The Freedom of the Press

Manawatu Standard, Volume XL, Issue 7353, 22 July 1902, Page 2

The Freedom of the Press

The Wairarapa Times says:—Some Capetown papers, beforo us, devote no inconsiderable portion of their illustrations to Mr Seddon, During the Premier's short stay lliere ho must' hare been photographed at least a dozen times a dny, and sometimes in high company. In one picture lie is represented as standing beside an Arch-1 bishop, ]vat, perhaps, a shade in front I of the high church dignatary, for Mrj Seddon is not the man to con«ede a point even to an Archbishop. But the most curious thing in these Cape papers was a boast by the editor that in time South Africa will become as free »s New Zealand, and not even this democratic colony could surpass the Cape in its passion for " freedom of the press and of speech." llr Seddon might have told his South African audience that he does not allow tlie freedom of the press or of speech in New. Zealand; but, on the contrar". that ho has fought against both for the last ten years. The idea of New Zealand being a free country under King Seddon! Some intelligent people in London have a vague idea of the state of things here, and perhaps regard King Seddon as a distinguished Maori potentate. By the last mail a deed was forwarded by a London firm of solicitors to a country settler in this district, with a request that it should be signed before " The British Consul "— evidently regarding -The British Consul as the only safe person to deal with. ".The British Consul" was a bad shot; but the idea of tho writers that JNew Zealand waa a cannibal island under despotic rule, was not altogether wide of the mark. Every year a rational Libel Bill to seeuro a reasonable degree of liberty to the ttess has been brought down lo*Parliament;and strangled by King Seddon. It is said, now, that Sir Joseph. Ward is less afraid than is King Richard, of the freedom of the Press, and that lie will not baulk this session's measure. If go Wew Zealand may claim the title oi being a progressive Colony, but the news is almost too good to be true, Everybody knows the tyrannical nature of the New Zealand libel law. The other day, a public official told us that he would n.t tolerate fair reports of the body m h which he was connected, and a footballer, wnose conduct in a Bcrum was questioned in nrmt, quoted to™ of the New Zealand Libel nnSi 6011.' 0' iki ß DOt the Press' tn* the