BOOKS IN WARTIME

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 125, 20 February 1941, Page 5

BOOKS IN WARTIME

Putting Some Liberties In Pawn EFFICIENCY OF STATE (By Telegraph—Press Association.) DUNEDIN, February 19. “In' wartime we have to consider from a different angle the use to which some books might be put and the possible results of a too-free circulation of views which, if accepted, would militate against the country’s effort,” said Dr. G. H. Scholefield in fits presidential address to the New Zealand Library Association conference. Dr. Scholefield added that when the State was in danger one did not insist too meticulously on certain peace-time rights of the individual which were inherent in democratic institutions, because one knew .very well that 'if the institutions themselves should fall, all of one’s own rights would go with them. As a body librarians were against censorship in any shape or form. In general everything that was worth while and reasonably argued even on such topics as totalitarianism, dictatorship, and all forms of government that were ar present in conflict with our own should be available in the libraries. As we were fighting for intellectual freedom, the library had a duty to provide the fullest information. The librarian could hardly hope to have nothing on his shelves that in certain hands and in certain circumstances, might encourage lawlessness, factious criticism, or defiance of authority. It was, indeed, almost a corollary of freedom of thought and speech that there should be men trnd women holding views hostile to lawful authority. Subversive Tendencies. In wartime, however, it was necessary to consider from a different angle the use to which some books might be put and the possible results of a too-free circulation of views which, :f accepted, would militate against the country’s effort. There were limes when democracy, if it would save itself, must for the moment, yield up some, ol its privileges and liberties, forbearing ho claim all that, was due in theory and surrendering to its rulers some of the authority that in the long run belonged to the iK'ople themselves. So. in the everyday life of the public library they all recognized, whether they said so or not, that it was not advisable —not common sense —to make as freely available as in normal times literature that had a subversive tendency and that might well encourage minorities- perhaps well-meaning and high-minded people—to :i course of action inimical to the lull ellicieiiey of the State at war.

Under war conditions there was a definite responsibility on the individual librarian to see that books which clearly tended to wean a reader from bis sense of duty and loyalty to constituted authority at a time when the whole democratic system was lit. danger were not made too Ireel.v available in quarters where such u peril might arise.

It might be said that the librarian was taking too much on himself to

judge what was subversive and what not. "Well, we are only humirti and liable lobe wrong in our judgment, but we cannot surrender our responsibility for .seeing that there is not a broadcast presentation of shades of opinion which might make the task of governing and ot nut king war in any degree less effective.

“This may seem an inconsistency, but surely it is no more inconsistent Hmn the doctrine which we see to be accepted in all democratic countries today, ami nowhere more cordially than in freedom-loving Britain, that to save freedom for ourselves ami for posterity we inevitably must for the moment place some of our privileges and liberties in pawn.”