ONCE MORE “THE GAO.”

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 6623, 12 September 1908, Page 8

ONCE MORE “THE GAO.”

If the only justification for the gag clause of the Second Ballot Bill finding its -way to the statute book is the unconvincing speech made by the At-torney-General in the Legislative ■Council yesterday afternoon, we can view ite passage into law with perfect serenity, firm in the , knowledge that such a reversion to mediaevalism will soon be swept out of existence. Dr Findlay’s exordium about government by the majority being the fundamental principle of democracy was sadly out of tune with his arguments in favour of limiting the freedom of public discussion and writing within tho period between two polls. Tho impression conveyed by the honourable gentleman’s address is that he is not very enthusiastic about this eccentric procedure. His assertion that this “shutup ” provision has been inserted in the

measure for the purpose of saving tlio poor man from the machinations ot tho man with the long purse and corruptible editorial writers is perfectly preposterous. As a matter of solid fact, tho clause will act with disastrous results in tho case of tho poor man, who has only his own voice, fus own powers of persuasion, argument and invective to fight his way through a contest, particularly when it comes to running off the final heat. Moreover, there is not a man with a long purse in tho fighting line of Now Zoa- ; land politics to-day. If tho clause is going to succeed in , closing tho mouths of candidates and fussily interfering with tho nows- , papers, where is tho justification for i handing over to each of tho candidates ;l £SO of tho taxpayers’ money? That • amount will go to the candidate bo lie . I rich or poor, and it would bo a fairly ■ I gluttonous brand of politician who ■! would want to spend more in seven . | days! It would be far bettor for tho ■ | public if tho law allowed a candidate ■ to talk and loft his pockot empty, ;j rather than that it filled his hand >■ with gold and bridled his tongue. Why . is this money to bo voted if there is • I to bo a campaign of silence, or, at 1 1 best, of academic discussions on such !! worn-out themes as liberalism v. ■ Toryism? Dr Findlay’s case is a bad I one. His remarks about the morality of tho press call for this reply: That ■ they are utterly and absurdly wrong. There are newspapers m Not Zealand which support what a certain section of wealthy men call their politics,' and sometimes favour the candidature ■ of men who are rich—but not merely . because they are rich, for they more ■ | often urge the election of people who ■ are far from affluent. Certainly, : there are a few isolated papers which do nothing but dauco to tho tune of ; the purse, but they do it so ludicrously, and make such a mess of tho ■ whole business, that the tactics of the 1 piper's marionettes resemble the playing of children.

There is one feature of the debatein tho Council, reported elsewhere, that shows with delightful humour the fine statesmanlike grasp some members have of this question. To Mr Paul’s denunciation of the Bill, Mr McLean interjected: “ Why gag everybody else and leave tho press freerI’’ 1 ’’ The one real point is; Why gag anyone at all? Tho newspapers want no special privileges. They want freedom off speech for all. This has hitherto been a cherished British prerogative. Clause 18a has not even tho doubtful advantage of having been “ made in Germany.” In fact, it has no parallel in any part of tho world where the franchise obtains. It is pleasing to observe that tho ‘.‘gag clause” has had an exceedingly unfavourable reception in the Legislative Council. Wo hope that august body will not be seduced by any proposal of compromise which will in the slightest degree imperil tho freedom' of the Platform and the liberty of the Press.