PRESS OPINIONS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 31, 31 October 1907, Page 11

PRESS OPINIONS.

THE ENDOWMENT BILL.

With. a'- great, parade of its solicitude for the welfare of the "unborn millions,".' the Government'is commending this Bill to Pur-: liament,' but it is gather late in the day to ask tho country ,to repose any faith in its political honesty ias- far as the land' question is. concerned. The time for. that has gone by, arid any protestations tliat'this "as'•» single-minded proposal framed in the interests ;of education, and with a desire to, mako tho ■payment j of. the old age .pension more .secure, is moro lively to be, received in tho rcouhtry with ■ undisguised suspicion. Wo ■have como to know the Government by its deeds, and not by its words 011 ..t-hc> 'and question, and its deeds show, that it'is swayed by land nationalist and■'■anti-freehold 1 sentiments. It is in this spirit that the Enoowment Bill has : be'eii . framed; all the rest ,about the "interests , of Education and the security, of the' pension is so much bait.'.for the purpose of, capturing'otherwise reluctant support. , .In the . first placo if an endowment -is to be worthy of the ; name, there-.must be somo prospect at present or in' the future that it will yield siifuoient revenue to be the mainstay of. the institutions for which it is created.' At present Education' and pensions cost considerably over a'million sterling annually: the proposed endowments would return a' revenue of s'ome '£45,000' a ;For the most part tho land is barretr mouiitain-top above the snow-line'. '. ;...'-. .The 1 Liberal .- freeholder .is now askad' to support -the.-.national, endowment, in the intorests of education, and the. extreme leaseholder is free to', do so in the interests or land nationalisation. Pliant .Liberals may take their.fchoice; .the result is the same, and a deadly.blow, is aimed at the principle, of the ; freehold—the. more wanton and urine-, cessarv,''because in the dying hours or the. Land Bill debate a clause was inserted pre-, venting a single acre of any remaining Crown lands passing into the'possession of anyone owning moro than 640. acres of hrst-clasj land.—Christcluirch " Press. LAW OF LIBEL. 'Journalists in-'Now'Zealand may. perhaps, bo oxcused if some faint lioto of envy creeps into their;.congratulations to their brother pressmen of Ncw.-South AVales oil the prospect 'of their speedy' oriiaucipatioij * from the strictions of the existing libel law. L'or .years-,.tbe'y have;!been- agitating - against that antiquated measiiroj until almost have' 1 died •witliiii i :-them.v Our' joistralian confreres' arc now within measureable distance of getting .what they , want, thanks to the'enlightened .ideas of .the new lrcnuer, '.Mr. Wade, who, as, a barrister, has seen tho injustice of the .present law. Ihe New land press still awaits' tile reform; as it has waited for niauj r years.....Efforts have been ■made in tho past, by' broad-minded members of Parliament,'to 1 induce. the Government to grant the privilege of freedom, but they havo .'always been thwarted by others who preferred for reasons of their own to keep the muzKlo on the press.- It is from 110 wish to encourage'reckless speaking* that the'newspapers have urgetj the desired alteration in the libel law;, Tho right to publish-matter, which they now refrain from publishing, or else print at their-own risk, 1 would bring added responsibilities') but these would be.' accepted in- tho interests of the public, which suffer at tinics ■under the present- restrictive I .law'. Mr. Wade Ji'as given Sir Jbscph Ward a good lead, and we' trust that before 1 the pr'es'eht; Parliament expires a more'liberal-libel -law.will.be placed' upon ' ■ tho '' 'Statute '■ • Book.—Christcluirch."Press."' .i I'. ".';t ' There, ; is ; need-.for reform in, New SouthWales'just as there.is.in New Zealand.,;' Of course, as we have often had to say, tho restrictions that ai e imposed 011 tho publication or news do, not; greatly affect the, journalist. The journalist takes the law as ho finds it and observes it,:anfl!if any one suffers •iti is tl the . public.". Our\oT|rn; experienco,, we confess, does not suggest that tl)0 public in' Now,. Zealand' .have suffered . vor^y,'.; seriouslythrough our own rather. out-of-date law, because .the newspapers of' the'.Dominion are conscientious, arid' oven •, when", tho' libel, law operates:'to prevent' the.. publication of a speaker's exact words'it'ifc'sfeKfem indeed that ariy-matter of"importane'o'lias : 'to'b'o omitted from a report. ... If Mr. Wade can devise some means, of protecting' the public and at >tho same; tiriio'can free: the;.press-from the* responsibilities-at presont.'iriiposed --oil it ho wjll find overy Legislature ready to copy !liis law. 1 The,, suggestion tliat.' tlitf'roforra of tlie-;libPl law' delayed by the "fears l and, the |personal bitteniesg of .certain politicians' is, wbithiiik| merely silly. 111 Now 7 Zealand, at jmy .'rate,-,we have:,not found.-that: tho law has prevented the very frankest criticism; of public mon. ii .There, are sonnj directions,' however/ in:which the -libel • law could'.snfely. , bo amonded for the relief; of All-journals-1 of standing' are constantly.' being .'shot' at' 1 by persons,pf 110 account'and'llo financial substance.;. Oh. the, whole' it ,is ioft'eii; cheaper'to r biiy siicli persons .PIT than','.to jleferid; the.trumpery oases ; ; -aiid'.if,,d; newspaper, elebt's. to' defend .itself the. accuser' commonly, abandons, tho-case arid slinks back into obr.' scurity, so thatl in either case tho newspaper; is!'penalised;< 1 It- would be' very easy to-give newspapers: ayineasure of; protection," against the blackmailers 'who aro allowed to attack■them at present, and-Parliament should-not .'.hesitate to pass the necessary. legislation.— "Lyttclton Times." ,V Clearly/it is. not in tho. public interest-that, the press should be restrained' from , the fear, of the consequences, of an unjust'law of libel from-publishing .'fair and accurate reports of public; meetings. The injustico of tho law-is-most' giarjngly manifested in its ap-1 ■plication'to the reports of meetings' of' public. I 1 bodies. A member of one of tlieso bodies makes a defamatory statemont'~relating,to a .matter of public concern, aiid a ncwspimor, entirely -without; malice, publishes tlio simto-' •riient in tho bona fide belief that,it is in the public interest, and to tho advantage of tho cause, of . public imoralit.v, that it should bo published. " In such a 1 case the speaker;'who is .primarily responsible for the publication of •the defamatory statement is protected' by privilege from liability, and the whole onus 'falls' upon the- newspaper, which has formed what it conceived to he a public ;'auty ill the publication of tho speaker's statemeiil. A law which may be, and is, applied in'.this way is - not defensible, and it' is frenr tho 'operation' of' such' a law that Mr. Wacle proposes to offer relief to the press in New South' Wales.': But tho law of libel in':New Zealand 1 at tho present day is similarly a rolic of bygone times. . . Sir.Joseph Ward gave some indication, shortly, after Ixiij" assumption of the Premiership, that ho 1 was favourable to the liberalising of the law, and it may bo hoped'-that Mr:; Wade's' declaration will lead' him to tho adoption of ii conclusion similar to tliat' at' which the Premier' of Now South ; Wales >has arrived.—"Otago "Daily Times." ■'■, '. . ■

1 SOCIAL MORALITY/ - l'erhaps the most instructive lesson to be gathere:Hrom last night's discussion of Social ideals and public morals is tho important truth that religion in tho best sense iii not a quostioii of form,-or church, pi- creed. It would bo difficult- to' bring together on'any ono platform "three..men' representing more highly divergent types socially/ politically,' and' personally' tlian 'bishop Neligan, Bin Arthur lMyoi's, and Mr. Ben Tillett. Yet their outlook'upon life, as demanding from us all the constant performance of philanthropic and altruistic' duties, is ..almost identically • the same. Tho difficulty,' of course, is to'carry moral principles, into practice in some consistent ami systematic way ; and- tho criticisms oirered by the.speakers, as well as tlieir admissions of failure and disappointment, point' clearly to tho_truth that no single system, or organisation, or method of propagating' moral teaching has secured or can secure the regeneration or the, happiness of mankind. In view of this, wo can hardly refrain from remarking that there is something very pathetic in Mr. Tillett's enthusiastic advocacy of Socialism as a panacea for all tho ills of life. In so far as Socialism means altruism —tho rcvoronco for the rights of others, the sympathy for the wants ami sorrows of others, which has always been the central foaturo of truo Christian mornlity— there is nothing novel about it. But if Socialism means'chiolly a revolutionary ciiange in our present social systeih, a redistribution of possessions, or a re-arrangement of classes and orders, we fail to understand its mora] significance or to 'comprehend its power for. moral good. Mr. Tillett should 'remember that 110 scheme of Socialism, has over yet been'.' evolved that has st<iod. or could stand the test of practice.—Auckland "Shir."