A REPRESSIVE CLAUSE

Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 134, 3 December 1910, Page 9

A REPRESSIVE CLAUSE

♦ SCANDAL-MONGERING CONDEMNED. VIEWS OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL. THE NOTORIOUS PAMPHLET. In the course of a speech in which he moved the second reading of the Libel Bill, the Attorney-General (the Hon. Dr. Findlay) made reference to the pamphlet of which so much has been heard during the last few days in the House. Every one, he said, knew that the public sense of decency and fair play was outraged by the production and widspread circulation of sc^ae foul, false, and blackguardly pamphlets against the character of prominent men. and especially of those • in public life. The publisher was invariably some worthless, if not criminal, creature, without any lawful means of support, who eked out a living by selling on the streets and elsewhere his defamatory productions. His purpose was never public interest nor benefit. It was invariably to put money va his pocket. Every decent man and woman agreed that' such a man making a living in such a way was worse than the idle blackguards now unhesitatingly punished by summary proceedings in the Magistrate's Courts. Unfortunately the law, as it stood, afforded no effective or expeditious means of dealing with these defamatory ruffians. He drafted and submitted to the Prime Minister for insertion in this Bill a clause which ha thought provided a satisfactory remedy and protection in these cases. Sir Joseph. Ward, however, felt that as on«» who had suffered so much from this kind of mercenary defamation he might be considered as responsible for £ho clause, and he, therefore, declined to have it inserted in the Bill. He respected the delicacy of the Prime Minister, but' he felt it was the duty of Parliament to protect not only Sir Joseph Ward, but present and future public men from attack and persecution ; and although he had not in any way consulted Cabinet in this matter he proposed to ask the Council to insert in the Bill a reasonable measure of protection against these degraded vilifiers. To the suggested clause he believed no fairminded man would object. He felt certain that the Council would pass it and he was equally certain both political parties in another place would agree to it without demur. The clause was as follows :—: — (1.) The indictable offence of publishing a defamatory libel or of criminal . defamation within the meaning of the Crimes Act, 1906, shall also hb an olfence punishable on summary conviction before a Magistrate by a fine of one hundred pounds or by imprisonment for three months. (2.) In any such summary proceedings it shall be a good defence that the defamatory matter published by the defendant was true, and that the publication thereof was for the public benefit, but no evidence of the truth of such matter " shall be admissible until and unless the defendant, proves that, assuming the matter so published to be true, the publication thereof was for' the public benefit. (3.) An_ information for any offence punishable on summary conviction under this section shall be taken and heard before a Magistrate only, and no such prosecution shall be commenced without the order of a Magistrate; and notice of the intention to apply -for such an order shall be given to' the defendant, who shall have aa opportunity of being heard against the application. Under this clause truth and public benefit were both defences, but on trial the defendant had first to show that he published the defamatory matter for public benefit and not for mere base profit. THE CLAUSE APPROVED. The Hon. W. C. P. Carncross said the measuie would afford a necessary measure of protection to newspapers. The Bill would give a needed measure of protection. Heothought the AttornoyGeneial had done the right thing in introducing this new clause. The lion. J. E. Jenkinson said nothing had given him so much pleasure as the introduction of this clause. He denounced the pamphlet as filth 'and mud, and the emanation of a mind which had no sense of cleanliness, no sense of justice — simply a desire to ruin a man. Personally, he would like to see more discretion given to judges and magistrates in dealing with deiamatory matter. A writer, if he- was 'cute enough, could sail outside the corners of the law. It was easy to understand how Sir Joseph Ward hesitated to bring in such a clause as this. It was the nature of the man. (Hear, hear.) He would give the new clause his hearty support, and" hoped that it would effect its purpose. He was proud that the Legislative Council would have the honour of having such a clause inserted in the Bill. The Hon. R. A. Loughnan said no man of honesty could object to the clause. It was aimed at scoundrels only. The Hon. W. Beehan approved the clause, , and produced a copy of the Leader, published at Auckland, which he said contained a libel- on himself, a libel which was couched in the foullest language imaginable. He was inclined to look upon the thing with contempt, because he looked upon the person responsible as a madman. The Attorney-General : His madness means money ! Mr. Beehan said he did not propose to give him further notoriety by embodying the libel in Hansard. The Hon. J. E. Jenkinson : Give him the horsewhip ! In conclusion, Mr. Beehan said the penalty for a second offence should be made much heavier. The Hon. J. Barr said he wished to explain that the Leader, while it 6tyled itself a Labour paper, had nothing to do with Labour. It was a disgrace to have the name of Labour on such a paper. The labouring class condemned the filthy pamphlet which had been re- 1 ferred to. He had heard approval amongst what he might call the commercial classes. 'me Hon. H. F. Wigram said he did not propose to speak on the Bill at this late hour in the session, but he wished to make a remark in reference to an observation by Sir. Barr. He had spoken to many commercial men, many of them members of the so-called Conservative party, and every one of them absolutely abhorred the pamphlet. Dr. Findlay briefly replied, and the second reading was agreed to on the voices. The Bill was subsequently put through committee and passed.. When the amendment made by the Council was being considered by the House, Mr. Massey said the country had not the confidence hi the stipendiary magistrates that one would like to see, and he suggested that in regard to the amendment made by the Legislative Council the arbiter should be a judge oi the Supreme Court. ' The Hon. J. A. Millar pointed out that in such cases any defendant proceeded against ior criminal libel had the right of appeal to , the Supreme Court. I'ho amendment was agreed to on the voicßji l