SATURDAY, AUGUST 23, 1902. THE TROOPSHIP INQUIRY. Why Exclude the Press?

Free Lance, Volume III, Issue 112, 23 August 1902, Page 8

SATURDAY, AUGUST 23, 1902. THE TROOPSHIP INQUIRY. Why Exclude the Press?

THE public arc not to know, day by day, what transpires m connection with the inquiry being now made into the allegations against the accommodation of troops returning to New Zealand You see, witnesses who are to be examined to-morrow might read the evidence of witnesses examined to-day, and might therefore be prejudiced. This is what the chairman of the Inquiry Commission thinks. This aims a blow at the infallibility of the oath right away. * * * Charges may of course be made against specific persons during the hearing. The Commission does not want them published. It excludes the press for that reason. Why? Will the Commission aver that the publication of witnesses' evidence, day by day, and charges against a specified person in another noted case, either influenced subsequent witnesses or affected the justice of the finding 9 • ♦ • These seem to us quite insufficient reasons for excluding the press from this inquiry. The press, in reporting the proceedings merely gives a fair synopsis of the evidence. If the accusations that the Commission fears should be made, and the public read of them, what matter? Is not the Commission sittinfi to inquire into all accusations, and refute them if they find them to be unfounded? The people are intensely interested in this troopship business, and are anxious to know as soon as possible what has transpired. If other judicial bodies take it into their heads to exclude the press, and decide matters of public interest in camera, then there will have to be a complete revolution in our institutions. ♦ ♦ * It is rather a large order to assume that witnesses, by the publication of evidence, will follow the lead like sheep, or that the publication would be in any way detrimental to justice. The inquiry is being made by men of unimpeachable integrity for the information of the public, and the Commission, in deciding to exclude the press, are, of course-, actuated by a desire to secure a perfectly fair inquiry. But, if witnesses are influenced by published evidence previously given, i» it not also reasonable that they may be able to correct miastatements that would otherwise not be refuted until the inquiry was over, and the opportunity past? • * * When the public are able to read a clear and unvarnished account of an inquiry, they feel that the best is being done to get at the root of the matter. When the information is withheld, they are prone to imagine that there is a desire for concealment. As the Commission is undoubtedly trying to sift the matter to the bottom, it might have avoided undeserved imputations by conducting the inquiry with open doors.