The Dominion. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1908. THE DUTY OF THE UPPER HOUSE

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 301, 14 September 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1908. THE DUTY OF THE UPPER HOUSE

The Prime Minister and the Attobt ney-General are slightly at variance in tjieir .explanation of th? unanimity with which the newspapers have condemned the " gag " clause of t}io Second Ballot; Sill. Sir Joseph Ward appears to think it is due to the fact that the journalists of New.Zealand are fools: Dr. Findmy —who has this advantage over his chief, that he |ias had pergonal experience in newspaper direction —thinks that they aye knaves. He is convinced, or professes tq be conyijjgecl, jbljafc any politician iyitj] a long enqugh purse can buy the support, of the newspapers. We can only say that hjs association with journalism must have fieen most unhappy if it is the foundation of Jiis charge of venality and corruption against the entire press. The public will estimate for itself the valuo of his judgment upon New Zealand jqurnalism, and we do not feel called upon, therefore, to discuss the matter. We must even disappoint Dr. Findlay.'s expressed expectation that the newspapers would care sufficiently about his opinions to subject them to angry abuse. Really, his opinions on journalistic morality do not mutter, though tbey hn-vo & grave significance of their own that wo

may briefly indicate. His speech, it must be remembered, was delivered as the considered judgment' of a Minister who " does not mind press criticism." What, then, are we to think of the statesmanship of a Government that does not shrink from such a reckless defence of the "gag" proposals of the Second Ballot Bill as the charge thkt any man with a long purse can corrupt the New Zealand press ? There coulil be no stronger evidence than this of the distance which the Now Zealand democracy has drifted from the sanity and deccncy to which the older civilisations remain moored. Can anyone imagine Mr. jYsquith or Mr. Balfour defending anr position at all by such means as are every day employed by the members of the New Zealand Government? Of far more importance than the Attorney-General's reference to the newspapers are certain vicious doctrines which he laid down in his speech. The first 5 is that the duty of a member of Parliament is, not to approach a subject in a spirit of justice and'as a member of the national assembly, but to vote according to what, at any cost of justice, will assist the class with which he specially sympathises. " Would they," Dr. Fikdlay asked, " allow electioneering by the candidates between the two ballots, or would they not 1 " Mr. Rigg and other members. interjected an emphatic and disconcerting affirmative. The Attorney-General was surprised that Mr. Rigg should express a view that " was opposed to the interests of the class which he [Me. Bigg] represented." It was Mr. Rigg's duty, therefore, we must assume from the AttorneyGeneral's attitude, to smother, his conscience, and, while driven by his sense of justice to hold a certain opinion, to speak and vote against his consciencc in the interests of "the class which he represented." And this demoralising view of the functions of a legislator comes from Minister of the Crown! The other injurious doctrine of Dr. Findlay's is that the Council should resign its independence as a revising Chamber: "He asked Councillors to act with courtesy to the other House, which had passed the Bill by a large majority." The very reason for the existence of the Council is the necessity for having some check upon the liability of the lower Chamber to carry out the will of the Government by passing a rash and dangerous proposal that has never been before the public and that is opposed by a large section, which may be a large majority, of the people. Dr. Findlay holds another and' a most extraordinary view of the .Council's functions. He ''did not think that many of them would vote to throw out a measure which did not directly affect them, but by which i the members of the other House had declared their wishes as to the methods to be adopted' in their own elections." Are we then to believe that the Council should do nothing excepting when the Bill before it directly affects Councillors? Arc wo to believe that Councillors havq no, right to object to what the other Hquso decides on a question affecting its members? Are we to believe that the opinion of the public is of no moment ? According to Dr. Findlay's doctrine,we are to boliove all these things, and all that they imply. The chief implication is that the Council must ignore the interests of the people. It must not, for example, oppose any attempt by members of the House to add another £60 to their salaries. The country will feel inclined to ask why it should maintain the Council if it is tobe no more than a body for the " courteous " registration of the House's decrees. The rejection *of a Bill like the Second Ballot Bill—an objectionable and highly contentious, measure that has never been before the electors—is exactly the chief work which the Council exists to perform. What no doubt assisted in persuading the Council tb agree to the second reading was the Attorney : General's announcement that the Government is prepared partially to " back down " on the " gag " clauso of the Bill. He intimated that he would agree to the insertion of a proviso to the effect that no newspaper proprietary should be convicted under the clause if, in the opinion of the judge, the statements published were in the best interests of the public. We hope the Council will not accept this palliative of a clause that was overwhelmingly condemned by tl)e speakers in the debate. It is true that our judges may be trusted to hold that freedom of spcech is a good thing in .a British community, and that not one of them would care to immortalise hiinsc}f by deciding that a political editorial on an election, is not in the best interests of the public. But the Government that devised the " gag " clause will bo placed in a position to use the machinery of the law against a newspaper that criticises it—even although it may know that the paper will be exonerated by the Court—for the, solo purpose of punishing the critic with heavy jaw costs. We do not suggest that this is likely to happen, but the- whole thing is bad in principle. Moreover, if the press is to have the right to criticise, candidates must have the right to spqak, in the interval between the ballots. The Attorney-General's concession is quite illusory, and the Council, which has already shjrked its duty as a Chamber of revision in allowing the Bill to proceed, must insist, if it does not reject the whole Bill, upon rejecting the " gag" clause in its entirety. It is not yet too J late for the Council to take the only action that is consonant with the object of its existence.