LAW-BREAKERS

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 57, 4 September 1937, Page 11

LAW-BREAKERS

BUT NOT WITTINGLY

REPRODUCTIONS OF STAMPS

Many people break one or more of our numerous laws unwittingly, and get away with it. Others, perhaps, arc not so lucky, and when it comes to appearing before a Magistrate or a Judge ignorance of the law is not held to be an excuse, although it may possibly be regarded as a mitigating circumstance when it comes to the fixing of the penalty. Amongst other' law-breakers, it must be confessed, stands the "Evening Post." It has broken the law in the past, and will probably do so again in the future, but it is very unlikely to be hauled over the coals for its breaches.

When, for instance. "The Post" published a few days ago photographs of this year's new "health" stamp, with pictures of health stamps of previous years for purposes of comparison, it rendered itself liable to a penalty of £50, or six months' imprisonment for the printer and publisher. Section \O9 of the Post and Telegraph Act of J928 makes it quite clear that every person who "without lawful excuse (the proof whereof shall lie upon him) makes or has in his possession any die, plate, instrument, or materials capable of making any fictitious postage-stamp, or any impression thereof, is liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months with or without hard labour."

For the purposes of this section "fictitious postage-stamp" is defined as meaning "any facsimile or imitation or representation, whether on paper or otherwise, of any postage-stamp or other stamp for denoting any rate of postage of New Zealand ■or of any other part of his Majesty's Dominions, or of any foreign country." If the strict letter of the law is observed, "The Post" is committing an offence every time it publishes a photograph of, of reproduces in any way a postage-stamp. Even bigger sinners in this respect are philatelic journals, which literally dot their pages with photographs of stamps. That the Post and Telegraph Department itself gives permission for this to be done, and even in some instances supplies the photographs, does not make the act of publication any the more legal, should this be advanced as a "lawful excuse." For the Act in no place gives the Department (or anyone else, for that matter) authority to give permission to others to break the provisions of the Act But it works out quite safely for the law-breakers, for should there be a prosecution the layer of the information would naturally be the Post and Telegraph Department. If it has itself given permission for the law to be broken (even if it has no legal right to do so), it is hardly likely to prosecute, so the publishers are safe in their nefarious practices. PERMISSION WITHOUT PERMISSION. When and how arose, this custom of the Post and Telegraph Department giving permission, but without any statutory authority, for the reproduction -of postage-stamps, and therefore ior.a.breach.of section 109 pf the. Act no one seems to know or to be' able to, find out. A "Post" representative rather nonplussed the Department when he raised the question. But since the Department does give permission, even if it has no legal light to do so, all is well, and no newspaper proprietors are languishing in gaol. The Department, as a matter of fact, is usually quite willing to allow responsible journals to reproduce photographs of stamps, or for dealers to illustrate them in their catalogues or on their letter heads. But what the Department does firmly ■ put its foot down on is reproduction in colour. This is not allowed. The object of the absolute prohibition expressed by the Act is, of course, to guard against forgeries. It was probably never intended that the Act should be strictly enforced to the very letter but it was desired to have tne widest control possible over reproductions. Great Britain and most other countries have enactments on the subject similar to New Zealand's. That of the United States is the strictest of all: that country will not authorise the printing of facsimiles of stamps unless they have a white bar across them. THE STAMP COLLECTOR'S , POSITION. If the Act is construed literally, according to its letter rather than its spirit, there is possibly yet another breach which is committed daily by hundreds of people. Section 110 holds out the prospect of a penalty of a fine of £200 or imprisonment for three months to anyone who "fraudulently gets off or removes from any postal packet, cover, paper, or other matter any postage stamp which has already been used ... with intention that any use whatsoever (whether for postal purposes or not) should be made of such postage stamp." . In these days of eagerly-sought-after Coronation stamps, the removal of stamps from letters and parcels is an everyday occurrence, and it has been so ever since philately became a popular hobby. But the words in the Act,- "for any use whatsoever, whether for postal purposes or not," might seem to imply that if the stamps are removed to place in a collection or to exchange with other philatelists a breach of the Act is being committed. But here again the Act, is worded as prohibitively as possible with a purpose, the idea being to prevent the fraudulent use of postage stamps which have already been used. Cases have been known when stamps of high value have been cleaned of their obliteration and used again, and section 110 is aimed against this fraudulent practice. The Act puts the onus on the defendant to prove that there was no fraudulent intent when he peeled off a sixpenny Coronation stamp off a parcel, but the honest collector or dealer is hardly likely to be prosecuted, even if he daily renders himself liable. Hence ordinarily lawabiding philatelists need not go about in fear that they will find themselves behind prison bars fraternising with newspaper publishers and printers who have offended by reproducing facsimiles of stamps.