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

The Bush Advocate

The Bush Advocate.

How much our legislators are exercised about the press is a marvel, and if they are permitted to have their way the boasted freedom which it is reputed to enjoy will soon be a thing of the past. The press of New Zealand has always had the credit of having been well conducted, but of course they must and do comment on man and things, and sometimes are compelled to write in a strain which is not altogether palatable. Well, this is just it, as long as men are flattered and cajoled, then the press is, in their opinion, fully entitled to be called the "Fourth Estate," but let the press rub the hair the wrong way, and all the fat is in the fire. The newspaper comment must be curbed, and attempts are made to literally gag the press. Well, we know of many instances where the freedom of the press has been interfered with, but none of them ever succeed. The inhabitants of Great Britain and the Colonies have been too long used to a free and untrammelled press to stand idly by and see the privileges of fair comment taken from them. The press has greatly assisted to build up the nation to its present greatness; this has been generally recognised, and we believe any attempt to curtail its powers will be nipped in the bud. The present Ministry deem that they have never had justice done to them or their measures by the press; but they should consider that there always were, and always will be, two sections, one for and one against. An unanimous press would be a misnomer, a servile thing which would not be tolerated by the people, and when Ministers faithfully and honourably do their duty, the fact of having done so should make them perfectly indifferent as to the comments of opposition newspapers, knowing that right will always triumph, and come to the front clear as the day. We remember that esteemed Judge of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Richmond, commiserating with a plaintiff in a libel case, in which the verdict had gone against him, saying that men were judged by their walk in life, which gave the lie to any calumnious thing which might be said about them. In like manner Ministers should not be so thin-skinned as to what may be said about them in the Opposition journals. They are in a majority both in the House and the country, the like of which no other Government ever enjoyed, and can afford to laugh at any malicious shafts which may be directed against them. However, Ministers have not come to that sensible frame of mind yet, and as a consequence we have this Libel Bill before the House, by which 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 page 8 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." This clause is certainly a most objectionable one, and while doing no good, it would rob the newspapers of all their influence. The leading article is generally looked on as a kind of inspired contribution, and a sort of finger-post to direct the people, but if at the end of it, for instance, is attached "Jack Smith," the veil would be completely pulled aside, and the article looked upon simply as the private opinion publicly expressed of one member of that numerous family; and, instead of the leader being viewed as an ornament to the paper, it would merely assume the form of a letter written by so and so, and as such be deprived of all influence as a direction of public opinion. Penalties of from £5 to £50 are to be recoverable summarily before a Stipendiary Magistrate from the proprietor of any newspaper who does not print the name of the writer at the foot of each article; and 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 publicacion 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. Such is a synopsis of the new pains and penalties which are to be fastened on to the news-papers; but we have hope the Ministry will think twice before they put such gags on the freedom of the press. No such limitations of the press have even been attempted in any other English-speaking community, and we do not think such a source of procedure will be tolerated in New Zealand, which has hitherto led the van in all reform.