The Dominion THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1910, POLITICIANS AND LIBELS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1000, 15 December 1910, Page 4

The Dominion THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1910, POLITICIANS AND LIBELS.

— The importance to a newspaper of making sure of its facts before it criticises a, public man is well illustrated .by a case referred to in today's cable messages. In January last the Daily Ch rbnicle, a Liberal newspaper, asserted of a Unionist candidate for Parliament that he had helped to throw three thousand people out of work, and had thrice voted against the feeding of poor children. This statement led to a libel suit,.which ended in the Chronicle being ordered to pay £5000 damages. We are without full .particulars of the case, but it is evident enough from the amount of tho damages awarded that the Chronicle was unable to establish tho truth of its statements, and that those statements; were considered to bo of a very dam&ging nature. One result of the case, obviously, will be that Radical speakers and writers will have to abstain from such assertions as that any particular Unionist will assist to abolish old age pensions when his party comcs back to power. Curiously enough, yesterday's Australian mail brings us tho concluding reports of the case in which Senator Barker, of the.Federal Parliament, sought damages from the Argus in respect of the following statement, wh'ich ho claimed was libellous:

"It should be carefully noted by farmers and dairymen that Mr. Stephen Barker, a. present Labour candidate for the Senate, was an enthusiastic member of the deputation a year ago. When ho ahd his follow candidates go through country districts now the farmers should remember their friendly policy of cutting n huge slice out of tho income, gained from exported produce..The dairy farmer will 'vote Labour' with rapturous haste when lie remembers the Barker-Tudor policy of reducing his fortnightly chcquo irom tho butter factory by 20 per cent." Tho hearing of tho caso extended over three days, tho wliolo time being occupicd in inquiring whether tno Argus's comment had a foundation in truth. The main fact was that Mr. Barker, the secretary of tho Trades Hall Council, was one of a deputation to tho Minister for Customs,to advocato an export duty on wheat. The ease resulted in a verdict for tho Argus. The facts arc not of much interest, but somi> interesting principles were laid down by the Chief Justice in rcspect of the freedom of newspapers in criticising politicians. It docs not appear to iiavo been established, or oven claimed, that Mr. Barker suffered any dajnage other than unpopularity and dislike amongst tho farming community. But that, it appears,-.would have been quito sufficient to warrant the punishment of the Argus if tha facts-allcged wore untrue or tha comment unfair. The Chief Justice observed that he did not think the words complained of could be defamatory of Mr. Barker in his private capacity, but, considered.as affecting liim as a candidate for -Parliament, they were, for' n variety o£ reasons, as might very well expose him to distrust and to dislike, and by those among whom of all others he desired to stand well. "He wanted to be regarded well by the farmers, and that which would make them distrust him Svou'.d be apt to damage him in tho se'rjse that defamatory matter was supposed by law to damage a man." His"Honour thus stated the general principle: ■If a man chose to become a nublic man, whether he desired to ba a' Minister, member of Parliament, municipal councillor, a justice of the peace, a judge on tho bench, an admiral, a geueral, or an archbishop, whatever it might bo, a man administering public affairs, ho became a servant of tho public. Ho became tho property of every member of tho public to _ discuss and to fairly express their opinions of him, and reasonably, so long as they had n foundation of fact for what they said. It was an excellent feature of tho Constitution that freedom , of discussion was permitted to every man with respect to tLie public acts and public words of public men. Still nobody was at liberty to uso that privilege for nialicious purposes. It was" demanded that no man who wanted .to be a critic of. his fellow should imagine, invent, twist,- or exaggerate facts to the disadvantage of that other man, and pass judgment by way of criticism in resnect of those imaginary or twisted facts."

There is really ample protection for public men against newspaper libels in most British countries—certainly in this country. And, generally speaking, there is ample protection' for tho press in respect of political criticism. For example, The Domimiox, if wo may be permitted the personal reference, has often been assailed with unprecedented'bitterness in Parliament by membors of the Government and their friends, sometimes indircctly, but more often quite directly. It has at times been described in quite outrageous language by its opponents. But it has not been required to swerve an inch in its criticisms, for the simple reason that care concerning facts and honesty in criticism are quite compatible with severity in comment.