THE STONEWALL.

Auckland Star, Issue XXXVI, 21 October 1905, Page 6

THE STONEWALL.

DEBATE ON THE CRIMINAL CODE.

DETERMINED OPPOSITION. (By Telegraph.—Pariiamenwry Beporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. Three or four active members with an equal relief a dozen or so sleepers, a , chairman, a clanging bell and a more or ' less interested Minister—there were the elements of a stonewall which started casually on Thursday night, rapidly developed into a very solid barrier. "Freedom of speech'" was what the stonewallers demanded. ''Freedom from license," was what the rest of the House wanted. The one party talked without ceasing, the other, like "Brer Rabbit,"' "lay low and said nuffin." From a "Brer to Sheba," as a Government Whip put it last session, the discussion raged and ranged. Nothing was too hot or too heavy, nothing too earnest or too frivolous; on the whole the frivolous predominated, though it was clearly tempered with a rein of grave seriousness, and from one end to the other the discussion was carried on without bitterness or without personality. Usually the leading feature of "persistent opposition," the party behind Air Massey, put in an early protest, and then curled up and went to sleep. It was the "left wingers" who built the wall, and a poor naif dozen of them acted highwaymen to a sleepy House, holding up the proceedings with but slight intermittent assistance from the regular Opposition, It was Mr Moss who built the foundation for the wall, and the "New Liberals" were early to his assistance, but for the first ten or twelve hours the member for Ohinemuri was the leading spirit, and, despite bis parsonical aspect, he was at times decidedly humorous. When the Independents found that they had to run the show themselves, they divided their forces. Messrs Moss, Harding, Fisher and Alison held the fort while Messrs Taylor and Bedford took the "watch below." When the stonewall was fairly under way, the party adopted the tactics of moving to strike out each word of clause 2 in succession, and, after each defeat, to move to report progress, debating each item meanwhile to the limit. The clause began with the provisions of the Criminal Code Act, and Mr Moss waxed eloquent on the urgent necessity for striking out the word "the," a most unnecessary and misleading word, he declared, the inclusion of which would render it impossible for any lawyer to understand the clause, for any judge to construe it, but his motion was lost by 32 votes to 12, and thence onward he traversed the whole section. "Provisions," he urged, should be struck out to insert "terms" or "provisos." "Why not sections?" asked Mr Harding. " "Oh, no," wailed the member, "that would remind the House too much of the Land Commission, and that's too sore a subject." Mr Harding took the view that the word "provisions" was a blot in the language, and spelt damnation to the bill, while he was deeply concerned at the syntax of the clause. Mr Herries was now the sole occupant of the Opposition Benches, and he took an occasional spell. Continually the bell was whirring and clanging for a quorum, and members would slip in until tbe required 20 minutes was reached and then fade out noiselessly and mysteriously till another call brought them back. At bali-past four Mr Fisher suggested that it was "tip to the Minister to drop the bill. "When I get through the third reaamg, I will," was the reply, and wearily the discussion dragged on.

A COMPROMISE SUGGESTED

Daylight came to find a motion to report progress being debated from the oue side, and then came a suggestion from the Premier that a compromise should be effected by the following proviso, "Provided that spoken words shall not constitute or held to constitute criminal defamation unless such words be spoken at any meeting to which persons have been invited to be present either by letter or notice, written or printed, or advertisement in any newspaper, or in any other way, or that such words be spoken in or upon any road, street, footpath, or thoroughfare of a public nature, or open to or us«?d. by the public as of a right and to every place of a public resort so open or used, or any public park, garden, reserve, or other place of public recreation or resort, or any public wharf, pier, or petty, or any public hall, theatre, or room, or any racecourse, cricket ground, football ground, or other such place to which the public have access free or on payment of any gate money, and within the hearing of not less than twenty Tjcrfons, and provided further that the information shall be laid and taken before a Stipendary Magistrate within three months from the date the defamatory words were spoken, and such magistrate shall, before he commits, be satisfied that a defamatory statement has l>een uttered."

This was, after some discussion, accepted by all parties and a settlement was in sight when Mr Taylor, with his gun loaded for rear and accompanied by his faithful satellite, Mr Bedford, arrived on the scene and put the fat into the fire again. These two ran the debate for several hours, greatly assisted by the quorum bell.

"Under good guidance," declared Mr Moss, "this House is becoming more and more like a Judy Show." "Would you be surprised if I called you Punch?" mildly inquired the Premier.

Later, Mr Taylor swung off at a tangent to the Babbit Nuisance Bill, and then went on to talk of fish and of usury. Mr Baume then took the chair and made a desperate attempt to keep matters on the track, but it wasn't much good. Through the morning the discussion dragfged on, Mr Massey throwing a little needed virility into it. "We are proposing," he said, "that every man who goes on to the platform shall do so with a gag in his mouth and a rope round his neck." Bickering and interchanges filled in time up to the dinner adjournment.

When the House met in the afternoon Mr. Herries drew attention to the fact that, as far as the House was concerned, it was still Thursday, though 2.30 pan. on Friday had been reached. He suggested that progress should be reported and the House should rise and celebrate Trafalgar at the Hutt (Wellington races), and then, by meeting in the evening for a fresh day's business, save the irrevocable loss of a day. He hoped that the bill would be taken out and buried deep i» a stable. Then the whole of the bills' en the Order Paper, could be gone threegh in a night, and the House could go home on Monday. "Wouldn't that alluring prospect induce members to fling the bill into the waste-paper basket with a dull, sickening thud? Mr. Laurenson, who has been gradually getting back into the Government fold since the Toucher charges wen exploded.

rounded on his erstwhile colleagues, and «_ve them a roaigh handling. He commenced by expressing a fear that unless some arrangement was arrived at the bill would not get through. A man would have no protection against a penniless slanderer.

Mr. Taylor- Ignore him. Mr. Laurenson: You would not. If mv moral character was traduced and I could not get redress byn law, I would try the bullet or the knife. ("Oh!" and laughter.) He was astonished at the ridiculous claptrap he had heard from men who were supposed to be educated and intelligent. He went on to say that if a man of substance libelled another he' could be stripped of everything he had, but if he were a penniless adventurer he could get on a public platform and vilify another's personal character to his heart's content.

Mr. Taylor: No public man should take notice of criticism.

Mr. Laurenson: You did. You had recourse to the law the other day, and took £50 damages from a man in the South. (Laughter.) Our citizens were protected from assassination, and he considered that they should also be protected from such attacks as these. In opposing the bill members were making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Mr. Herdman declared that it was difficult to understand where Mr. Laurenson stood.

Mr. Jennings rose to a point of order on this statement.

Mr. Harding: Oh, give him a chance. Mr. Jennings: I'll give you a chance any time you like. Mr. Herdman went on to say that a few weeks ago Mr. Laurenson was working with Messrs. Taylor and Bedford. Now he was against them. One day he denounced the Government with eyes glistening and a vicious expression: the next day he was their champion. If he had lived in the time of the French revolution he would have been a Robespierre, and would have strung the Opposition to lamp posts in twenty-four hours. Mr. Jennings offered a reason for opposition to the bill. He suggested that it would mean the taking away of the stock-in-trade of political assassins who were going round the colony at the pres-. ent time. He was of opinion that the compromise should have been accepted, and tbatJt would have been accepted but for the unfortunate arrival of Messrs. Bedford and Taylor.

Mr. Taylor, replying to Mr. Laurenson, said that the defendant in his case had brought himself within the law, and he had been made to pay for it. Mr. Bedford was willing to accept the clause if the Premier would make it apply to public meetings only. The Premier pointed out that numbers of unadvertised meetings were held in the streets. At meetings held at the Auckland firebell the honour of Auckland's brightest citizens had been assailed, and not only the men, but the mothers and daughters of Auckland had been traduced. He pointed out that these informal meetings might be attended by two or three thousand, while a formal meeting might only be attended by twenty or thirty people. Mr. Moss, replying to the Premier, said that no one professing to be a man would listen to individuals making disparaging remarks about their wives and children without taking action, and if the Premier thought there were such he was greatly mistaken in the people of Auckland.

I After the supper adjournment, there seemed to be a disposition towards compromise, though chiefly confined to neutrals, such as Messrs. Hanan and Rawkins, who both suggested that progress be reported in ordet to have a brief ! conference.

Mr. Hawkins said that the House now recognised that the bill had not been introduced to meet the eases of Ministers or of members.

Mr. Moss made yet another speech, in which he again referred to the bill as a "made in Germany atrocity." The Premier called attention to repetition on the part of Mr. Moss. He had heard the term a dozen times.

"Yes, but perhaps you haven't heard cocked hat horror,'" eagerly insinuated Mr. Moss, with evident pride in the new phrase.

At 10.45 the division on the much-de-bated motion to report progress was taken and defeated by 35 to 21.

Mr. Fisher then moved: "That the chairman leave the chair."

Mr. Taylor, speaking to this, said it was moved so that a conference might lake place. He held that every moment of the 30 hours spent in discussing the bill was well spent. He was prepared to go on until exhausted, but he understood that a number of members favoured a compromise.

Mr. Moss said that he would withdraw all opposition if the Government would exempt Ohinemuri from the bill. Mr. Duthie opposed a compromise in the interests of free speech.

Mr. Taylor declared that the bill was intended to protect Ministers, and should be called "the Executive Protection Bill."'

Mr. McLachlan here rose to speak, but was ordered down by the actingchairman (Mr. Baume). "Is this lese rhajeste?" he asked. "Oh, what indignities we must suffer."

Immediately after this a point of order was raised by Mr. R. McKenzie, and Mr. McLachlan again rose. He was ordered down again by Mr. Baume, and the Premier rose to speak to the point of order.

Mr. Fisher then declared that the chairman had given preference to the Premier.

Mr. Baume pointed out that Mr. McLachlan wished to speak to the main question, and this could not be allowed until the point of order was disposed of. He called upon Mr. Fisher to withdraw.

The member for Wellington asked what he was to withdraw, not quite understanding the position. He was again asked to withdraw, erd, on repeating his query, he was reported to the Speaker for disorderly conduct. Subsequent explanations showed that the position had arisen through a misunderstanding, and the House decided to accept the explanation without recording anything in the journals. Discussion was resumed by Mr E. M. Smith, who, amongst other things, related that once, on the eve of his addressing the electors of New Zealand, he was actually drugged. "And it very near capsized mc," continued Mr Smith, who attributed his even keel to the habit of drinking coffee-. This anecdote was related to illustrate the dangers to which public men are exposed in this country.

The motion for the chairman to leave the chair was lost by 32 to 12. Reconsideration was then given to clause 2. •

After a lapse of many hours, Mr Tanner announced that he had an amendment to move, which wa3 in the direction of securing or making immune from prosecution words spoken merely by way of ridicule.

Mr Bedford moved a prior amendment with the object of making the bill only apply when the defamatory matter is uttered twice. He said that a repetition of the evil-speaking would show Chat gutfke was Intended.

At 1.15 a.m. Messrs Moss and Harding were keeping things going, while the Premier and Leader of the Opposition were each surrounded by a little group, studying draft of amendments, hopes of a compromise, being entertained. ' The intention of the prime movers in the stonewall was to keep going until the Premier should compromise with Mr Massey. / A FINAL SETTLEMENT. Just before ' 1.30.the Premier announced the final position of the Government on the subject as follows: — (1) Every person who without legal justification or excuse speaks any words which are likely to injure the reputation of any other person by exposing such lastmentioned person to hatred or contempt or to injure" him in his profession or trade is guilty of "criminal defamation," which is hereby declared to be an offence. Provided that the speaking of such words shall not constitute, or be deemed to constitute, an offence unless spoken within the hearing of not less than 20 persons at a meeting to which the public are invited to attend or have access. Provided further that no proceedings in respect of an offence against this Act shall be commenced after the expiration of three months after the commission of the offence. (2) The provisions of sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Criminal Code Amendment Act, 1901, shall, mutatis mutandis, extend and apply to all cases of criminal defamation, provided that, before making any order under section 5 of that Act in respect of any offence of criminal defamation, the Judge or Magistrate making such order shall be satisfied that there is reasonable ground for a prosecution.

Mr Seddon said that it had takes a great deal of time to get tbe mind of the House. The new clause guarded against blackmail, and against unscrupulous persons who slandered their fellows. The clause safeguarded on tbe one hand and prevented slander on the other.

Mr Massey considered the clause an immense improvement on the bill before the House. Had the Premier brought the proposal down originally a very protracted debate, in which no member could look back with pleasure, would have been saved.

Ultimately the original clause 2 was struck out of the bill, a new clause was inserted on the voices by arrangement among the parties.

No discussion was taken on the third reading, though Mr Moss mentioned that he did not approve of the bill even yet.

The bill was then read a third time on the voices, after being 28 hours under discussion, 26J hours being spent in Committee, exclusive of meal adjournments, i

Mr Massey expressed a hope that there would be no more bills* of the Criminal Code type. The Premier said he- was still satisfied the House would make up lost ground and conclude the session in a few days.