PRESS LIBERTY.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17155, 26 May 1921, Page 8

PRESS LIBERTY.

DENIED BY LORD MAYOR OP •SYDNEY.

EXTRAORDINARY D.EMANDS

Yesterday afternoon the Lord Mayor of Sydney practically demanded the surrender to himself of the editorial discretion of the "Herald" as the price at which, he will consent to give information for publication in the columns of the paper (says the "Sydney Morning Herald" of the 17th inst.). ' For some time tlie Town Hall authorities have been restive under the. criticism to which they have been subjected. This restiveness "culminated yesterday in the Lord Mayor practically inviting a refusal to publish statements which he had made, as a pretext for declining in future to give news to the representatives of the: "Herald." Neither., if the matters which he discussed is related to Town Hall affairs. They are of general political significance only, so that, his- Worship is endeavouring to use his position as Lord Major to force the dissemination of his general political opinions, and, failing success in that, he' threatens to deprive the ratepayers of the city who depend on the "Herald" for their- municipal information of any news relating to city-matters which he controls.

Speaking to. a representative of the, "Herald,"-.Alderman Lambert dictated two statements, one grossly disrespeittul~ of the Governor-Ueneral, and the. other an unwarranted attack, on the State judiciary, as well as a dangerously free criticism of the actions of a private business firm. Ho said that he was making the statements on these, conditions: 1. That they should appear in full as given, or not at all; and 2, that if they were not published no further statements from the Lord Mayor, would be given to'.the.-"Herald;"-and that the Lord Mayor would in-future re-< fuse to see representatives of tho "Herald."

In any case the acceptance of matter for publicatisn on such terms is impos sjble'in the case of a newspaper which is controlled with a sense of responsibility (comments the' "Herald"). The discretion of the editoi in regard to all matter published must be retained, as much for the protection of tlhe individual Mid the public as for the wellbeing the" newspaper. But in chis case the grossness of the demand made was accentuated by the impropriety of the matter for which publication was sought. Perhaps (his Worship's state of mind may be imagined from the fact that he claimed that next to the Prime Minister and the Premier he" has the right to have his statements published in full as issued, and without any correction or abridgement. The. assumption that -either the Prime Minister or the Premier has any such right would no doubt prove interesting to Mr Hughes and Mr Storey, whose Press statements invariably hare to run the gauntlet of editorial or sub-editoWal treatment, in the interests of fair play and a proper regard for the newspaper's standing, as well as for the consexvation • oi newa values.