South Canterbury Times, THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1880.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2286, 15 July 1880, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1880.

Thu press of New Zealand is considerably indebted to the editor of the “ Saturday Advertiser ” for the steps that he has taken to vindicate its fail-

fame against malicious aspersion. Hitherto the journals of the colony have been content to stand simply on the defensive. Journalists have regarded the law of libel, as administered in this land of promise, so utterty onesided and cruelly vindictive that they have preferred to take the position of an Aunt Sally, to bo pelted by every mean litigant, rather than take up the cudgels themselves. It has been said that “ the pen is mightier than the sword ” but in courts of justice there is something far mightier than the pen, and that is the judicial wig. The brief authority exercised by incompetent and eccentric llcsidcut Magistrates lias hitherto been a terror to honest, outspoken journalism, and the public of course have suffered. But persistent persecution loads eventually to rebellion, and in the action taken by Air Thomas Bracken we perceive symptoms of the much severely brow-beaten, and libel-haunted New Zealand Press, beginning to round upon

its oppressors. The result of the ease of Bracken v. Darrell, alias Price, in which the plaintiff has been awarded £SO damages for libel, ought to have a beneficial cJfect on Press and Stage. The gentleman libelled had suffered because he had the courage to submit the stage antics of 'a mediocre actor to honest and independen criticism. For this he was mercilessly abused, lirst from the stage and then by means of defamatory handbills issued at Wellington. Had the defendant conlined himself to mere libellous utterances his conduct might probably have been passed over, but when he followed up a cowardly revenge by causing false and scandalous canards to be published, he disentitled himself to forbearance. To criticise public performances in a fair and impartial spirit is one of the most troublesome as well a thankless duties that devolves upon a public writer. lie may be inclined to ho charitable to the actors, but if he is honest in the discharge of his duties he must be just to the public. Much as he wishes to be lenient he dare not close his eyes to transparent faults. The moment it is known that a newspaper is in the habit of puffing and bolstering up trash}’ performances its criticisms sink in value, and instead of being accepted as guides by the patrons of amusements they arc disregarded. The genuine artist who relies upon his talents for support and fame has nothing to fear at the hands of the critic. His audiences are his judges, and if he is unfairly or ungraciously dealt with the contempt bequeathed on his captious critic will prove punishment enough. What he has to fear chiefly, is not unkind criticism, so much as the namby-pamby praise by which inferiors are elevated to the same level with genuine merit.

That the press has a great influence on the prosperity of the stage is generally acknowledged. But press criticisms to be of the slightest value to the stage must be independent aud fearless.

It is an easy thing for a performer, wincing under the reflection of his faults as mirrored by the journalist, to turn round and ascribe corrupt and dishonest motives. But this kind -of abuse is as mean and . contemptible as it is ungrateful. In the case under review, it was particularly so. If there is a stage star of poor magnitude in the colonies, who has a greatideal to thank the press for, it is Mr George Darrell, the well-known actor and author. His defence was on a par with his behaviour throughout. The jury were asked to believe that he had notiiing to do witli the libel complained of—a libel published with a fictitious imprint. They marked their sense of the insult by awarding a verdict for the plaintiff for damages which, while not vindictive, were sufficiently substantial to show that they sympathised with the plaintiff in his e(forts to vindicate his character as a journalist from a foul and unjustifiable aspersion.