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

Wanganui Chronicle

Wanganui Chronicle.

If the present Government can have their way, nobody will be allowed in the future to write to the newspapers without attaching, for publication, the writer's full name and address. Neither will it be permissible to publish any article or paragraph exceeding 150 words (about twenty lines), without the full signature and address of the writer being printed at the foot thereof. We have not yet received a copy of the Bill, but the summary of its provisions forwarded by our special correspondent will, we think, astonish our readers. An article is defined by the Bill as meaning any printed matter (other than letters, commercial reports, and commercial advertisements), appearing in any newspaper, and comprising more than 150 words. The main operative clause of the Bill states: "In so far as concerns the proprietor, editor, printer, or publisher of a newspaper, any article or letter published therein is privileged, if such article or letter be published without malice, and disclose at the imprint at its foot the true and full name and address of the writer; but nothing contained in this section shall be construed to in any way protect such writer even though he be such proprietor, editor, printer, or publisher." In order to make the Bill as harassing as possible, it is expressly stipulated that if in any newspaper page 22 there be published any article or letter which does not disclose or print at its foot the true and full name and address of its writer, the proprietor, editor, printer, and publisher are severally liable to a penalty of not less than £5 or more than £50, to be recovered summarily before a Stipendiary Magistrate. The concluding clauses state that no penalty inflicted under the Act will in any way be an answer to any proceedings for libel, and that the publication of an article or letter without the name and address of the writer is to be taken as an evidence of express malice in any civil or criminal proceedings that may ensue. And this is Liberalism! The Bill is introduced by the Hon. Mr McKenzie, at the request of his colleagues, and is a Ministerial measure. As such, Mr. McKenzie can carry it through, provided he cares to risk putting a little more strain upon the allegiance of his supporters. There is just the possibility, however, that the "Dumb Dog Party" may begin to open their mouths and show their teeth. Already a few have begun to bark angrily, and if further provoked they may bite. But to return to the Bill. Its aim is to "gag" the people. It will not make a particle of difference to newspaper editors and proprietors, but it will place a complete bar against working men and women using the press for the purpose of ventilating grievances, or discussing public questions. At present, editors and proprietors are responsible for everything that appears in their papers. A member of a local body may make libellous and slanderous statements at a meeting of such body, and escape all responsibility therefore, but the unhappy editor who publishes his speech word for word as he delivered it, is liable at law in costs and damages for so doing. An elector may write a letter to a paper, and escape all responsibility for the statements contained therein, because of an aggrieved person preferring to take civil or criminal proceedings against the publisher instead. Mr. McKenzie does not propose to relieve newspaper people from any of their present disabilities, but rather to further hamper and harass them, and annihilate what is known as the "open column." Professional writers and people in independent circumstances would, under the Bill, have a monoply of the papers, while the rank and file of the people would be obliged to put their pens away. The correspondence column in the newspaper is to the working-man writer what the ballot-box is to the working-man voter. The latter enables him to vote as he thinks right, without any fear of coercion; the former affords him the opportunity of giving free expression to his views without subjecting him to personal ridicule or vindictive spleen of his masters or social superiors. To shut the mouths of the people may be McKenzie-ism, but it surely cannot be called Liberalism.

To the great majority outside of press circles it matters little what the law of libel is, but to those whose living depends on the pen and the fruits of their brains it is something of more than passing importance, and may be said through them to have a general interest, for whatever is for the safe guarding of liberties is a benefit to the community as well as to the individual. What has been asked for by newspapers in this colony for some years past is that the law of New Zealand shall be assimilated to the law of England. It is one of the peculiarities of our own profession that in place of this progressive colony showing the lead in this matter, as it has done in so many others, it has to follow. But even the privilege of following is and has been denied. For some years this has been due to the persistent efforts of men like Mr. G. Fisher, who themselves have been connected with the Fourth Estate, and Mr. H. S. Fish, whose notorious conduct had so often brought him under the laches of the press, and now the delay comes from another source, to wit the Minister of Lands, who hates journalists and journalism as the devil page 23 is said to hate holy water. The law for Libel Bill has twice, if not thrice, passed the Legislative Council, and this session, in order to give it a better chance, the Premier promised (Mr. McKenzie says in a weak moment) to introduce it in the House of Representatives at an early date. Having failed to keep his promise he was reminded of it, and jocularly referred the questioner, Mr. W. Hutchison, to the Minister for Lands, who in his reply said he would bring down a Bill which would prevent libel in future. The Bill brought down is not the Bill promised at all, but a measure which provides simply for signed articles as in France. This practice can be discussed without in any way trenching on the grounds of the reasonableness of press demands for a new libel law. The great difference between English and French journalism has been the anonymity of the first-mentioned, while in France signed articles though not de riguer are at least the general rule. To the ambitious journalist there is an attraction about the French system, because it offers a chance of large salaries, and to a very great extent we find that in England the men who write under a now de plume are just as readily known as though they signed their real name and address. Anyone who wants to know the views of George Augustus Sala knows exactly which is his leader in the Daily Telegraph by its position, the theatrical criticism of Archer, though only initialled by him, are known to all, and so on, and it is because these names are in demand that the owners secure such large salaries, whereas under the anonymous system they might toil unknown all their lives, the credit of their smart writings going to the paper and the proprietor, who "discovers" them, as the term goes. Under the editorial "we," on the other hand, while there is much labour, erudition, and faithful work that can never be known, and unfortunately is too little appreciated by a public that forgets the article as soon as read, and never thinks of the writer, there is still a sense of responsibility that a true journalist never forgets. It is the custom with some flippant critics of the press to look on the opinions of the "we" as only those of one man, and to claim for themselves the same rights of judgment as the editor. This is too often mere folly. There are few, if any, of the principal papers in the colony the leading articles of which are written by one individual. But supposing for a moment they were, they represent the result of rubbing shoulders with men and women by those who are particularly and peculiarly adapted for the work, who do nothing else in going through life but set themselves out to gather ideas from other people, so that by assimilating them with their own they may at last be able to put forth something which will tend to form and mould public opinion. The right of all who read to judge for themselves is of course conceded, nor did such a demand need to be made, for it is the foundation of all our liberties, political, social, and religious, but those who sit in judgment on the writers should bear in mind that though they may differ from their paper the views expressed are published without view to personal aggrandisement, for public honours and State remuneration come not in the direction of the pressman. Leaving Mr. McKenzie's Bill alone, the general reader may ask what is that the newspaper press of the colony want in their Libel Bill? Briefly, they want protection in the carrying out of their work. First of all it is unfair that a paper should be liable to be mulct in damages for giving a fair and impartial report of a public meeting, but so it is, and the law of England protects the press against actions of the kind, But the main grievance is "the man of straw" who can find some Dodson and Fog kind of lawyer to bring an action against a respectable journal, and having lost his case and put the paper to a great deal of expense, he simply leaves it in the lurch to pay its lawyer the fees he should have page 24 paid. Newspapers ask that before libel actions are brought security should be given for costs, so that if victory rests with the paper it shall not be the worse than hollow one which lands them in expense because of the dastardly and cowardly conduct of the plaintiff. This is not un-reasonable. No proprietor or editor in the colony likes a libel action. The very thought of going to law is sufficient to drive them to any extreme of apology or retraction, sometimes not short of an indignity, and in asking for this measure of justice the newspapers do not ask for a license to libel all and sundry, for their Bill provides that in the case of a person who thinks himself libelled but who is without funds, a judge shall decide whether he has a case or not before it is allowed to proceed. Thus no injustice is done to the poor whose honour and good name might be at stake, but the man of straw with a purely imaginary grievance set up often only to drag blood money from those who do not wish to go to law, would receive his quietus, and this Mr. McKenzie's Bill leaves out entirely.