Poverty Bay Standard. Published Every Wednesday & Saturday WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 1881.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 926, 16 March 1881, Page 3

Poverty Bay Standard.

Published Every Wednesday & Saturday WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 1881.

“ TFe shall sell to no man Justice or Right; 4 ‘ We shall deny to no man Justice or Right ; “ We shall def er to no man Justice or Right."

We shall be glad to learn the result of a Bill, which, on the departure of the last mail from Sydney, was on its second reading in the Legislative Assembly. We allude to the Press Bill, having for its object the better regulation of newspapers, in that Colony, with regard to the law of libel. According to the mover, it would appear that any person about to establish a newspaper had to consult about six Acts of Parliament, to find out his rights and disabilities, and he was compelled to find two sureties to guarantee, under penalties of £l5O each, that he would properly conduct his paper. Restrictions were imposed upon the proprietors of newspapers which were not imposed upon others. The political history of England showed that the restrictions upon the Press in that country were only removed with the progress of the liberty of the people, till at last it had become the right of the Press to discuss public affairs freely and unreservedly in the public interest. The law had since then been ameliorated by degrees till the Press could publish anything of any one whether high or low in the public interest. By the present Bill it would be competent for the defendant in any action for a libel contained in any newspaper or other periodical publication to give in evidence in mitigation of damages that he made or offered an apology to the plaintiff before the commencement of the action, or as soon afterwards as he had an opportunity. It provided that the truth of the matters charged should not amount to a defence unless the publication was for the public benefit. It would put an end to actions, civil or criminal, for libel against the proprietor or publisher of any newspaper or other periodical for the publication of a faithful and accurate report of any judicial proceeding, or for a correct report of any speech delivered in Parliament, or in any Municipal Council or public meeting. It would prevent the criminal prosecution of the printer or publisher of a libel, if within seven days, upon a demand authorised by the Attorney-General, he should disclose the true name and residence of the author of the libel. It would be competent for the defendant to plead that the libel was published without actual malice and without gross negligence, and that before the commencement of the action, or at the earliest opportunity, he published a full apology. It would enable the defendant to plead that the libel was published in ignorance of the fact that it was libellous, or under the belief that it was true, and that its publication w T as for the public good. It would also enable him to plead that upon his ascertaining that it was libellous or untrue he offered to disclose to the plaintiff the name and residence of the author thereof, and to publish an apology. These are the main provisions of the Bill, and in accordance with the recommendations of a Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Press laws in England.

Successive Governments in New Zealand have promised to give this matter their attention, but have not yet got beyond an enactment that makes it almost penal to do or say anything in a journal; and so punitive in its clauses, as to make them inoperative. Luckily the New Zealand Press is not, as a rule, deliberately libellous; but there are so many opportunities to which proprietors are exposed, and so many facilities given to men of wealth, who fancy themselves libelled, to ruin an opponent through submission to law suits, that amendment of the law in that direction is quite necessary. The provisions in the foregoing Bill are good so far as they go. But, as we take it the Press, as an.institution will not be properly protected, until

the Legislature makes it impossible for a rich man, regardless of the cost, to enter up malicious or vexatious I actions against a journal which can illafford the luxury even of winning. So, on the other hand, the clause providing for an “ apology ” being tendered to the person libelled is not comprehensive enough. There are apologies and apologies. There are cases in which the apology offered may not meet the views of the other side. And again, the injured party may require an apology so set out, as to be beyond the circumstances of the case. While it is just possible that no amount of apologies will rub out the stain, or s*ing accompanying a libel. But the Bill goes far in the direction of improvement; and if it pass the second reading, and the principle is affirmed, doufitlessj public opinion will cause it to be so altered in Committee, as will place the Press of New South Wales in such a position, as it would be worth the while of New Zealand to copy.

We observe that the senate of California is making itself conspicuous by adopting a style of legislation peculiar to the sensationalisms of society in that remarkable country. It takes its rise thus:—A German saloonkeeper, who shot a boy for 5 cents in a beer reckoning, had been sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment. He had been bothered by hoodlums, and shot the wrong man, and the Judge thought that sufficient excuse. This miscarriage of the law in murder cases has led to the papers making the startling suggestion that the next of kin should act as an avenger of blood ; and by the way of drawing marked attention to the subject, Senator Johnson, an able lawyer, has introduced a bill into the Senate for legalising this method. The bill is as under :—

Sec. 1. All punishment for murder, except that committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate arson rape, robbery, burglary or mayhem, is hereby abolished, except as hereinafter provided. Sec. 2. The punishment for murder shall be that the murderer’s life shall be forfeited to the relatives to the second degree of the person or persons murdered. Sec. 3. It shall be lawful for the relatives to the second degree of the person or persons murdered to take the life of the murderer at any time within two years after the discovery of the murderer, provided, that in case the said relatives be minors, the limitation shall not attach during their minority, and that if said relatives be aged, crippled, or females, they shall have the privilege of employing other persons to take the life of the murderer.

Section 3 of this new experiment in law-making, is as ingenious an invention for the constant strain of mental torture in the mind of the victim, as it is possible to conceive. Surely, even the rapid strides of Yankee go-a-head-ism will not be permitted to go on at such a rate, at to hand over the punishment of its criminals to private executioners. It is not difficult to estimate the sum of uncertainty to human life, if, even a condemned murderer be subjected to the agonising reflection, momentarily haunting him, that at any time during two years an unsuspected bullet, or an unlooked for bowie knife, may end his career, and send him tripping to the next world, without the assistance or consolation of bell, book, or candle. In the case where the said relatives are minors, he may stand a chance of either living to earn their forgiveness, or of shuffling off his mortal coil before they do it for him. In that there may be a show of unintentional mercy ; but what about the deputation business ? Only fancy an old gentleman, too “ aged or crippled ” to do the duty of legal slaughterman, having the “ privilege ” of “ employing ” other persons to commit a judicial murder, and then be content to “ fall asleep in Jesus.” It is difficult to see the “ drift ” of the punishment for absolute murder being taken from the ordinary channels ; and we fancy the

public opinion of even Californian society will not allow anything so revolting to disgrace the statute books of its Legislature.