FURTHER PRESS OPINIONS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1083, 23 March 1911, Page 6

FURTHER PRESS OPINIONS.

"JUSTICE AND PUBLICITY." Tli'o Auckland "Herald's" article on "Justice and Publicity," from which we printed an extract yesterday as ■ telegraphed by our correspondent, is very outspoken. After referring to tho power of a Judge to forbid the publication of Court proceedings, tho "Herald" says: "As a., matter of fact, the authority in question has becomo archaic, its principle being only recognised by law-abiding and law-respecting citizens when public morality and obvious justice are thereby (Served and protected. All Judges who estimate intelligently the enduring value of. publicity, and appreciate the truth that the law is weak and worthloss unloss public opinion approves and endorses if, are keenly sensitive to the necessity for the delicate use of a power which i$ Iheira -onljr- _jyibliq

6ufferauco." The "Herald" also says: "Are we to suppose that in this particular case tho danger to public-morality is | so great and grievous that even the names of tho parties and tho nature of the suit may justifiably be suppressed? Or is it to bo taken for granted that the whole object of the case is to keep concealed what any publication whatever would reveal? As matters 'stand, tho public is completely in the dark, and has only its confidence in the Supreme Court to allay its uneasiness at the revival in a pronounced form of a judicial authority so long modified that the average citizen is 'bewildered at the incident. What is at issue? Who is appealing to the law, and for what, and against whom? In Auckland, some months ago, a most calumnious charge was made against a respected member of tho legal profession, but it' was heard in tho open, and a triumphant vindication obtained which would have been impossible had doubtful whispers taken.tho place of untrammelled publication. In London, • some weeks ago, the first .personage in the Empire, the chief of our nation, the King of .All the JSritish, was concerned in a case, involving the fair fame of an innocent lady and tho honour of tho dynasty. That case was heard in open court, not in camera, and the result again justified and vindicated free publication. It cannot, therefore, be claimed that the practico of our British Courts is to sit with closed doors upon cases involving false charges and calumniating accusations. What then is this Wellington case—which may in after years, and to coming generations bo quoted as a precedent upon occasions in which popular liberties and civil rights are at stake?"

A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. The Wairarapa "Age" of yesterday had the following:—

"The judicature of New Zealand has arrogated to itself the right to decide what should, or should not, be published in the newspaper press of the Dominion concerning judicial happenings. This is an implication that th« press lias not the ability to discriminate between what is, and is not, of public interest. As the judicature is subordinate, in a measure, to the Ministry of the day, it is not unreasonable to expect that the precedent established by tho Judges will be followed by Ministers of the Crown. The press of New Zealand may soon find itself under the ban of censorship as obtains in Continental countries. When that timo arrive-;, we can say good-bye to British freedom, and the most wicked acts of cruelty, oppression, and corruption may be practised under the cloak of secrecy."

' AN INTERESTING AFFAIR, Tho Hawera "Star" says:—"We know nothing of the circumstances beyond what has appeared in the public prints, and it would be idle to express an opinion on tho matter until the facts are available. But .while one lias perfect confidence in the Supreme Court Judges, it would seem that a very, important principle is at stake. That the Supreme Court Judges have not only a right to prevent the publication of evidence in certain cases, but that a duty also rests on them to exercise tho power is well known. " Tho propriety of such procedure is beyond question. But usually the reason is given or is obvious. In the case under discussion no roason appears to have been given. We suppose that at some stage of tho proceedings the public will be duly informed of the whole, circumstances, but in the meantime'• great- deal of . .interest has been arciused, and the' protests which have been_ made show that the press of the Dominion is" alive "to the""importance oi the principle involved. Until more is known judgment must be reserved as to how far the comments which have been passed are in point."