The Waikato Times AND THAMES VALLEY GAZETTE. THURSDAY, JAN. 24, 1889.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 2580, 24 January 1889, Page 2

The Waikato Times AND THAMES VALLEY GAZETTE.

THURSDAY, JAN. 24, 1889.

Equal anil exact justice to all men. Of whatsoever statu or persuasion, religious or political.

The libel case Larnach v. the Proprietors of the New Zealand Herald, which has been decided against the defendants, is of such public importance that it can well call for an expression of opinion from the colonial press generally. There is a very great principle involved in the case and the decision of the Court, one that trenches not only on the liberty of the press, but also on the greatest safeguard the people possess against public abuses and political wrongs. The history of this cttusc cdebrc, is, shortly, as follows : — The plaintiff, lion. ,J. M. Larnach, a leading business man of Dunedin, ex - Cabinet Minister and a member of the House of Hep resentatives, had resolved to settle in Melbourne. He came from that city in order to put in an appearance in Parliament during last session of the New Zealand Legislature, having still retained his seat. It was a well-known fact that he was about to leave the colony for good. Ho entertained the more prominent Civil Servants of Wellington at a public dinner, which was regarded as a "farewell" banquet prior to his departure, and was so telegraphed to the whole Press. ,Shortly after this lie left for the. South, and then leave of absence was asked for him, according to the rules of the House, on the grounds of ui'g: nt private business, or sickness in his family. Taking the circumstances together, the Herald, on receipt of the telegraphic intelligence, considered there was here a great abuse of privilege, and that an influential and socially popular man was misusing his public position. Our contemporary assumed that the leave of absence, according to procedure, and the plea of family illness was a cover to enable Mr Larnach te continue to draw his honorarium whilst he was actually absent in another colony on his own private business. On these assumptions, the llerald, in a leading article, commented in very strong terms, 011 what it supposed to be a gross and scandalous abuse. It was subsequently shown that the article had been written under a misconception of facts. Mr Larnach was called away by the serious illness of his daughter, and the allegations of the Herald were found to be wrong. Our contemporary, therefore, published a second and an apologetic article: not only that, but the proprietors telegraphed to Mr Larnach completing the amende honorable by fully retracting the assertions made in the first article. The injured legislator, however, declined to be appeased, and would be siitisliecl with nothing less than the verdict of ajury, And so the case was taken into the Supreme Court for trial with a claim for .£I,OOO damages, the result being that the Herald has been mulcted in the sum of five hundred pounds, with costs 011 the middle scale. The

real question raised by tilts Herald was not whether Mr Larnach, as a member of the Legislature, was or was not entitled to honorarium during absence from the House, or whether tho .Act, quoted in the article, permitted, or not, the Speaker to exercise his own discretion in recognising members' claims tor honorarium. It seems to us that the point aimed at by our contemporary was whether it was a right thing for a representative of the people to continue to draw public money when he had, to all intents and purposes, severed his public connection with the Legislature, was 011 tho eve of departure for another country and, (h Jacto, was to be absent on private business, Tliis was the issue raised by the Herald, assuming tho knowledge of the circumstances in its possession to be truo. Xt spoke not with the object of displaying ' animosity towards Mr Lurn&.eh personally, but commented on his acts and purposes as a public man on general grounds and in ihe interests of the people of the colony. Looking at the ivatter in this light, without seeking to rjunrrcl with Mr Larnach or to impugn the judgment of the Court, we declare that ti>e Herald was doing its duty and was faithful to its trust as one of the guardians of popular rights, in lifting its voice against an evidently glaring abuse. It might have couched its language in a less ofiojis,ive style, or in a more modi-

lied tone : but that is only a question of individual taste and not one on which to bring grave condemnation on the Press in the exercise of a religious duty to the country Journalistic out-spokenness in regard to the conduct of public affairs, the public acts of Ministers and all public men entrusted with public duties, is not to be set down as a crime ; certainly not in a country inhabited by .British people enjoying British institutions and British liberty. It is true as Sir Robert Stout contended, on the authority of Lord Cockburn, that the Press must be the guardians of the character of the country's public men, and that base motives must not be imputed to them with impunity. This is undoubtedly a sacred responsibility that belongs to the Press. If we are to see the conduct of public affairs and the honest administration of the Government of the country always in the hands of our best, gifted and most high-minded men, we must be very jealous of their honour and reputation. But a dearer and higher duty still,is to uphold popular rights and watch keenly against the approach of corruption and increase of public abuses. Whilst honorable men can, in a great measure, find security against slander 111 their own integrity, the conservation of the liberties and good government of the

people is entirely dependent on the alertness and guardian-ship of an untrammelled Press. When a man unconsciously or from wrong premises, has done another an injury, he displays a rare superiority if he conies forward, admits his error, and offers reparation. The Herald did this when it made a frank apology to Mr Larnach, although Sir R. Stout declaims against that journal for want of manliness in not doing so. Legal technicalities raised by Sir P. Stout, and supported by the Bench, precluded the full evidence for the defence being submitted, and according to our contemporary's own statement, it had evidence to bring forward, which would have placed its case in a more favourable light, in regard to the facts upon which its article have been based. The complexion placed upon the hearing of the case by making use of legal quibbles is that it is possible, under certain conditions, for the Press of New Zealand to be gagged by the law courts of the colony, and that the right of free criticism 011 the public actions of public men are not to be given the liberty the fiee Press of a free people should 'enjoy. It is therefore time the law was altered.