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 77

Freedom of Speech. — A British Birthright Gone

Freedom of Speech.

A British Birthright Gone.

The Seddon Government has placed on the Statute Book an Act which may make it a criminal offence for anyone to speak plainly about public men. As we have said, and as has been repeatedly said in Parliament the Government have used the numerous State services and the power they have over the public purse to secure political support. Hitherto any member could comment freely upon such actions, but under the amendment of the Criminal Code Act just passed, any member making any such statement may be hauled before a Magistrate, and may have to run the gauntlet of a criminal action, prosecuted by the State in the middle of an election. To scape this he must justify the language used. How is this possible when it is a matter of intention? Everyone knows that the grants of money made for harbours, for railways, for public buildings and other public services always appear just on the eve of an election. Who can prove that these grants were made to gain political support? Everyone knows that it is so, but to prove it is another matter; and with Magistrates in the dependent position they are, is it unlikely that some will consider such comments unjustifiable? It is only after a public man has prosecuted a civil action to success, and failed to receive his damages that public statements should be considered criminal. To gag freedom of speech is a bad thing, and as Sir William Russell said is only to be found in countries where the knife and bullet are used to settle political and private grievances.

The Seddon Government has transferred to the public works or loan fund during the past 14 years £4,355,000 out of surplus taxes paid by the taxpayers. This, they say, saves the taxpayers £143,800 a year. Well, let this be granted, then the Seddon Government should explain why they took £4,355,000 more out of the taxpayers' pockets than was needed for State services and expended it on public works that should have been paid for by the whole colony. Would this money not be better in the taxpayers' pockets? In other words, Mr Seddon says, "If you give me £100 in cash that will-save you £4 a year "A curious method of saving'