WELLINGTON TOPICS.

Hokitika Guardian, 27 April 1921, Page 4

WELLINGTON TOPICS.

THE CENSORSHIP. BANNED LITERATURE. (Our Special Correspondent;. WELLINGTON, April 25. The correspondence between Sir Francis Bell, the Acting Prime Minister, and Mr H. E. Holland, the leader of the Social Democrats in the House of Reps, which is published in the local papers this morning should go far to remove much misapprehension in regard to the intention and the administration of tho law against the publication and the distribution of a certain class of literature. Moved by a sentence of three months’ imprisonment imposed upon a member of the Wellington • Socialist Party for having sold copies of “The Communist Programme and other similar pamphlets at a recent public meeting, Mr Holland wrote to the Acting Prime Minister urging the release of the imprisoned man and asking for “a definite statement” concerning the scope and enforcement of the law. Incidentally the leader of the Social Democrats stated that he knew numbers of people, including manx ri turned soldiers, who were determined to continue distributing the banned literature, whatever the consequences ini"ht he,'and that they felt, as lie did. there could be neither political nor industrial freedom unless the people wer e given the widest possible access to every avenue of thought and source of kuowledge. THE MINISTER. IN REPLY.

Sir Francis Bell’s reply is a very model of gentle courtesy and analytic precision, reading like one of those delightful speeches with which he is wont to overwhelm his hasty critics in the Lo gislative Council. “I entirely agree with your insistence that there can ho no full intellectual progress unless we are permitted to read (and thus to know) every viewpoint.” he says,* “and J do not contest your conclusion that the pamphlet entitled “The Communist Programme” contains a valuable presentation of the ease for constructive industrialism.” These fair words must have encouraged Mr Holland to hope for a complete capitulation. “But,” Sir Francis adds that with next breath, “surely you must soe that neither of these contentions of yours has any healing on the question whether the person chlu-god committed a. fragrant offence against the law of New Zealand. Each of the documents which the offender was proved to have distributed advocated in tho plainest manner bloodshed and violence as the method by which its propaganda were to be carried into effect.” It is here, of course, that tin* Minister joins issue with the leader of tin* Social Democrats and brings him down from the sky to the -arth. MORE IN SORROW THAN ANGER. Hut Sir Francis does not forget for a

moment liih knightly obligations. f do not suggest,” ho writes “that you are one of those who instigated and approved the distribution and circulation of literature advocating such methods. Hut your words can only mean that it is not criminal to advocate murder as a method of attaining social or political conditions or social change. That is the issue between tho Government of

a civilised country and offenders of the i lass for whom you ask that the prerogative of pardon should be exercised.” From this the Minister proceeds to show that there is no ban in New Zealand against the publication or distriPillion ol literature advocating ally change, however revolutionary, in the constitution or in the form of government. It is neither unlawful nor seditious to advocate the wildest form of socialism or communism, hut it is both unlawful and seditious to advocate murder and violence as legitimate means of reaching political ends. That in a nutshell, is the whole law on the subject and it restricts neither the speech nor tho pen of anyone who wishes well for his country. REPRESENTATION. Tho Acting Prime Minister digresses from his main theme for a moment to remind Mr Holland that a country in the enjoyment of universal suffrage has no shadow of excuse for employing other than constiutional means in seeking reform. Then he remembers. “Pray do not meet this,” he implores, “with the usual futile argument that so long as more than two parties exist, power mav lie held by a, party which has not

a full majority over the other two combined. The argument is good platform stuff, hut appeals no more to your reason than it does to mine.” Sir Francis has in his mind, of course, tho if act that the Government of which he is the temporary head represents only a minority of the votes polk'd at the last general election, but Mr Holland should he the last person in the world to quibble over (his point. It is largely duo to his tactics that the Liberal and Labour parties ■ were divided at the noils and a “minority” Government returned to the Treasury Benches. Sir Francis, on the other hand, is a consistent advocate of majority representation.