominated. Now, the public at large
do not believe, as some newspapers appear to
believe-we need not say we do not include
the Chicago Tribune in the nnmber-that it is
in the power of political convention to change
the moral order Of the universe. and make it
all right to lie about one man, and all wrong
to lie about another so, having discovered
that we lied about Grant, they are unwilling
to believe that we tell the truth about Blair,