THE Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 1894. THE LAW OF LIBEL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2699, 16 August 1894, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 1894. THE LAW OF LIBEL.

Those who have noticed tho vulgarity of tho abuse to which tho Hon. John McKenzie has so frequently been subject® 1 by the Conservative press will not be surprised to learn that he has no great love for newspaper men. The hon. gentleman is in a position in which he must expect criticism, and it is certainly right that he should be criticised, but there is a limit to everything, and so far as Messrs McKenzie and Seddon are concerned that limit has been too frequently exceeded. Their personal looks, their peculiarities of manner, the fact that they were not born with silver spoons in their mouths, and that their educational advantages are not equal to the standard set up for Ministers of tho Crown, as well as many other things which

have no bearing whatsoever on practical politics have been referred to in the most exaggerated manner in the columns of Conservative papers. The early life, the mannerisms, and the other peculiarities of these gentlemen, if they have any, have nothing to do with politics, and it is certainly outside the limit of fair criticism to refer to them, very frequently in the most brutally insulting manner. If therefore Mr McKenzie has no very exalted opinion of newspaper men we do not feel disposed to blame him. If newspaper men desire to be respected they must respect themselves, and this they will not do so long as they descend to the despicable level of making the personal peculiarities of men topics of discussion in the leading columns of their papers. In criticising Mr McKenzie they have often gone too far, and if he has turned on them now in his Law of Libel Amendment Bill, which he has just introduced, it is only what their own unfairness provoked. It is amusing to note the seriousness with which this measure has been received by not only the Conservative but also some of the leading Liberal papers as well. Mr McKenzie, of course, does not mean to carry this Bill, the object of which is to make every writer of articles in newspapers sign their names to them. It is only a joke, and is not to be taken seriously, for no one knows better than Mr McKenzie that it is so repulsive to British instincts that it could not under any circumstances pass into law. It is the law in France at the present time, and its effect has been to bring certain able writers into great prominence. It would lessen the influence of the paper, and give the editor far greater personal power. The work of the newspaper man would then be seen, and we feel certain it would be done much bettor than it is now, for the fact that be would have to put his name to an article would induce him to exert all bis faculties to produce as clever a thing as he could. At present no one knows who writes the articles in a newspaper, and consequently no one is credited with them. It is known that a certain man occupies the position of editor, but that is all. Clever journalists would gain personally by signing their articles, but it would be the death of mediocrity, and the influence of the press would be greatly lessened. However, it is useless to dwell on this subject for the very reason that it will not pass into law, and that its author does not expect it. We regard the Bill as a huge joke, but at the same time we feel inclined to say that Mr McKenzie might have employed his time to better advantage than in promoting such a measure. The law of libel as at present in force in this colony is a disgrace, and if Mr McKenzie did the proper thing he would try to get it amended. The Press ought to have perfect freedom to discuss all subjects fairly and honestly, but not liberty to injure private character or deprive any one of his means of living. A Bill amending the law of libel has frequently passed the Legislative Council, but has as frequently been slaughtered amongst the innocents in the Lower House. It is very seldom newspapers refer to this; they have one grievance, and yet they seldom urge it, notwithstanding that they are in a position to do so. It is simply a shame for Parliament that the matter has not been attended to long

CHEAP

In another column will be found a . e^er dealing with the question of Cheap Money. The scheme which the writer has formulated is not new, nor do we think that it is workable. His first proposition is that the interest of the banka should not be studied, as they only aim at producing dividends for shareholders. Anyone who does not study the interests of the banka will make a great mistake, for this reason, that if their financial arrangements are seriously disturbed their customers must suffer. For instance, suppose the right to issue paper money were taken away from the banks, they would require to call in their advances to the people to a sum equal to the value of their paper money. Their customers would therefore suffer more seriously than the banks themselves. It would probably result in the ruin of some people. The depression is deep enough at present, and to disturb the financial arrangements of the banka would only make it a great deal worse. Any one attempting any cheap money scheme, therefore, must, to be successful, try to avoid injuring the banks but as little as possible. Now as regards the second and chief point—the issue of legal tender postal notes —we cannot see how it would work. Patting aside the stereotyped arguments for and against convertible and inconvertible paper currency, and dealing with it in a matter-of-fact, practical way, it appears to us that it is not feasible. The first point to consider in this connection is the scope and functions of paper money. Let it not bo forgotten that a bank note is not money, and neither can a postal note, with State security at its back, be regarded as money. They are both simply like a cheque pieces of paper which promise to pay, and are only used by the people for the purposes of change. The people keep so many notes in their pockets and in their tills for the purposes of their business, but the moment a man gets more than he requires for that puroose ho places them to his credit in tho bank. This, therefore, limits tha amount of paper money which can be put in circulation. Tho people require, say, £1,00,000 to keep in their pockets and their tills, and no law, »o power, no influence can make them take more. The moment they got more, to the bank thev go with it. Every writer on the currency question is agreed on this point. Now tho amount of paper money which tho people of this colony use is leas than £1,000,000, and tho banks at present provide this sum. Seeing that the paper money is .ajrpady provided by the banks, and that the people will not use any more of it than they do at present, where is the room fov Government nojtetj ? Let ns, for instance, suppose the Goyeriir pjent issued £IOO,OOO oi postal notes, n ifdthpm away in wages —say constructing tho Obgo Central— what would be the ~,'sult? fTC u!d become of the notes i Tl ><7 ,P ald , by workmen to * ita fokOT, the workmen to . 4 i Q grocer, etc., and these j 3 to their credit in the banks. likely that the banks will circulate these notes and suppress their own paper money ? We do not think so. What would happen is this: Tho first settling up the other five banks had with the Rank of New Zealand they would hand over these notes, and demand gold for them. Being a legal tender, tho Bank of New Zealand could not refuse to take them, and it would have to pay for them in gold, because all the banks settle their balances in gold. The position would then be this : The manager of the Bank of New Zealand would say to the Government, “ Hero is a nice fix; hero are all these notes on my hands, and I have had to pay gold for them ; I must debit your account with them.” The Government would have there and then to pay the Bank of New Zealand for tho notes, and where would tho advantage come in I Of

course, if the banks agreed to circulate them they would pass exactly as other notes do, but let us remember that this is nut to the advantage of the banks, and they would not be likely to do it so long as they possess the power to issue paper money of their own. To put the thing in a nut shell, either the Government must withdraw from the present banks the right to issue paper money or let paper money alone. Less than £1,000,000 of paper money can circulate; jit is impossible to increase the amount, for people do not want more. The Government could possibly get a little paper money put in circulation by issuing ten-shilling and five-shilling notes, for these would not interfere with the paper money of the banks, and they would pass from hand to hand instead of silver and half-sovereigns. These notes would be a convenience to the banks and to the public, and woud pass without the slightest difficulty, but notes which would displace bank notes would be nipped in the bud. They would not be one mouth in circulation before' they would be returned to the Government. It is a mistake to think that a legaltender note will pass under all circumstances. Supposing, for instance, a man takes £ICO in legal tenders into the bank and wants to place them to his credit; must the banker take them ? Certainly not. He would have to take them in payment of a debt, but who could compel the bank to place them to his credit and thus make itself liable to pay in gold for them ? It could not be done, and if a bank refused them they ; Would depreciate in value. Our friend says if the banks demanded gold for these notes the Government could also demand gold for the bank notes it would get into its possession, and he adds, “so that bogey is scotched.” That would-: be correct if the Government had a bank of its own, but it has not. If it got the gold into the Bank of New Zealand it would go. No scheme of paper money can possibly work until the Government deprive the present banks of the right to issue notes, for the people require only a certain number of notes, and these are provided by the present banks.