BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1649, 7 October 1903, Page 68 (Supplement)

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

SOME PRESS OPINIONS. The publisher of the “New Zealand Times,” adjudged guilty of breach of 'Parliamentary privilege, and the gallery reporter found guilty of contempt of a Parliamentary Committee, have each received from Mr Speaker Guinness a courteous letter, covering a copy of the evidence taken by the Committee on Privilege and the report of that body —a final clause in the letters directing attention to those portions of tho report which impose penalties of £25 and £ls respectively. There is not oven a polite hint that “prompt settlement will oblige,” so presumably the formal demand for payment will come later, and .will probably be accompanied by all the

"pomp and circumstance” befitting tlio dignity of Parliament and the enormity ofthe offences —doubtless the Sergeant-at-Arms, with the mace over his shoulder, or Black Rod. in full flowing gown, will serve the awful summons, which to receive is to obey in^oaliter, under pain of being imprisoned in the Clock Tower, or in the Wellington equivalent of that adjunct of St. Stephen’s. Our Christchurch contemporaries have been commenting on the matter with a good deal of freedom. The ‘‘Press” notes a sign of decadence in the excessive anxiety of Parliament to uphold its dignity. Referring to the standing order that makes i‘t a breach of privilege to publish proceedings of a committee before its report has been presented to the House, the “Press” says: —“There is the same rule in the British House of Commons,, hut the ‘Mother of Parliaments,’ with greak good sense, takes notice- only of cases in which publication has beep forbidden by the committee or the House, and the prohibition is disregarded. It is apparently hopeless to expect our own Parliament to show citirer good sense or moderation in such matters. Its inflated ideas of its own importance are equalled only by the anxiety of. its members to increase their own salaries whenever any pretext can be found for so doing.” The “Lyttelton Time?,” evidently smarting under the rebuke of the committee and of the House, says:—“lf we wero not assured of their amiable intentions, we should think them guilty of gross impertinence. As it is, we cannot help feeling that in their delightful self-complacency they have made themselves supremely ridiculous.” Commenting on the fact that;- the “New Zealand Times,” which added insult to injury by defying the committee, escaped with a- paltry fine, while the “Lyttelton Times,” which innocently _ pleaded thait it had copied the information from our columns, “has been humiliated by a caution,” our contemporary observes: “The obvious moral is that it is better to bo rude than polite to people who set themselves up as custodians of the public conscience and censors of the newspaper press.” Finally, the “Lyttelton Times” lias a Parthian shot at the Premier, thus: —“Wo notice that tho Premier, in concluding the farcical affair, made a virtue of Parliament ailowing the newspapers to report its proceedings. ‘The reporters are in the Press Gallery,’-lie said, ‘ at the pleasure of the House.’ He never made a greater mistake in his life. Just let him try to exclude the reporters from tho gallery and he will soon discover by whose pleasure they are there.”

It should be mentioned that the Lyttelton Times,” in its just fury, lashes out so indiscriminately as to assert chat the “New Zealand Times” stole the information 'that formed the subject of the proceedings. This is entirely raise, and our contemporary had every opportunity of knowing chat, both in our letter to the Speaker and in sworn evidence before the committee, it was distinctly stated that tho information was obtained in an honourable way. It may, however, be news to our contemporary to learn that one of its own reporters obtained the information before ours did, by equally honourable means. An apology is decidedly due to us for the imputation of dishonesty. “Truth” makes the privilege incident tho pretext for an attack on the Premier, whom it accuses of being “ferocious” in his hostility to tho press of this eopmtry, to which lie “owes his reputation.” It concludes: —“lit is peculiarly fit that this man should make Parliament ridiculous by using its machinery to puniash a newspaper for the crime of supplying its readers with early information of the highest importance to them. On an earlier occasion the Dunedin ‘Star’ was called jupon to pay £ls for a,n equally grave offence, but the Dunedin ‘Star’ had not aggravated its guilt. Our Wellington contemporary did, by. exposing the secret deliberations of Mr Secldon’s Tammany party.” It has (says the Dunedin “ Star ”) to bo considered that there was really nothing in tho information disclosed which the public ought not to have known, or that as a matter of policy should have been kept secret. Under the circumstances, the amount of the fhio appears to ho somewhat- vindictive. There is no pretence of anything in the nature of a libel, or that the action of the Education Committee was in any respect misrepresented. The Premier talked admirably of the pressman’s code of honour, and demonstrated his desire to defend the same by imposing a monetary penalty on the humble reporter who refused to divulge the sources of tho information that had been imparted to him ; in fine, Mr Seddon suggested a premium to dishonour. The “Oamaru Mail” says:—“The spectacle of a House of Parliament fining a newspaper reporter for declining to discloso a source of information is not likely to impress anyono with a feeling of admiration .or awe; but when the fine is accompanied by an announcement that ia any future similar case an offending reporter will be disqualified from a seat in tho Press Gallery xho proceeding wears such a strong resemblance to a ridiculous exercise of authority that people arc more likely to give way to hilarity than to bo awed by the magnificent majesty of Parliament. If members have any thought that such a threat will restrain the enterprising newspaper man, they are likely to make the dis-

covcry sooner or later that they have made a mistake. . . • We have no

sympathy, with journalists who resort to prying and improper practices to pierce State secrets, but it has not been shown that anything of the kind occurred in the present case. All things considered, the conclusion must be reached that the offending newspaper has come better out of the affair than has the offended House.”