MEDDLESOME PURISTS.

Evening Post, Volume LX, Issue 116, 13 November 1900, Page 4

MEDDLESOME PURISTS.

The good ladies who addressed to* Mr. Justice Edwards the extraordinary letter which he mentioned in his charge to the Grand Jury yesterday/ were, doubtless, as his Honour, remarked, prompted by good intention's, but their action was as needless as it was irregular. Tho impropriety of tendering to a Judge a private request to vary the proceedings in a Court of Justice might be allowed to pass without further notice than a tolerant shrug of the shoulders were it not that in this colony women possess political rights which cannot be duly exercised unless they understand at least the e'lementaay principles oi constitutional freedom. One of those principles would be infringed, if a citizen were tried for a crime with closed doors, and another would be broken if a Juage adapted his procedure to suit the wishes of persons who sought to gain his private ear. But apart' from its irregularity, this foolish letter was entirely unnecessary, as Mr. Justice Edw ards indicated in his generous tribute to the careful restraint exercised by the local press whenever unsavoury evidence is given in criminal or other proceedings. The writers of the letterthough not of malice atorethought, we trust — by requesting the Judge to. prohibit publication of the evidence in a cer : tain case shortly to bo heard, offered a direct and totally undeserved insult to the press. If the journals oi the colony had prostituted their columns to pander to pruri nt palates there might have been some reason for the application, provided, of course, that ithad^ been regularly made in open Court, but since we can safely assert that the New Zealand* press is remarkably free from any tendency in that direction, .it Would be well for these extravagant purists to discover what grounds they had for casting such an unmerited slur upon the journalism of Wellington. We are in complete ignorance of the personality of the writers, but we would ask them to consider the handle they aro giving to the opponents of woman's enfranchisement by their hysterical zeal. We quite agree with the ladies in question that certain matters are not fit for publication, but we have a right, from our past practice, to .claim that we are better judges of such a question than they can be, with their incomplete knowledge of Court proceedings or newspaper management. We do not wish to spealc harshly, but in justice to the press of the colony we are constrained to refute emphatically the charge implied in the letter, which was very properly answered by the presiding Judge.