Nelson Colonist.

In another column we publish a precis, as supplied by the Press Association, of the Newspaper Libel Limitation Bill introduced by the Minister of Lands, and a more objectionable measure it would be difficult to imagine. So far as the proprietors and editors of the daily press are concerned, the passing of this Bill would lead to irritation and annoyance rather than to any serious check, but to the people at large it would be more than annoying, for it would probably prevent many from making a complaint or offering fair criticism through the open columns of the press, where such complaint or criticism could only lead to good. In this way we look upon the measure in question as an unworthy attempt to apply the gag, and we are sorry to say the effort is being made by a professing Liberal. That the press of a free people should have complete liberty cannot be gainsaid, but the word liberty must not be taken to include license. No man because he is a journalist should have a special dispensation for blackening the characters of the innocent, but on the other hand a newspaper writer or proprietor should when endeavouring to warn the people against fraud, be protected from mere blackmailers, and in the publication of fair reports of local bodies, a newspaper should be safe-guarded. The late Mr. Justice Johnston, over twenty years ago, was asked by the foreman of the jury before which a libel action was being heard whether it was libel if a journalist in exposing irregularities in a Government department used language stronger than the circumstances warranted. His Honor in reply said, the only duty of a journalist was to tell the truth, and defend the truth. If he used language beyond the truth, he was certainly guilty of libel, and he went on to say, "Are you justified in making accusations against a man which his acts do not fully warrant. If so, libel of the very worst kind could be justified on this ground. . . . Where publishers are evidently actuated only by motives of public welfare, we must not put too narrow a construction upon their expressions; but they are bound not to vituperate nor calumniate; and where there is mere irregularity, for them to accuse of fraud and trickery may be very gross libel." It would unquestionably be a bad thing for the colony if license were given to vituperate and calumniate, but under Mr. McKenzie's Bill it is proposed to place needless restrictions on journalists. Hereafter it is to be a privilege to publish an article or a letter commenting on public affairs, but the small privilege is only to be given provided that the publication is without malice, and the name of the writer is printed at the end of such article or letter, and the privilege is not to protect the printer or the publisher from libel. Under the provisions of this Bill it would seem that nearly every newspaper paragraph and many telegrams would need to be signed, for even a record of facts may be held to be an indirect comment, and a fine of not less than five pounds or more than fifty pounds is to be the penalty for publishing any comment or any letter without the name of the writer, and the proprietor, the editor, the printer, and the publisher are to be severally liable. Then, as if this were not sufficient, the fact of publishing without the name of the writer is to be taken as evidence of malice in any civil or criminal proceedings. A man who attains to the position of a Cabinet Minister ought to recognise that some dignity should be exercised by anyone holding such a post, but unfortunately the author of this Bill has made himself supremely ridiculous. The whole thing is a mere waste of time, for unless we are much mistaken, there is no chance of the Bill becoming law, and if it were by any means to pass, a repeal would assuredly be demanded next year—unless means were devised by which the provisions were to some extent evaded, and the probabilities are that this would not be difficult.