THE DIRTY DAILES!

NZ Truth, Issue 198, 3 April 1909, Page 1

THE DIRTY DAILES!

Stenchful Sttrlmgs and Public Morality.

It takes a great deal Ha sftocfc J "Truth," which, as a newspaper honestly endeavoring to pursue a policy of expos- , ing rottenness and putridity wherever it exists, and respecting no person, or persons, no matter their station m life, is made to bear the brunt of the wowsefjstic outbursts on unclean and unrespectable journalism. Such outrageous outbursts, is, to quote a current expression, "like pouring water on a duct's back," so far as this paper is concerned, because, m; nine cases out of ten, those irresponsible . and irrepressible individuate, sometimes 'garbed as parsoTs, but more frequently editors of so-called respectable: daily papers, are the sort of persons who live torn and tormented jy guilty consciences and dreading the possibility of a paper such as "Truth" exposing to honest daylight the wickedness and corruptness of their hypocritical lives and showing to the world the white sepulchres that they are. Those who wowse and wail the loudest , -are generally those who fear the pen' that is steeped m gall. Their hypocrisy is so apparent, so notorious, m fact, that it is only a mere matter of time ere they fall, and their fall will be like that of Humpty Diimpty when he fell- off the -wall. Hawever, we set out to observe that it takes a great deal to shock "Truth," . which has cultivated the unpleasant (to some) habit of telling the truth without trimmings, though out of decency's* sake, very often, facts have to be told m such a manner that robs them of their hideousness and rottenness. Why ''Truth" should be the butt of the "Unco Guid" it has never really discovered, and, not strange to relate, the reason actuating or underlying this rancour and J hatred has never been fully investigated, although the detestation of humbug and hypocrisy on "Truth's" part might suggest a -sat*, isfactory reason. • • • ■„ - '".! Not being easily susceptible, of shockor surprise considering the existing, rotten sysytem and state of .< So^eiety, it was, however, with pain Jhat this paragon of a public print recently, observed, m fact, still observes, m. the innocent and . pre-eminently respectable provincial press, that our great, up-to-date journals, whose proprietors, shareholders, or editors, are recently to discuss journalism from the broad view point of Imperialism s in London and elsewhere, • when a. lack of banquets and other guzzles permit, published at great length, without decency or limit, and apparently at '.'great expense," the altogether nauseating, indecent and truly disgusting details of the Stirling divorce suit m London, a divorce . suit, be it mentioned, where the parties are people who move m genteel aristocratic circles, and who can trace their ancestry, incluive of the bastard-bred, back to the time and before William of Normandy landed m Sussex, or before Bruce or Wallace made history. .Needless to remark, had such a divorce suit been heard ..in New Zealand,, prompt and decisive would have been the order for suppression, m the interests of morality, and for fear "Truth" would report the case,' from his Honor, the presiding Judge. _ Happily, or unhappily, the power to order the suppression iji evidence is either not vested m an English Judge, lor he' is loth to. adopt a step, which at all times engenders the worst sort of suspicion, and anyhow the fact of any such order -being made, would in' no wise debar a New Zealand respectable journal from wallowing m the unmentionable . filth of a divorce where the parties have some sort of social standing. And, strange to remark, the proceedings of such high-class divorce suits discovers such depravity and indecency, such disregard to all moral and social codes, that would indeed shame the animals of the stye or the fields. ■ ■<• . ■ *■ « One, of course, could easily .imagine what state of affairs would exist il the power to proscribe evidence was not vested m New Zealand Judges. The unjust and erroneous impression exists with many that evidence is suppressed solely because m the absence of such an order, "Truth" would fill its columns with filth and pollute the public roindl True, more than one Judge m New Zealand, two m particular, usticcs Denniston and -Williams, have on more than one occasion, unwarrantably it, is said, ? J v&i expressions, pi opinion detrimental to "Truth,!' which, if ,it j does -not show bias, unconscious or other-

wise, might, at leastV prejudice '"Truth"'should it ever appear as : either plaintiff or. defendant before either Judge. The qualified observations of these Judges that the "respectable" daily press would hot, m the absence of any such order, pollute its columns with the filth of divorce and sexual cases, rendered it the , more , necessary that an order of suppression. should bo made to legally handicap less particular prints, is a. dubious sort of complaint, because it is made sure that no Ibap-nole is left through which i the clean press could possibly,- unihten|tionally, of course, pander to depraved" '"tastesv-'Hdw, m the absence of orders ,of i suppression, the daily press will revel m filth m high society, we have abundant I proof of m the reports of the Stirling divorce suit, recently concluded m London. Had, such a suit been heard m Mew Zealand, the evidence would have been 'suppressed, not, to quote Mr Justice Denniston or Mr Justice Williams, that tiie r daily press would publish. , dirt, but simple because papers * like "Truth": would. Honestly, tins paper is surprised at their learned Honors , childishness. Now, 'We have said more than ■ once that m the daily papers reports of the Stir-ling-divorce suit, evidence was . published, that m no circumstances would see the light of day m "Truth," for the best of reasons that th» risk of being criminally prosecuted would be too great.^ - ' ■ m m ....•■..'■ Excepting with, one solitary patsonicai' protest, this filthy evidence" has gonethrough the metropolitan and* country press and it ever there was. a moral blight the reports of the sordid, scandalous "free-loving" Stirring divorce suit supply it. We don't profess to know what would actually have happened had "Truth" given publicity to the dirty details, nevertheless, it is certain that there would have been more than one parson at' work pimping for and prompting a prosecution. A parson at New* Plymouth had the temerity to protest' and this is how the "Taianaki Herald" dealt with him :— „ At one of, the local churches yesterday the minister, m the course of his sermon, took it upon himself to comment very severely upon the press of New Zealand for publishing details of r the Stirling divorce , case. It was extremely unfortunate for the .reverend, gentleman that one of the lessons of the day contained the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife, which is infinitely more indecent than 'the story as pub-, lished of. the billings and cooings, between Lord Northland and Mrs Stirling. : It is possibly open to argument whether newspapers should or should : not publish anything relating to scandals of this nature, < though there is a great deal to be said, m favor of publicity,' because the greatest deterrent to vice 'qf this kind is fear, of the light of day.. .Aparti from T the ethics of journalism, however, it*- was decidedly unwise of the reverend gentleman to dir rect the attention of the congregation to reports which he presumably thought they ought not to read, or at any rate that the papers ought not/to! publish, and it was aci extremely'unlucky coincidence that the story of •Potiphar's. wife's solicitations should have been read just previously. "Truths" of course, cannot very well defend the parson, but it does at least think it time the average', sky-pilot before he girds at this papery tumbled to the. fact that a clean press of New Zealand does not exist. Anyhow, it cannot reflect any great credit on New Zealand's papers to go from New Zealand for filth, while it closes its eye, as it were, to the corruption that exists here.