GAGGING THE PRESS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 298, 10 September 1908, Page 6

GAGGING THE PRESS.

In the,course of his final defence of the Second Ballot Bill on Tuesday night, tho Prime Minister observed, in reply to tho members who objected to the gagging clauses of the Bill, that " he had been surprised to find anyone on tho press lacking intelligence sufficiently to suggest that it was proposed to gag the press during the interval between the elections. The thing," he said, "was ridiculous and absurd." We are afraid that Sir Joseph Ward has been led into an indiscretion through the silence of his following, who apparently did not consider it necessary to say a word about this feature of tho Bill. He appears to have concluded that anything different from this silent devotion must be proof positive of an impaired intellect. Even that extraordinary test of intellect might have been pardoned if the view to which Sir Joseph Ward takes exception had been expressed by one single journ'al. But tho Prime Minister is in conflict with practically the entire press of the Dominion. Our own criticisms were promptly supported, and in language less restrained, by both our local contemporaries. The Lyttclton Times, ono of the staunchest of the Government's supporters, ridicules the gagging clauses. " We hope," it says, " that the amendments which were made in tho Bill on Friday will be deleted when the measure rcachcs the Legislativo Council. They are altogether undesirable and utterly impracticable." The Christchurch Press condemns tho amendments as " unEnglish " and " idiotic," and thus criticises the provision "that tho press is to bo bound and gagged " : " That any British representative assembly could be persuaded to pass such a monstrous provision as this ... is to us almost beyond bolief. ... It is tho right of every Briton to discuss tho fitness of a candidato for public oflice so long as he is before the public. This wretched abortion of a Bill proposes to take away this right, to substitute for the wholesome antiseptic of free speech the underground arts of the political intriguer, the secret innuendoes of the stabbers of reputations." The Otai/o Daily Times condemns tho " monstrous provision whereby it is proposed to muzzle tho candidates and the organs of public opinion between tho dates of

the first and second ballots," and questions whether " Liberalism " has ever perpetrated anything " more extraordinary and more illiberal " than this. " Tlio proposal that the press should be fettered and gagged during an election contest in the way that is contemplated," our Dunedin contemporary says in conclusion, " is a novelty in a liberty-loving community such as demands the strongest protest." We have not yet received the comments of the Auckland daily journals or of the Dunedin 'evening paper. But here we have the metropolitan newspapers that have commented upon the "gag" proposals—six journals of varying political views—unanimous in their reading of those clauses and unanimous in their disapproval of them. The Prime Minister has therefore asked the public to believe that the journalists of New Zealand are an assemblage of idiots. That is a proposition that we do not intend to discuss. The public may be trusted to consider it at the least a rather unlikely theory, and a very precarious defence of the Prime Minister's attitude. His language shows that if his postulate—that the press is stupidly in error—is denied, his case for his amendments disappears. For he defended those amendments, not on the ground that the press should be gagged, but'on the ground that they do not interfere with the newspapers' liberty of comment upon the situation between the polls. " The newspapers," ho said, " could write upon the policy of the Administration; the only thing they could not do would be to mention oither of the two men." The press, that is to say, can discuss anything excepting the one,thing that should bo discussed. Sir Joseph Ward is not usually given to such extremes as are indicated by his absurd suggestion that there is such a person in this country as "a man controlling twenty or thirty newspapers," and his charge of imbecility against the whole journalistic profession. There is now a weighty responsibility on tho shoulders of the Legislative Council. Mr. Massey said on Friday night: "Unfortunately we have got to that point in Parliament when questions arc not decided on the issue of whether they are right or wrong, but as to whether they aro from the Treasury benches." The Second Ballot Bill affords a crucial test as to whether Mr. Massey's dictum applies to the Council as well as to the House. The public will await with interest tho result of this test. There may be in the Council men honestly favourable to the noxious " S a S" proposals, but these will give their reasons if they support the Bill as it stands. But a silent vote for this bad Bill can have only one significance.