THE PIOUS PENNY "POST."

NZ Truth, Issue 63, 1 September 1906, Page 4

THE PIOUS PENNY "POST."

CHAMPION OF THE CAUSE OF SOCIAL PURITY

Prosecuted, and Convicted of Print* ing Immoral Postcards.

Worse Than Selling Them, and Yet the Influential "Post" Gets Off with a Lighter Sentence than the Shopkeeper.

At the Magistrate's Court, yesterday morning, before Mr W. G-. Riddell, S.M., Charles Stubbs, secretary of the "Evening Post Newspaper C 0.," was charred with having on May 1, 1906, sold to . Norman Aitken postcards whioh were of an immoral nature.

A plea of guilty was entered and Chief Detective McGxath said the defendant was secretary of the ''Evening Post Newspaper C 0.," which had printed a large number of post-cards to the order of one Norman Aitiken. A peculiar feature of the case was that while the "Evening Post" was vigorously condemning the traffic m post-cards and hounding the police onto vendors thereof the Company printed and sold cards of the description of one handed up to the Bench. The Company had. on becomiing aware, through police court proceedings m one case, that the cards were of an immoral nature, withdrawn the whole of them from sale.

Mr Skerrett, who appeared for Stubbs, said that the defendant was secretary of the company. Counsel was instructed to say that neither Stubbs nor any responsible officer of the Comapny had cognizance of the nature of the card m question. Chief Detective McGr'rath's reference to the conduct of the "Evening Post" was ouite uncalled for, as would be made clear. He (Mr Skerrett) did not consider that the card m question was immoral or having; a pernicious tendency. and the Bench would have the greatest difficulty m coming to. the conclusion that the card was an infringement of the Act. The subject of the card was a humorous one, being a skit upon the professional blind man. whose • simulation of blindness was thus exposed, and he considered that the greatest prude could not take exception to it. There was nothing indecent m the card, and only m a prurient mind could lewd thoughts be suggested. Though the Company had thought fit to plead guilty, it was because they wished to avoid any appearance of having riven their approval or encouragement to the printing of cards which were immoral and, pernicious. It was true that the "Post" had consistently urged the suppression of immoral Dost-cards and they had evinced their sincerity by at once abandoning any question of whether the cards were immoral and an infreingement of the Statute which dealt with post-cards of an immoral nature. The feeling animating the proprietors of the paner was this : Whether the card was immoral or not they considered no useful purpose could be served by raising that question. The cards were printed to the order of Norman Aitken m the ordinary way of business, "by the jobbing department of the paper. This department' was m the' charge of a foreman who exercised his own judgment m the printing of cards. The card m nuestion came before him m the usual way and he had previously rejected cards of a dubitable nature, though they had not been sent m by the dealer m miestion. The foreman took the card and did not consider it of an immoral character ; he did not consult an" superior officer but acted m good faith and used his own judgment that the* 1 - were not hurtful to the community. Mr Skerrett, submitted that the offence was of a technical character and he trusted that a nominal fine would be inflicted.

After hearing the evidence of Thos. Jones, the foreman m question, re the printing of the card, Mr Riddell said that the . card was not immoral m one sense, though it did not serve any o-ood purpose. The foreman of the iobbing department who exercised his own judgment m this matter, might be of a humorous turn of mind, Looking: at the card one might have discovered a humorous side, others mierht look at if, from auite a different view. It was difficult to know where the line, should he drawn. All men's minds were not constituted alike. He (Mr Riddell) did not consider the card of a gross nature, it was mirely a matter of degree m the printing:. The defendant would he fined £3 and costs.