THE ARGUs ON THE TELEGRAM LIBEL CASE.

Press, Volume XVIII, Issue 2493, 27 April 1871, Page 3

THE ARGUs ON THE TELEGRAM LIBEL CASE.

The preliminary inquiry into what is locally known as the "great telegram libel case," before the police magistrate at Dunedin, has resulted in the committal of Mr George Barton for trial. The whole of the circumstances attending this prosecution are worthy of more than a passing notice, as they show us to what disreputable practices a Government of trading politicians, all hungry for office and its spoils, may descend when unchecked by a vigorous aud healthy public opinion. Mr Barton, as our readers may remember, is the ex-euitor of the Otaqo Daily Times, a paper which supports political views inimical to the present Government, a member of which, Mr Yogel, was his predecessor in the editorial chair. Mr Vogel, it appears, alleges that the proprietors of the journal in question did not treat him well, and in order to be revenged on them be has never ceased to pusue his successor with every annoyance that could suggest itself to a little mind and a naturally spiteful nature. Such, at least, is the popular belief, and in matters of this nature public opinion generally points to the true state of the ease with unerring instinct. In the discharge of his duty to the paper bo conducted Mr Barton felt called on to comment with great severity on the conduct of the Telegraph department, with what justice may be gathered from our correspondent's letter, which we published on Tuesday last, wherein he says that tyro of the charges brought againat the official management were fully substantiated by the evidence adduced at

the police inquiry ; while another, and perhaps the most important, was left in . such a position that the remarks of . the Daily Times must be considered f morally if not legally justifiable. In r one instance, a copy of a speech made 1 by Mr Stafford at Timaru, reported 1 for the Otago paper and given in to the 1 telegraph office for transmission at the - expense of that journal, was taken 1 without the consent of the proprietors ' or editor, and forwarded to the Ministry for their information ; iv other words, ■ private property was waylaid in 1 transitu, and filched by a Government \ officer, probably by the orders, and cer- ; tainly for the beuefit, of hia superior*. 1 Stripped of all superfluous verbiage, the - offence then committed amounted to I robbery pure ard simple, aggravated by . a flagrant breach of trust. On another I occasion, through improper favoritism, i a telegram for the Evening Post con--1 taining the September mail news was detaiued in the office at Wellington , until the message for the Wellington Independent, a Ministerial journal, had beeu delivered, although the latter had been received for transmission at the ' Hokitika office a full hour later than the former. These two charges, be it 1 remembered have been fully substantiated. With regard to the truth of ; the third, which our correspondent . mentions aa not having been legally established as yet, few people will have any doubt. It was proved that the substance of a message for the Otago Daily Times appeared in that higlilyfnvored journal the Wellington Independent, which Ministers delight to honor with their slightly felonious patronage, while the message itself was | still in the telegraph office ; but as this message bad been opened on board tlie steamer which conveyed it to NewZealand, in tlie presence of several witnesses, a loophole was opened to the Government to escape respousiuili y iv this case. So much for the charges against the Government which, form the grounds of this prosecution, and no doubt had ; they been fnlso a heavy punishment would have been rightly awarded to all who took part in their promulgation. We readily admit that no Minis- ' try could Bit quietly down under such 1 imputation?, and if they thought that a ' criminal prosecution for libel was the ' best way to rehabilitate their character { and restore public confidence, we ' should not feel inclined to quarrel with ' their choic9 of means. But their proceedings have been aa disgraceful as ' the conduct which called forth the remarks that led to it. It remained for a New Zealand Cabinet to secure ' (he infamous distinction among Aus- ( tralasiau Governments of having pros- f tituted the prerogative of the Crown. ' degraded the courts of justice, and c abused the powers derived from ' their official position, in order to s disgrace and ruin a political op- c ponent, whose only crime is that he s succeeded one of their number iv the editorship of a paper, and was too honest and straightforward to wink at \ official iniquity. Had their only wish * been to clear her Majesty's Minister? T from the charge of conduct which, if c true, would unfit them for the society v of gentlemen, they would have pro * ceeded in a very different manner ■* The Attorney-General would have c filed a criminal information in the name of the Queen against the pub- l lislier of the offending journal, and not " have compelled a penniless clerk in * the Crown Prosecutor's office to lend a his name for the purpose. But it was a not the publisher, who is really the * responsible persou, that these official ' conspirators aimed at. It was the " obnoxious editor who had had the pre- P sumption to sit in the seat of their ill- ' used colleague. It was difficult, no ( doubt, to bring the offence home to ll the object of their detestation, a because, without a revelation of those ° editorial secrets which all gentlemen of * honor connected with the press are sup- v posed to hold sacred, it would be im- fc possible to show to what extent he was " inculpated; and further, those who were in a position to give information ' rin a very fair chance of criminating * themselves. But a number of unscru- a pulous men, wielding the powers of the a Crown, are not likely to be deterred by * trifles, and in order to quiet the I scruples of a communicative sub-editor, 8 the novel expedient was adopted of ( granting her Majesty's free pardon for l an offence of which he had not been * found guilty, and which consequently had no existence. How Sir George * Bowen will justify to the Secretary of * State this flagrant abuse of the Queen's *• prerogative of mercy, in face of the c explicit instructions laid down for his Jguidance in its exercise, we cannot * pretend to cay; but we venture to affirm, that no Governor has ever s done more to bring it into contempt c than he who has pardoned an imaginary crime in order to falicitate a political ° prosecution. r We have termed this a politic prosecution, but in so doing, have some- I what misused a word. A political persecution would better describe this - disgraceful outrage on public decency. With a malicious ingenuity the charge has been framed in such a way as put Mr Barton to the utmost possi- t ble expense, and if acquitted, to pre- I vent his recovering anything from t those who are harrying him at the J public cost. Our correspondent thinks it probable that, in consequence of b these and other "eccentricities " which 2 are permitted to go on without let or ? hindrance, we may be inclined to look c on the New Zealanders as a a " peculiar people." We may t eafely cay that we consider them a t very peculiar people indeed. Had any 1 such proceedings been attempted in v Victoria our columns would have ] teemed with reports of meetings held t to condemn both the iniquitous tele- a gram robberies, and the subsequent t abuse of power, whereby it was sought r to silence the accuser. More than r this, the papers of all shades of politi- i cal opinion would have been unanim- t ous in their condemnation. But, judg- i ing by the apathy of the people of New a Zealand, and the silence of ite press, i with a few notable exceptions, it would <

appear that they hold their liberty but cheap, and consider :air pl-.v and the pure administration ■ -' jusluv a-, things not worth contend7g i\u-