The Evening Star MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 1872.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2786, 22 January 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 1872.

During the last session of Parliament Mr Steward brought under notice of the House of Representatives the unsatisfactory position of the law of libel in the Colony, and gave ample reasons for some protection being given to newspapers publishing correct reports of speeches and proceedings at public meetings, where matter was said or read that at present would render the publisher liable to punishment. The subject has again forced itself upon attention through what took place at the meeting of the Education Board. We do not refer to the case for any other purpose than that of illustration. We offer no opinion as to its merits, nor as to its probable effects upon private character ; but one thing is plain, our morning contemporary took the same view of the matter as ourselves, and felt constrained to suppress the publication of what, morally speaking, is of Provincial importance. We do

not think much of the restriction im- ' posed upon u. journalist so tar as political meetings are concerned. The cases are very rare in which anything is said of a libellous character that atfects the well-being of Society. If John Save-all denominates David Grasp-all a villain, the in qvoque reply may settle the matter there and then. If they both speak the truth in a little hot blood, so long as it is a mere personal altercation, not affecting the funds or morals of society, no doubt their hearers being their neighbours have their laugh and the damage goes no farther. lire country, as a whole, is not in the slightest degree interested in their opinions of each other; and even if they be reported for the sake of illustrating the scene, the damage to the reputation of both by proceedings in a Court of Justice would be infinitely greater than any that could be sustained by the nine day’s wonder of a record of their wordy warfare. But the matter is very different when the conduct of public servants is concerned. Their ability to fulfil the duties of their position is of serious importance and not only so, but they are responsible to the public, who pay and employ them. So fully did the Provincial Council recognize this, that, by the Education Ordinance, it required the proceedings of the Board to be in publia And very reasonably too. It is easily conceivable that a schoolmaster or a school committee have been guilty of some fault that should disqualify one or the other, or both for public confidence. If the schoolmaster have proved incapable, through defective education, or infirmity of temper, or immorality, of fulfilling his onerous duties, that which disqualifies him from fitness for office in one place, should surely be held a disqualification for a similar position elsewhere. Yet the School Committee or the Board itself is not permitted to proclaim to the world that which alone can justify them in dismissing him from the public service. Or rather the journal that takes upon itself to print that which when told exonerates them from suspicion of tyranny or undue harshness, although fulfilling what has been considered a necessary duty, can only do it at the rate of penal consequences. The courts of justice are thus made the means of curtailing the justifiable liberty of the Press. This has been the consequence of the decision of a jury who, by their adverse verdict, condemned the Ordinance which for purposes of public utilty required that the proceedings of the Board of Education should be public. Virtually this decision removes a safeguard to the schoolmasters themselves. We have no fear as the Board is at present constituted, that any injustice will be done to any of them. We have never seen anything but the kindest consideration shewn to schoolmasters by every member of the Board; but then circumstances might occur that might render the publication of the proceedings of the Board necessary to the justification of an illused schoolmaster. If it be libellous to publish the reasons for the dismissal of one unfit to teach, it might be considered libellous by some member of the Board, if his words urging injustice to him were told to the world. The wholesome check of public opinion is removed, the patronage of the Board may be abused, and an institution, the proceedings of which, ■under the scrutinising eye of society are beneficial, might be made the means of rewarding mere political partisans, or placing unfit men in charge of the education of the young. Here then is a case which points strongly to some legal protection being given to the Press, wherever a fair report has been given of public transactions without bias, and merely in the way of duty. The interest and duty of society is to protect the Press. It may occasionally prove hard upon individuals, but the true interests of society are identical with those of the Press itself, which cannot be reduced to silence without liberty and morality being endangered.