THE SECRECY OF THE TELEGRAPH OFFICE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume IX, Issue 107, 6 May 1874, Page 2

THE SECRECY OF THE TELEGRAPH OFFICE.

Our lelrgiams some days ago slated that an order had been issued by. the Judge at Dunodin far the production of all telegrams that passed between certain parties iD a libel case. From the following telegraphic circular, which w«8 forwarded to us yesterday, it will be seen that the Telegraph Commissioner has decided net to recognise the Judge's order: — , As the proreedings which are taking pines in the case of Macasseyv. Bell have occasioned doub's aa to the p>wer of the Teiejraph Dcpartraent to preserve telegrams from scrutiny from litigants to obtain information which may'possibly «M them in pending 6uits, we lu-ve been requested by the Te'egrsph Commis'iomr to briedy explaiT what has taken pUce in reference to the cast in question. It is first however necessary to fay whether or not such a power Bhouid exist. The law unquestionably enables a litigint to compel tin) production of telegrams which are specified and described in the subpoona calling for their product on: provided of course that they relate to the suit aud affect tl:e parties thereto, and that if they were lexers th<y would not b> privileged. In tho present instance the question is whether unspecified telegrams are ha le to be produced in Court, and also whether ihey are liable to be inspected ba'ore production in Court. By unspecified tele-gi-ums i« meant a general nference to any telegrams that may have jasacd between different persons, such reference beiu^ evident'y made in ignorance ot an/ particular Uletir.irr, but under the assumption or supp isition that there have been s >me te'egrams rflevnnt to the matter. It may further be explained that the order to inspect before irial unspecified telegrams, or Lideed specified telegrams, as far as the department is aware is without precedent. There is one precedent at 1 ast for a subpoena to prod ice unspecified te'egrams in Court the case of the Taunton t'e.-.tior.; in that case the telegraph officer appear* d with the telegrams in ( ourt, but was instructed to object to produce them, being a witness enly he could not have the matter argued by cou isel, but tbe judge upheld the objection expren-ily, however, intimating time the decision was not to be regnrded as a preced nt. In ih3 case of Macaspey v. Bell the p'aintiff obtnned an order t) allow pluintift" or his solicitor to ins-pect all telegram? rehting to the subject matter of this ac ion, without even specifying the persons between whom they passed, ,and thus making it nccessaiy to expose telegrams pa«sing betwein a number of persons some of them not parties to the suit, and some of them standing in relation of clients and attorneys to each other. A subpoena was also served on an officer of the Department to produce unspeoifi v\ telegrams in Court. The names of 'onne of the persons between whom the telegrams, were supposed to have passed were specified in the subpoena. Of t^ese, two were not parties of the suit, and the Department has since been informed they stood in the relation of solicitor and client, and this solicitor was also solicitor to the .Department. The Department at once decided not to take any notice of the judge's ordi-r The plaintiff was given to understand !that such was the determination nrrived at, lut l;e took no step to enforce the order. Sonu time subsequently a rule nisi was < btained by ihe Department to upset that order, but with that the Commis-ioner had nothing to do; he had already decided to contest tiie order on behilt' of the Department if the plaintiff attempted to enforce it. In respect to the subpoena it wa-j at flret decided to adopt the course pursued in the Taunton case, namely, to take the telegrams into Court, but to refuse to produce^ thorn unless the judge orlered their production. It was, however, expressly arranged with the plaintiff that the fact of the search being made in order that the telegrams should ba reidy for production was not to prejudice the objections tD be offered ie Court against the subpoena. The telegrams indicated in the subpoana were sckctei and sent to Duntdin. But subsequently when it was considered that the case coul 1 not be argued in Court on behalf of the Department, and that therefore the Court would probably nit • decide more than in the launton ease, namely the point in particular, and when it was further considered how important it was to have at once decided the point a? to whether the production ot unspecified telegrams is compellable, the Telegraph Commisaioner took proceedings prior to the trial to test the sufficiency and force of the subpoena, but Mr Jus 1 ice Chapmpn decided in that proceeding that various grounds in the objections could not be urged on behalf of the telegraph officer or the Department, but only by the defendant «t the trial. The Telegraph Commissioner then came to the conclusion to instruct the officer to rtfuse to produce tiie te'egrams, so tbatyon a rule to attach the witness for contempt being moved f>.r, the Telegraph Commissioner might in the argument urge that there is no power to subpoena to produce unspecified telegrams. It wiil be thus seen that the department, is jealously guarding the secre&y of the telegraph, and is determined to do so unless after argument tiie Supremo Court and Appeal Court decide that the law otherwise requires,