TOUCHING THOSE PH0T0S. Mr Lewis and the "Observer."

Free Lance, Volume I, Issue 23, 8 December 1900, Page 6

TOUCHING THOSE PHOTOS. Mr Lewis and the "Observer."

MR CHAS. LEWIS. M.H.R. for Christchurch City, has enjoyed some reputation as a political humourist with a propensity for practical joking. He has also been looked upon as a man with a hobby, that hobby being amateur photography. In the light of that " somewhat peculiar ease' 1 (vide Press Association telegram) which he brought in Christchurch against the Observer the other day, it seems difficult to understand how he won his reputation for humour, as the circumstances suggest a plentiful lack

of that commodity on his part. At the same time there can be little doubts that he is bestriding the amateur photographer hobby all right, and cutting a rather grotesque figure upon it, too. • • • This is probably the sad result of extravagant praise from indulgent friends. People soon got to know that he rather prided himself upon his amateur efforts with the camera, and they were quick to note that praise on that score was keenly relished. And, apparently, that indiscriminating praise has tended to give Mr Chas. Lewis a very acute attack of swelled head, and to have completely extinguished his alleged faculty for humour. # ♦ » The newspaper telegram very aptly styles Mr Lewis's application for an injunction a "somewhat peculiar case." Its most peculiar feature, however, is the statement of the cause of action contained in the telegram. The member for Christchurch, it says, " had made sketches, etc., of prominent members of the House and incidents during the session, which he sent to a friend. By some means they got into the hands of the Auckland Observer, which intimated its intention of publishing them." As a matter of easily-proved fact, the Observer never did anything of the kind, and, more than that, it iiever entertained such a silly and preposterous notion. There is the positive assertion of its proprie-tors-for that, and anyone who has seen Mr Lewis's fondly-cherished photos must conclude they would require to be in very desperate straits for pictures to take up the contract of publishing the honourable member's amateur snapshots. It would also be inferred from the wording of the telegram that these amateurish efforts in photography — the telegram, it will be noted, calls them "sketches" — "got into the hands " of the Observer by some improper means. So far from this being the case both Mr Blomfield and Mr Geddis were fairly pestered with messages from Mr Lewis to come downstairs (from the Press Gallery) and see the photographs, of which he was inordinately vain, and which he seemed very anxious they should reproduce. Eventually, Mr Blomfield, from 1 sheer goodnature, inspected the photographs, when Mr Lewis insisted upon lending him the parcel. Nay, more, he showed them to him one by one, and said he had some others more remarkable than these that he would be pleased to send him. They were fair photographs for an amateur — such pictures as would provoke a smile of forbearance on the face of a professional photographer. * * * But Mr Lewis was very proud of them. These were the " some means " by which the Observer got possession of the pictures. They were returned two months ago — a week after Mr Lewis sent for them. The only photograph the Observer thought of reproducing was one of Mr Lewis himself, out of kindness to him and as a return for the trouble he had taken. * * • The application for an injunction was looked upon as one of Mr Lewis's jokes, and Mr Massey (the Opposition whip) and Mr Herries, to whom the documents were shown and who were familiar with the circumstances, said it was a joke and advised Mr Blomfield to take no notice of them, and they would write to Mr Lewis. Evidently, however, the injunction was persisted in, although the photographs were returned two months ago, and though Mr Lewis had Mr Blomfield' s letter saying he had no intention of using the pictures. • * * Two conclusions we draw from the case. One is that Mr Chas. Lewis, M.H.E., regards his camera snap-shots as something superlatively rare and wonderfully choice in the way of photography. That, in short, they are positive masterpieces of fabulous

value, and that pressmen are tumbling over each other in their eagerness to get hold of them in the sure and certain hope of profiting by their publication. The other conclusion is that it is rather a dangerous experiment to accept a loan of Mr Lewis's pictures. Somebody may come along and load him up with the notion that you ar« going to publish those priceless works of art, and before you know where you are there may be an injunction out against you and a bill for ten guineas costs to pay.