EDITORIAL PLEADED AS FAIR COMMENT

Chronicle (Levin), 30 March 1946, Page 7

EDITORIAL PLEADED AS FAIR COMMENT

■Press Association

^ Union Secretary's Libel Claim SEQUEL TO BUS STRIKE

By Telegraph—

AUCKLAND, March 29. A claim that the words used in thc New Zealand Herald editorial on September 12, 1945, were fair and reasonable comment in the public interest, was made by Mr. Richmond, the senioi counsel' of Messrs Wilson and Horton, Ltd., the proprietors of the New Zealand Herald, who are being sued by Lawrence Gerald Matthews, union secretary, for £600 for alleged libel. Only one witness was called in siipport of plaintiff's case. The defence opened yesterday afternoon and was continued today before Mr. Justice Fair and a jury. In evidence for plaintiff yesterday, Arthur Edward Andrews, a member oi the executive of the Auckland Drivers' Union, referred to the bus drivers' negotiations for a new award in 1944 and 1945, and said that, after 18 months' negotiations, the drivers were extremely restive and dissatisfied witn the way in which the negotiations had dragged on. Without exception they wished to take drastic action to reach some finality. Cross-examined by Mr. North, witness said that he did not think a union I bound by an award should strike. He i was a spokesman at the meeting in ' January, 1944, and had advocated direct ! action, but the union, on account of its j deregistration, was not bound by the award. Someone had said that they j were taking a risk in striking, and he I thought it was plaintiff who had pointI ed out about the regulations. Witness ' said he agreed that deregistration by ' the Government had all the elements oi j wielding the "big stick", as had been I suggested by plaintiff in a Press state- ' ment on January 12. It was a fact that j the Minister had offered to appoint a j tribunal to investigate the dispute j under the Strike and Lock-out Regulations, as was reported at the meeting, ! which declined the offer. Witness could : not say whether plaintiff offered advice, : or favoured the Minister 's suggestion. LEADERS' METHODS Opening .the defence,. Mr. Richmond j said that the editorial article complam ( ed of was not an attack on a man in his j private life, but immediately one stspj ped on a public platform the position i became different and the whole com- ; munity was entitled to criticise. At no ; time had the Herald taken sides be tween the drivers and the operators, but what the Herald 's attack was i directed at was the method with which I the men's leaders had sought to enlorcc ! the men's claims outside the law of thc 1 country. The defence proposed to show ] that it was the leadership of Matthews j and others from the beginning of 194 * 1 that had led the bus drivers to strike, i and that tliere had been a long process of fooling and gulling the drivers unti they became full of oue notion — that they must have direct action. Mr. Richmond submitted that the words particularly complained oi, "Gulled by the, demagogues' love oi power," were not libeilous in their *orainary natural meaning. The disputes and stoppages in the negotiations in the Auckland transporl industry were described in evidence by Norman Berridge Spencer, the Managl ing Director of a passengdr transport ! company, and a former President of the ! New Zealand Omnibus Proprietors' As j sociation, who referred to the tribunal I set up under the Strike and Lockout regulations. He said that the Ministerof Transport (Mr. O'Brien) had inlormed him that Mr. Gilmour would preside over the tribunal. The Minister had said that he would not make an announcement till he returned to Wellington, remarking that he would let the drivers sweat for a whiie. The pro prietors had asked for Mr. Burford or Mr. Patterson, but the Drivers' Union objected because obviously tliey did not realise Mr. Gilmour was a Magistrafce. Witness said that in his opinion the principal leaders in the union were Matthews and Muller.

Questioned on the negotiations be tween the employers and drivers, wit ! ness said the Under-Secretary of Labour (Mr. Mostyn) rang him up and witness told him that he never feared a strike and the men were quite happy To that Mr. Mostyn replied, " 5Tou know as well as I do, that two men liicc Matthews and Muller can get a strike at any time they like." Mr. Johnstone objected to this ce : i mark, which the J udge disallowed. j Witness: I can give you a lot more if you would like it, but I don't thiim you would. Evidence was given by Desmona I Lawrenoe Humphries, a bus driver, formerly a member of the executive oi the Drivers' Union, that at one time he was in favour of the strike which brought about the deregistration of the j union, but he later changed • his mind. j He used to go to meetings and thought j that that was the only way they could get anything. Matthews and Muller i were at the meetings. Matthews was a i very good speaker. Matthews was i never in favour of the Arbitration | Gourt. 1 EVIDENCE OF INTERVIEWS t A reporter on the staff of the New j Zealand Herald for the past seven , years, Holt Boardman, said he had interviewcd plaintiff, Matthews, on | January 5„ 1944, and on other dates. * He always satislied himself that his i reports appeared accurately in the j Herald, and these reports correctly set out the information given to him by Matthews. In one of these Matthews ' said the union was prepared to accept the consequences of its decision to stop i work, and if the Minister gav-e effect j to his threat of deregistration, they. i intended to maintain their stand. Witness said that on another occasion Matthews said, "The action of the Minister, with the concurrence of the Cabinet, has all the elements of wield-

• ? ing the big stick." He also said that the action of the Government compeiied the workers to sumner ge their grievances and accept the dictates of fclieir employers, assisted by the Gov .ernment. The action of the Government in taking the side of the employ ers had left nothirig to the imagination of the workers. In answer to Mr. Johnstone, witness said Matthews was aware that witness was a Herald reporter. He did not always write up all that was said in an interview, especially if a man repeatedj himself. He did not use ex cracts'from other papers without' conurming them. Re-examined, witness said Matthews made very lucid, concise statements and had always 'treated witness in a friendly, business-like manner. He chose his words deliberately. He had made no complaints about the published reports. Another Herald reporter, Charles Walter Tootel, of 12 years' experience, said he -had known Matthews for about xour years and had had a number oi mterviews with him on the subject oi che bus drivers' dispute. He would make shorthand notes of an interviev. and transcribe them afterwards. Wit ness said that, by arrangement, Matthews went to see him at the Herald - oirice on the evening of September 9 iast. Witness had just read that the Minister hacf agreed to set up an emergency disputes committee, and said to Matthews, "I see it is all fixed up now." Matthews replied, "No,'8 no, pal, far from it," and then began to speak very forcibly. He said the Minister 's announcement, as reported, had caused unf avourable ' comment among many of the men. Witness did not interrupt him, as it appeared to be a new development and he wished to get a clear picture. Matthews said, " The ' position is not good enough and we are not going to stand it," continued witness. "We have played around for long enough and tnis time w-e aim to get satisf action. A tribunal is to sit this week oi you wiii see what will happen. ' ' Asked if the men were likely tc strike if they did not get satisfaction, Matthews replied, "They '11 strike, all right. It is in the hands of the drivers' committee and they are going to meet in the morning. We are not going to be pushed around by the employers any longer. We will get what we want this time or they will know all about it.' ' APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATE " Continuing, witness said that, when asked why the men were objecting to the appointment of a Magistrate as chairman of the tribunal, Matthews said, "Mr. O'Brien is suggesting Mr. Paterson from Hamilton, but we are not going to have that. We had him once belore and we lost. If we have him again, we will lose again. We don't mmd Bill xreeman, oecause he is a gooty Labour man, but we won't have Paterson." Witness asked whether a few days' delay of the tribunal would make much difterence, but Matthews stili nxaintained that the tribunal must sit that week. He had oeen speakmg very quickiy and very forcibly, and then said,. "Of course, you can't put that in thc paper. Now I will give you something you can put in." He proceeded to dictate the statement that was published the following morning. ' Witness said that, after plaintiff left the Herald ofiice, witness went to the chief reporter to indicate what ' his story for the morning would be. While telling the chief reporter of the section which plaintiff had said was not for the paper, the editor, Mr. Munro, came into the room and at his request witness again recounted plaintiff's statements. Later he also told one of the sub-editors. In all, he must have repeated the remarks five times during the evening and the words were firmly impressed on his memory. On September 10 he left Auckland on another assignment, witness continued. On his return on September 14, he heard someone "say that there would probably be troubie ovqr the leader that had appeared on September 12, and in consequence, on September 1/ he typed out tne words used by Matthews in his conversation. Answering Mr. Johnscone, witness said the published result of the interview would not differ in meaning from what the interviewed person had said. It could be so if the newspaper left out a substantial proportion of the reporter '"s copy.

PORTION OMITTED Mr. Johnstone: In the published report of Matthews' statement of September 4 a substantial-: portion of tne interview as you recorded it, was omitted. Did you complain? Witness: -I did mention it to the chief reporter on the following day. The suo-editors would have the.r own reasons, such as space, for omitting it. V/hen Matthews arrived at your office he made his statement ior publication tirst and then you questioned him'.' — That is not so. The only time I questioned him wa^ when he first came in and conversed forcibly. I asked him what the objection was to the appointment of a Magistrate and I later asked him whether a few more days' delay would make much difterence, as the inatter had dragged on. Then, after he had told me that what he had said was not for the paper, he began to give me his statement and naturally I questioned him. Were you not yourself inconvenienced in the earlier strike? — I do not use the buses; I travel by ferry. Did you think there was any impro priety in telling the chief reporter oi material that was given you not for publication? — That material was not given to me as an individual, but as an agent of the Herald. That is a matter of common practice. Matthews has always been careful to say if anything was in conftdence, and on those occasions it was treated as such. Re-examined by - Mr. Richmond, witness said he was not likely to colour his report of the conversation with plaintiff on account of knowledge of possible troubie over the Herald ' s lcading article. His job for years had been . to collect facts and he would not depart lrom them. The note he made on Sep--tember 17 was an honest record and was not coloured to suit anyone. The hearing was adjourned until Monday morning. 9