LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 996, 10 December 1910, Page 10

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

THE PREMIER AND THE LIBEL LAW. Sir,—A portion o£ tbe report published in your valuable journal of the Ist. instant referring to Sir Joseph AYard's speech on the "unspeakable pampblet" is as follows: ■ "Proceeding, tho Prime Minister said that when the first copy of the pamphlet came to him in tho same hand-writing that gavQ him 'advice from time to time, he handed it to his lawyers for advice. It was an extraordinary thing to-day that no mnn in his position could legally do anything to protect himself under circumstances ot the kind." i :;

No man, says tho Premier, in similar circumstances con i!o anything to protect himself. Kurely, Siii, tho Premier cannot ask the peop'lo of New Zealand to believo . that? . "The unauthorised biography" contains statements,. which, if not true, and if th-iir publication is not for the public benefit, amount to criminal libel beyond any possible shadow of doubt whatever. What, then, are tho provisions of the Crimes Act with respect to tho indictable offence known as criminal libel? Pavt of section 231 of tho Act quoted is as follows: "A defamatory libel is matter published without legal justification or exesse, either designed to insult any person, or likely.to injure his reputation by exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or likely to injure him in his profession or trade," and in sub-section 2 of the same section "publishing" a criminal libel is defined as "exhibiting it in public, causing it to bo. read or seen," etc., etc. Then it is necessary to look at sub-section 1 of section 234 of the Act, which provides that "every person accused of publishing a defamatory libel may plead that the defamatory matter published by him was true, and , that it was for th-3 public benefit that tho matters charged should be published in the manner in which and at the time' when they were published." Tho punishment of defamatory libel is as follows:—Publishing, one year's hard labour; publishing defamatory libel, knowing the same to be false, two year's' hard labour; publishing defamatory libel, or threatening to publish, or offering to abstain from publishing with intent to extort money, etc., five years' hard, labour.

Now, Sir, it is not a good defence in itself to set up th.b truth, when charged with such an offence, for it must bo fur•ther shown that its publication was for the public benefit. What.reason is there .why the Premier should not institute a prosecution for criminal libel against the author of the "unspeakable pamphlet," if the statements contained in it are as false as he says they are? Personally, I believe that the allegations ;in the pamphlet are absolutely false, but I .cannot understand why the.Premier does not take action in the matter. It is futile to allege that the law gives him no protection when he claims that the statements in the pamphlets are utterly false. Moreover, he could nroceed civilly, !and could possibly secure the issue- of an injunction restraining further "publishing." Sir Joseph Ward threatens to invade the highways and by-ways of the country in order to denounce the author of the vile slanders, and to convince the people how really "unspeakable" the pamphlet is, but permit mo to remark that if he succeeded in gaoling the author that he. would, with but little trouble to himself, convince every respectable" man in the country that the "unauthorised ■biography" is a defamatory libel within the meaning of the Crimes Act, and as such, both it and its .author could only be considered as despicable in the extreme.—l am, etc., ■; .'■- -. :;.:, CONSTANT READER. •Hastings, December 2, 1910. •-. '. [Our.-correspondent's interpretation of the law as it was is no doubt correct. He has to.bear in mind, however, that under tho law as just amended the accused person has to prove_ not that it is "true" and for the "public benefit," but ■: that. it as. for the'""public' benefit" . and ■ "h'u'e!" '''Tire'difference is that an accused, person to-day;.cannot have even tho of linne aoflf op'toving. ,lris statements true, 1 ; ■until he has proved them to be for- the/ "public, benefit".- Not only may he bo convicted in spite of the truth •of his. statements, but'he is refused the opportunity of'■proving them true, and so,has to suffer opprobrium . which might" not rest on. him if his statements, though libellous, were proved to be true.] IN ANSWER. TO MR. VILE. .-". Sir,—Mr. Hogg has at last said—but not yet right thing. He has established his right to fame through—' what do you think?—not the all but insurmountable, obstacles of the political and Parliamentary forest, but through—, oh;-, fie i-fthe. susceptible hearts of soft young girl teachers. . He has enlisted them on his side, therefore his'success is ensured. As for Mr. Vile—was Mr. Vile married so long ago that he forgets he was over married at all? And Mr. Vile forgets that Reaching is tho jewel which sets off a poor maiden's perfections. The sweetness, with which, she bears her martyrdom, the equanimity with which she meets all trials, the fortitude and patience with which she buoys herself up, and which she "straps'' around her,' ore the very best weapons !shn can possibly have to win over Mr.' Vile's sex. And they come in shoals,'offer rings, and the deed is done. Tho coy, pretty maiden will never let the name of. Hogg diewedding presents, and a bonus of .£IOO for their sense, is what they want, Mr. A r ile, so yield gracefully, and open wide the gate.of tho marriage state to them. —I am, etc., A FATED PRETTY GIRL TEACHER.