The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1893-04-14
Journalistic Ethics.
IDlToR BULLETIN

lerceptibly deteriorated. Person
lities have been largely substituted
i)r arguments. The living and the
tead alike have been held up to
lidicule and contempt, and that too
concerning matters which can in no
way affect the question at issue;
Least OF all can it be supposed that
the sympathy or Judgment of the
American Commissioner can be en-
listed or Influenced by attacks un- 50
scrupulously made. There are Jour
nails and journals. Some news
papers make no claim to the obser-
vance of journalistic ethics. They
are professedly personal and reck-
less. People buy them and read
them to be amused, not convinced.
Nobody pays any attention to what
they say, and it is recognized that
their witticisms are mere obiter dicto.
Whatever may be said of other
papers, people were given to under
stand that the Star was to be a
serious political journal. Night
after night this evening star wrinkles
and scintillates through an atmos-
phere thick and poisonous with per-
sonalities. Surely its editor-in-chi
would have advanced the interests
of his party and made his journal
more of power in this community,
if he had scrupulously refrained .
from trumpery witticisms aimed
simply at the sensibility of his sup
posed opponents. The mere per-
sonality of a writer has nothing to
do with the case, excepting in one
instance only. And that is when the
personal actions of the writer prove
that he is not sincere in his state
ments If, for instance, it could be-
proved that any one who now de-
nounces the Queen as an idolatre SIS
and worse, had, within few mont hs
of the rebellion, entertained ! Ter
Majesty with obsequious politen ess,
and had received her into his fan lilly.
There, say, we should prove + atal
inconsistency. There is not ning
wrong in either course of action but
they are not compatible nor COZ lsist-
ent with serious sincerity.
The action of one of the Wash
ington Commissioners is open. to a
similar commentary if it can be
established that in the early part of
January last he begged the Queen
to assist him in paying the salary oi
the pastor of kawaiahao church. Ol
which this Commissioner was treas
urer; if it can be proved that he ex-
pressed his deepest sense of graft
lude for check for $500 which Hel
Majesty handed TO him. If within
4 week or two from that date he is
found reviling the Queen as an unfit
person to reign on account of hel
idolatry, this, l say, is persona
matter going far to stamp his con
duct with fatal Inconsistency. There
would be no harm in denouncing thu
Queen-if done conscientiously; NJ
narm in receiving her check 70
church purposes, but blowing no
and cold" is mild form of descrip
ton for the combined action.
The Star has published an articl
from the pen of Mr. Parsons Lath
rop. The editor of the Star mus
have known that the personality o
that article was of the nature whicl
[ have stated is totally irrelevant
The rejoinder of Mr.. Davies abso
lutely destroys the ''royalty" view
of Mr.. Lathrop. But the attack ol
Mr.. Cleghorn is simply untrue ant
personally insulting. That Mr.. Cleg
horns father, when he landed i
Honolulu, was not millionaire ha
but small bearing on the question @
annexation. The editor OF the Sta
knows of his own knowledge tina
Nuuanu street was not till long afte
athat date the Chinese quarter of thi
city. Most people that | have mt
know that the Cleghorn family
not English, did not come with tn
Sydney gold-seekers. The preser
Collector General of Customs, ha'
ing resided in Honolulu for over
years, is surely entitled to some Ii
tie consideration from the publ
especially in the day of his sevel
affection.
But everything in the way of pc
sonality pales before the outrageo'
attack on the character of the la
Governor Dominis. To descrif
him as he is described in the lett
copied by the Star is an insult to h
many and true friends who hold h
memory in affection, An attac
made in distant Boston newspap
on a dead man of Honolulu is
very queSUlOudDle IdSJe; DuI Ihcl
can be no question about the tas
of Honolulu paper reprinting ii
indecency.
John Dominis had his fault, br
his fault recoiled on his own hea
never on Others. In spite of his fa
ing he was true gentleman, 81
cere friend, with hand ever reaC
to help the distressed, and it is I
indecency to read OF him as a wort
less fellow. He was not. And hi
the tables been turned, had Go
ernor Dominis survived the edit
of the Star, that editor might
perfectly certain that in the han
of John Dominis his reputati'
would have been in safe keepin
Never would he have tolerated {
unworthy insinuation to be utter
against a dead man, whose liyiI
hand he had often sought to gras
Let the question be settled on
merits. 1t will be better settled
with more judgment aud less ac
mony. This is small communit
1t is surrounded with glass on
sides. He is a bold man to take
stone throwing-and foolish
STAFF