The Wanganui Chronicle. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA." TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1905. A SUCCESSFUL STONEWALL.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLIX, Issue 12635, 24 October 1905, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA." TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1905. A SUCCESSFUL STONEWALL.

The stonewall which was conducted in the House of Representatives last week against the Government Bill to amend the Criminal Code in a direction which, had it been carried, would seriously have curtailed the liberties of the people, was brought to a satisfactory conclusion on Saturday morning.* The object of the Bill was to make spoken defamation the subject of criminal prosecution, and punishable in the same way as written defamation. Up to the present the law, both in England and in this colony, has very properly made ?. distinction between spoken defamation, which is known as slander, and written defamation, which is known as libel. It has been recognised, as a contemporary puts it, that "there is a marked difference between derogatory lar.guage used in the heat of public speech, or a quarrel in the street, which is forgotten almost as soon as uttered, and a libel which is committed to paper, and which, therefore, not only marks more deliberation, but remains on record, and may pass from hand to hand, causing an ever increasing area of mischief to the person libelled. Accordingly, as the law stands, while libel may be made the subject of a criminal prosecution, the only remedy open to a person who has been slandered is to bring a civil action for the recovery, of damages." The Bill brought down by the Hon. Mr. McGowan, on behalf of tho Government, sought to do away with this distinction, and to make both libel and slander alike punishable in tho criminal courts. In theory, perhaps, there may be something to be' said in justification of the proposal, but experience teaches that it is a highly dangerous thing to tamper with the liberty of speech. In the present case it is fair to assume that the Bill was brought down,. chiefly, if not wholly, in consequence of the recent "voucher" incident and certain reflections which havo been cast upon Sir Joseph Ward in connection with the liquidation of the Colonial Bank. Certainly, in our opinion, the "voucher" incident constitutes no justification for so drastic an alteration of the law as that proposed, while so far as Sir Joseph "Ward is concerned, the fact that he has his remedy under the law as it now stands does away with the necessity for the alteration on his account, even supposing it could be argued that an injustice done to one individual warrants the curtailment of the rights of the community. We entirely agree with the Christchurch "Press" that while cases of hardships may arise when the defendants in such action are men of straw, "even isolated cases of injustice are a less public ovil than an Act of Parliament, which, in the hands of ar. unscrupulous Government, might be made an instrument for crushing the freedom of speech which is the very life of political freedom." Our contemporary adds: ''We have no doubt the immediate object of the Bill is to stop the attacks of which Sir Joseph Ward complains, and possibly other similar causes of offence. If it is carried into law, however, and the present Government remains in power, we shall probably see our public meetings haunted by Government spies taking down every word used by candidates in the heat of a general election, and the law officers of the Government consulted as to how far the report of what was said—possibly an inaccurate or garbled version—comes within the reach of the law. Iv that case it will probably be advisable for Opposition candidates, for their own security, to have their ov. i! reporters pi-esent to secure an independent record of their remarks. We do not desire to see that state of things introduced into this young country, which is statute-ridden far beyond its needs." Another pertinent aspect of the matter is concisely explained by tho Napier "Telegraph," which points out that the public aro under quite enough disadvantage now, without adding to the disabilities imposed by law. It is not generally known that papers publishing reports even of what transpires in Parliament do so at their own risk. The general impression that whatever is said in the course oC debate— that is, whatever the Speaker permits to be said as pertinent and as 'Parliamentary'—may be reported by the Press, is erroneous. As 'Hansard' is fortunately a privileged publication the disability does not prevent the public learning what is in progress, but it is. rather disconcerting to find that what tho Government, or any member of the House, may circulate in unlimited numbers without fear of legal penalties, may not be published in an ordinary newspaper by right. The public are acquainted with various forms of that highly refined and ultra-virtuous indignation which sees in anything approaohing outspokenness in newspapers an offence. And, of course, it is an offence—to those seeking to wrong the public. If a man entrusted with public duties thinks it is convenient to devote public moneys to private uses; or to utilise any powers vested in him

to swell his banking account by means of blackmail, or 'commission' or "bakshish' of any kind; or to dishonestly enrich himself or members of his family at the cost of the community—such a man of course does not like criticism in the Press. But it is admitted, even by the Government of New Zealand, that the Press of this colony is unjustly and impolitically hampered by being subjected to more irksome restraints in the matter of reporting ovents than are imposed upon newspapers even in the Mother Country. The Premier has in consequence talked of assimilating the libel law of this oolj ony to that of Britain. Yet, while it is acknowledged that the Press is uncrly—and, so far as the general public are concerned, unjustly—hampered and harassed, the Government introouee legislation for narrowing down the rights of free speech to the confined limits imposed on the Press!" But, fortunately, the House was not disposed to allow the Government's Bill to go unchallenged, and a determined stonewall resulted in the Premier being forced to bring down a compromise of a satisfactory character. The two main clauses of the Bill were thrown overboard, and replaced by two clauses to the effect that persons speaking words without justification that are likely to injure are guilty of criminal defamation, provided they are spoken within the hearing of 20 people at a meeting to which the public are invited, and proceedings are taken within two months. The provisions of sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the criminal code to apply to all cases provided that under section 5, the judge or magistrate making the order be satisfied that there ia reasonable ground for a prosecution.