Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 72

Napier Evening News

Napier Evening News.

When, a week or two ago, we published the Libel Limitation Bill introduced by the Hon. John McKenzie, we did so without comment, for two reasons. In the first place, we did not wish to place obstacles in the way of the enthusiastic Minister of Lands, while he was piloting his Lands for Settlement Bill through the House. We thought he had quite enough obstruction in his path as he bore his policy-burden, without being obstructed on this subject. We stood aside to let him pass with his load. Secondly, we never took Mr. McKenzie's Bill seriously. We never supposed for a moment that the House would pass a measure so preposterous. However, the Journalists Institute having taken the matter up, we must not be silent. We are of opinion that the Institute page 6 has exhibited needless precipitancy. The House might have been trusted to reject such a measure as this. It is evidently the outcome of personal spleen, and the House is not so undiscerning as to overlook that. It is not a Policy Bill, and no suggestion of party loyalty could for a moment be entertained by members when the division bell should ring. No want-of-confidence debate could arise out of a defeat. Our brother journalists have taken the matter up with warmth, and we cannot deny the cogency of their reasoning. They say the Bill, if passed into law, would lessen the influence of the press; that the Bill is an apparent substitute for the measure which the Premier promised last year he would bring forward. He has been anticipated by his colleague, and this circumstance certainly does not make the present Bill any more acceptable. We fancy Mr. McKenzie must by this time have realised the full import of the Bill, which no doubt emanated from him when he was smarting under the gross unfair and scurrilous attacks which were being made upon him in some quarters, while he was earnestly striving to carry out a grand purpose in regard to the settlement of the people on the land. His great measure has now passed through the House, and is beyond his control or that of the representatives of the people; and Mr. McKenzie is doubtless able to look more calmly at the measure which he framed in anger. The Bill if carried into law would not only deal a paralysing blow at the journalistic profession. That is a less important matter than the effect it would have on public opinion. That is the point upon which the real interest centres. Public opinion is the atmosphere of society, and just as necessary is a healthy public opinion for the ventilation of our institutions as that the physical atmosphere we breathe should be kept pure. The healthfulness of public opinion is maintained by the free expression of sentiment, and it is in a great measure to the freedom of the press, which British communities have so pre-eminently enjoyed, that the stability of our constitution is due. Any attempt to gag the mouthpiece of public opinion would have a seriously evil effect. It would lead to congestion of sentiment, and out of that what might not evolve in these days of political unrest? The press, if it serves no other purpose, is undoubtedly a safety valve. Every journalist of experience knows this. It may be illustrated by reference to the ordinary citizen who is excited by some circumstance. His interest or indignation is aroused, and as there is a free press at hand, he proceeds straightway to pour out his soul in a letter to the editor. Next day, when the letter has appeared, his interest in the subject gives place to a complacent view of his own production, and a feeling of satisfaction at having done his duty at any rate. And there is no need to fear any real corruption of the press. There are and there always will be scurrilous writers; there are and there always will be venal writers. We shall always hear the sound of somebody under the lash, the protest of some individual or corporation against censure. There will always be some injustice done by newspapers. But to say this is merely to say that the press is a human institution, and if the situation be dispassionately examined, it will be found that the occasional wrongs inflicted by the press are a thousand times more than counterbalanced by the controlling power which it exercises over public affairs. Would Mr. McKenzie (to put it fairly and squarely, and in his cool moments) extinguish the 'fierce light' in which public men walk? Does he not understand that the sense of being so illuminated, in the presence of the community, has a good deal of influence in keeping our public men pure and preventing corruption? The Minister in charge of this precious Bill would extinguish the light; for by compelling every writer to sign his name, he would prevent public questions being effectively discussed. The personality of a writer may be surmised,—it may be known and page 7 generally is, in the case of an editor. But that personality is not obtruded when he does not sign his articles, and the reader accepts the indication, viz., that the subject is to be discussed apart from the writer. The limitation and restrictions already in force around journalism are sufficient to keep it from degenerating, or from seriously injuring an individual or a cause, and we hope to see the Minister withdraw this Bill, and support the more reasonable and earlier proposal to assimilate the law of libel in New Zealand to that in force in England. We can assure Mr. McKenzie that the profession feel far more kindly towards him than he appears to do towards them. Even those who are against him pay tribute readily to the purity of his motives and his unselfish earnestness in pursuit of the colony's good. That the Bill will be withdrawn or shelved we sincerely trust for his sake; for to carry it further into the region of debate would be to court a crushing and ignominious defeat.