FRANK DUTCH EDITOR.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 March 1916, Page 2

FRANK DUTCH EDITOR.

DENOUNCES THE GERMANS. WAS HOLLAND'S NEUTRALITY JEOPARDISED! "I can hardly he far from the truth in saying that the most-talked-of mas in Holland at present is Mr. Schroeder, the editor of t'ho Amsterdam Telegraaf, who waß arrested suddenly ou the evening of December 4," writes the Hague correspondent of the New York Evenisg Post on December 10 last. I hold no brief for the Telegraaf or for its editor, and while I admire the straightness and force of nig never intermitting attacks, I can hardly profess admiration for his methods. The Telegraafs attacks often left the parties attacked an opening for making a claim j for damages on the ground of insult or defamation. Mere insult or slander is punishable under Dutch law without the accused having the right of proving his statements. This i« a. nice technical point of the Dutch law. This has been the experience of the Telegraaf. A round dozen of lawsuits, brought by persons who were angered at seeing lifted a. corner of the curtain behind which they covered their smuggling and other machinations, did aot do much harm to the paper in question. Part of them will result in an adverse verdict and probably in rather heavy damages. It might cost money, the conducting to the end of this unfearing and uncompromising campaign. The editor, announcing that the "Dozen wan up," stated that he intended to go on in the same strain and with the same vehemence until the Government should, awake to see where their duty lay. But at tjhe same time, he left tliis Gsvernment the choice between being "sleepy fools" or "downright traitors and panGermans, neutrals though they call themselves." It was the article out of which I cited a few sentences which caused his undoing—at least 'his being taken into custody, OUTSPOKEN AND ENERGETIC. Lukewarmness, that old fault of th« Hollander, cannot he laid against Mr. Schroeder. He is one of the few men in Holland who dares to call out "stop thief" when he sees one, and who will go out of his way to do a little bit »f stopping himself, which Is rarer still in our well-policed civilisation. But Mr. Schroeder was a vigilance committee in himself. His correspondent* were everywhere. Even in Belgium's darkest day's, when nobody could pass the {rentier, when every letter-bearer was shot at sight, the Telegraaf correspondents got their news through, and never 'have Germans been "hated" and "strafed" ai they were in the columns of this Amsterdam paper. No smuggler could devise a new method of transporting forbidden articles across the frontier but the Tele*raaf was there to expose him aud His method. The people concerned fumed with indignation, but as the facts were undeniable, they could only resort to complaining of insults and defamation in the wording of the divulgation. The continuous attacks upon Government laxity seems to have induced the present judicial action. The Telegraaf is a paper which political men can afford to quarrel with, oecanse it has no electorate behind it and never takes part in any issue of home politics. And this ,1s very much said in a country where an electorate of under a million has to make its selection between some fifteen political parses and the subdivisions thereof. The arrest took place. But not an issue 'has come off its presses since the date of the arrest without the acting-editor being able to print from six to twelve columns of messages of sympathy and encouragement, coming from ail sorts and conditions of people, from all nooks and corners of Holland. ROUSED TO DEFEND PRESS LIBERTY. The Amsterdam University professors drew up an address to the Government for Schroeder's release; the Amsterdam journalists, so often pilloried by the Telegraaf for their inaction in this issue and for their lukewarm neutrality, did the same; the Dutch Institute of' Journalists is following suit, and Prof. Hector Trent, M.D., brother of the Minister of Finance, was one of the first to plead in not too measured terms for Schroeder's release. Not more than two papers .which count have failed to join the chorus for the liberty 'of the press. This liberty, seems really endangered by this unprecedented step. "Nobody," the- Dutch Constitution says, "wants previous permission to pronounce and to divulge his -views by means of the printing press, with the understanding that he takes the responsibility for the views expressed." How could Schroeder be arrested? Simply by taking refuge in an article of the Penitentiary law, which savs that in order to prevtnt repetition of the offenco or flight of the ill-doer, a person can be taken into custody, provided a maximum penalty of not less than four years' imprisonment is menaced for the inculpated deed. Schroeder is alleged to have jeopradised Holland's neutrality by the articles published in the Telegraaf. I would not be surprised if popular indignation should bring about the release or this Amsterdam editor before this letter reached you. But it may give your readers an insight into the neutrality of the Hollander to-day. (Mr. Schroeder has since been acquitted)