Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4245, 28 October 1874, Page 2

We confess to very considerable sympathy with our evening contemporary, who has just been taught, by legal process and lino, how indiscreet a thing it is to be zealous for the preservation of public morals. Wo say this altogether apart from the merits or demerits of the paragraph which resulted in a double-shotted libel action, with damages and costs, against the newspaper proprietor. The paragraph in question may not have been, and indeed was not, in good taste ; but beyond this we confess that we' saw nothing in it. If malice had been proved, the matter would have been very different; hut we think that part of the case altogether broke down.. That the paragraph was indiscreet, wo also admit ; hut we fail to see how its publication lessened the earnings of the theatrical company to which it referred. It is absurd to suppose that it hindered any one from going to the theatre ; on the contrary, we are inclined to think that it had an opposite effect, by stimulating the prurient curiosity of that class of the population for whose benefit it was written. Nor could it have had the least injurious effect upon the company elsewhere. The damages, therefore, wore given by way of salvo to the wounded feelings of the plaintiffs. Well, there is something in that view of the case, wo admit. A newspaper writer should not wantonly lacerate the feelings of any man ; and doubtless redress should be within the reach of the aggrieved party. But the law of libel should be simplified, so as to send trumpery actions like the one in question, and the “ Bumble ” case at Dunedin, before a Resident Magistrate or District Judge, andhavethe damages assessedby ajury in a summary way, without heaping up costs, as at present, in the Supremo Court. No one gains by the present law of libel—except lawyers. This is a reform which wo hope to see effected some day. Meanwhile, the Press is virtually gagged in Now Zealand. What with libel actions, and attachments for contempt of the Supreme Court, a

muzzle has been strapped upon the Press, which may not, under dread of pains and penalties, expose any of the many flagrant miscarriages of justice, and abuse of office and trust, which form common topics of conversation in many parts of New Zealand. The Press is seriously injured in this way ; its usefulness is impaired, but the loss to the 1 public is greatest. The liberties of the people are being filched from them piecemeal under cover of law. The inviolability of telegrams was purchased for the people of New Zealand by the Otago Guardian , at heavy pecuniary cost to its proprietary, the article in which the admittedly illegal order of the Judge was brought to light having been ruled by that same judge to be a contempt of Court. And so of other cases we might mention.

Now, be it understood, we are as much opposed to harsh and unjust criticism as any one; but we do say this, that if juries are to follow the examples recently set them in this colony, the life will bo crushed out of the Newspaper Press. It is the cause of the people for which journalists who love their profession struggle ; but if the people fine journalists on any legal pretext, as hasbeen repeatedly done, the Press will soon descend to the dead level of the community which can do such things.. Actors, like politicians, court publicity. ■ They challenge criticism, and alike crave for public applause. Why, let us ask, should actors be more sensitive than politicians, that they should only have their praises sung by Press reviewers 1 No one thinks anything of the pain and suffering which partisan writers often causelessly inflict upon public men ; but were any of our much-libelled politicians to bring a newspaper writer before a jury, and ask them to assess damages for the loss and suffering inflicted on him by unfair criticism, there would be a general outcry that the liberty of the Press was in danger. And there would be good reason for such a cry, but not more reason than there is in view of the other, and more insidious way, in wliich its liberty and usefulness are now being gradually undermined. The law of libel is in a most unsatisfactory state, and requires amendment.