AUCKLAND PAPER SUPPRESSED

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23716, 14 August 1942, Page 4

AUCKLAND PAPER SUPPRESSED

... PROHIBITION FOR THREB MONTHS

ATTORNEY-GENERAL»s4| REASONS Reasons for fixing a period.df.flOTif months, during which Mr JohnHtfm' of Auckland, is prohibited from.iulK , lishing a periodical are'given w I letter from the Al,torney-General:{th4 : • Hon. H. G. R. Mason), whichls ■ by Mr Hogan in a letter to editor;, of "The Press.” , According to Mrologan s letter, tbS.4. Attorney-General said: "The peripd;W| three months was fixed for theipW*! hibition (on Mr Hogan’s right to JpD'i lish a periodical) because it WB* pected that if you were not retUrO’H ing to Australia you would be injw« tary or Other national service, ■ Is certainly no intention of perimumja your continuance of journalism in tbit country, and unless it appears rto»| your energies are engaged in otherchannels, the prohibition will be, re*; imposed.” ' In Mr Mason’s letter, writes Hogan, “he confirms the pressed fear that the rights of speech and a free press are in serloM jeopardy in New Zealand, far tnMJ so than the circumstances could JJ»! sibly warrant.’’ ■ , '. “I take very strong exception, sayj Mr Hogan, “td Mr Mason’s referenc? to my national service which will not in any way affectOT rights as a journalist or my abW? to publish a paper. . Is the « donning a uniform completely to t <W, qualify New Zealanders from maWM any contribution towards the .sow progress for which we are callea ww to fight? By issuing a prohibltwKtw three months the Government ently hoped to conceal its nnention permanently to silence my cntijuajj If this had been clear, an appeal would have been lodged without fl lay. My solicitors have now communicated with the Attorney-General W” questing that the intention express in the above letter be fulfilled ately, and that a fresh order be issues to take effect from August 12, so » a ‘ appeals can be lodged simulteneov against both the existing prohibition and the succeeding one, “I would stress that the Government has still failed to specify or jwenW the alleged ‘subversive statements Mason ‘is satisfied’ were publishJ and any journalist is liable *° mit the same offence, which , 1S uPffr. ently regarded as more sencus t the many criticisms of military strategy and conduct. Every statement puoj lished by me, to which exception have been taken, has since app in other papers publishedor buted in New Zealand. As a resp my appeal. I intend that the Go ment will at least be cbliged P^ to specify the criticism or opinions which it so strongly objects, and WW justified it in prohibiting a paper. Attorney-General ’ s statement, ‘there is certainly no inten^° r i mitting your continuance of jour in this country' exceeds even . powers provided by the yoium regulations concerned, and surei £ ro ner not be enforced without a FPj d charge and conviction,. wmen involve proving subversion as a i of fact, not merely of political onp . | This, obviously, the. Governments | prepared to risk.” : JR I