TWO SIDES OF THE QUESTION.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1008, 24 December 1910, Page 17

TWO SIDES OF THE QUESTION.

Sir,—W.ith but-, few exceptions, it would seem that tlie press <if New Zealand are unable or unwilling to take a fair view of any transaction ill which one of our professional politicians may have been concerned; and flic most singular 'aspect of the whole position is that: no one "can tell in what direction (tic sympathies of llm press :inny break .out. Now, if there is a man in' iHI Now Zealand .wjtli'.whom the '.Auckland lniblic have.no sympathy it is Sir .Toseoh Ward, yet, ■within (lie last' few weeks the Auckland press has-given its support'to-that, man, aad has declared that tho author#

and publisher of two pamphlets reflecting on tho actions' of a public, man,, have been guilty of a cowardly and discreditable action. : This emotional style of writing, is highly characteristic of tho Auckland papers, and should not be allowed to pass .without comment. For that* reason I ask, "Where is tho cowardice? Did not the publisher render himself liable to a criminal prusecution whether tho 'subject matter published was true or false P And what is there discreditable in drawing the attention of tho public.to^the acts ot" any man holding . a high public position, provided always that tho truth only be published. It would seem to mo that these two pamphlets have been published as a challenge, and that the challenge, has not been except bv .the passing of a law .-which is clearly intended to protect even criminals, provided that they be public men. Tho numerous small .shareholders in the Colonial ,Bank\who ! lost their money must not. complain or air.thcir grievances, and if-'they- do 'anything. so wicked their offence nlust : not bo submitted to a'iuvy of theiv fellowcolonists,' but miist be hoard -by a magistrate whose , official position raieilit depend on the Roodwill'of the plaintiff in the action. Truly,-a nieo position for those who do know and can" prove how far interference with magistrates has already proceeded. I submit that the present position of Hie law of. libel ought to alarm all New Zealand. There has, for the last ten years, been a growing disbelief in' the honesty of our public men, and if anything can foster and give point to this feeling it is this Act for the purposo of Ragging public thought and. speech, for it can- have no other purpose than that of'fostering dishonesty. If 'I am not mistaken, back numbers of 'Hansard.'(lß96, -1 think) contain :soirin very severe 'remarks made .by Sir Joseph Ward '■ on: the characters of thoso who luui; in his opinion, persecuted him. Now,. -I do not remember that anyone at. that time attacked Sir Joseph Ward for having made a cowardly attack upon people under cover of- his position as a member of the HouSe. But, if they had done so,, there would have been some justification for the attack, because in tliat. instance, Sir Joseph "Ward did not lay himself open to a criminal action. Ho was protected by his privilege as a member of Parliament. The publisher anil author of the two pamphlets occupy a prouder position—they have taken the risks openly, with the significant result that no action has been brought— only a gag Act, passed to prevent any further publicity. On July 17, 189G, 3fr. J. G. Ward, in the course, of a speech made by him in the House, remarked that the bad deeds of,.a jnnn . should certainly be discussed, even after, his .death. /. Another, remark niade by him on!that day was as follows: ■"I object to false issties being''-placed before us on improper grounds of supposed sentiment." Quito so. But -why licit live un to that fine sentiment now-- 1 -! am, etc., TE-AKAU. , Auckland, December. 17. . .