THE PRIVILEGE CASE.

Oamaru Mail, Volume II, Issue 421, 3 September 1877, Page 2

THE PRIVILEGE CASE.

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. [ FROM. THE LYTTISLTON TIMES.] Assuming that what wo have Baid is correct, we cannot but feel that our Houso of Representatives has made a grave error in the course \vh ch it has taken in tho lvcent case brought before it by tho Hon. F. Whitakor. He was accused of having a share in certain land transactions in thu North Island, the character of which, according to tho offending newspaper, tho Oamaru Mail, was, to use a comparatively mild epithet, dishonourable in tho highest degree. Tho publisher, Mr. G. Jones, was Riinnnoned to appear at tho Bar of the House, and refused to admit his error and apologise. After a lengthy debate, the Houso has directed the At-torney-General to prosecute him for libel. We do not see that any slur waH cast on tlio House, even if the statements mado are malicious libels ; they attacked Mr. Whitaker in bis private capacity, and tho same mode of redress was open to him that would have been open in a similar case to any of Her Majesty's subjects ; and Mr. Whitaker seems to have felt this, as he moved a resolution which would have left any further steps in the case to himself. But the House having rashlyresolved to drag tho supposed offender before tliem, felt that something must bo done, and so arrived at tho decision befora spoken of. Wo do not see that Mr. Whitaker's accidental presence in tho Ministry in the least affects tho aucßtjon, unless we are to go back to tlio doctrine* current in the Law Courts in the very worst times in the history of our judicature ; unless, in fact, wo aro to admit that to attempt to possess tho people with a dislike and ill-will to the Government in itself constitutes malicious libel, a position which men engaged in politioal warfare will hardly agree to. But not only do we think that tho Houso has gone out of its way to interfere in a matter properly private, but it has followed a most unusual course. No doubt there are cases in which the Houso of Commons lias ordered prosecutions against persons who have published libels reflecting on members, but one cannot help noticing that the only oases of this sort cited hy May are about 170 years old. It seems, therefore, that our House of Representatives is reviving a privilege that had fallen into desuetude. Further, the course adopted is, in this case, singularly undesirable, as Mr. Whitaker, as tho Attorney-General, is to prosecute the offender for a libel on the individual Mr. Whitaker. Moreover, the majority of the Houso has decided to relegate to a jury the duty of pronouncing finally on a case in which many members of the Assembly in their place in Parliament ventured to pronounce an off-hand opinion as to the guilt of tho prisoner. Many of them said ho had been guilty of libel, and nothing remained but to punish him. Statements of this sort, made with* out any proper taking of evidence, aro, in our opinion, greatly to bo deprecated, as tending to interfere with the unbiassed meting out of justice subsequently in Court of Law. And the assertion of tho Ministerial Whip, that the question was a Government one, deserves the severest condemnation. Altogether, think the proceedings of the House in this case not

» -- • - Tvery creditable to its wisdom or its moderation. One good will, however, be secured. There is certain to be a judicial inquiry into the truth or falseh. od of sundry ugly charges that have been, repeatedly made in the matter of those land transactions against Mr. Whitaker. Bufc the House would have far better consulted its dignity had it-left this gentleman to his private remedy at law, and refused from the first to interfere. [FROM THE OTAGO GUARDIAN. ] . We feel the delicacy of referring to this breach of privilege case in the stage to •which it has now attained, having assumed the form of a criminal prosecution in our ordinary Courts of Law. In these circumstances we most scrupulously shrink from any reference to the merits of the case, though we feel not that we are precluded from commenting on the proceedings in relation to the case which took place in the House. The Law Courts were, of course, open to the complainant at the first, but he elected making the case an infringement of the privileges of. the ! Legislature. He admitted subsequently j that he had done so in the expectation : that ttie editor of the Oaniaru Mail would ; meekly bow in presence of the House and * make humble apology. When, instead of ; this, the State prisoner demanded an in- : quiry, and stated in general terms the j line of his intended defence, Mr. \ Whitaker shrunk from, the ordeal, and J stating that the explanation of Mr. Jones ' was " not satisfactory to him," forsooth, f hastened to be quit of him. r .t should be j borne in mind, as possibly throwing some i light on this precipitate action, that had j Mr. Jones been granted the inquiry demanded, and made good his statements by the evidence which he promised,- the truth of the allegations would have saved him from punishment. As is well known, ] this does not hold in the lower courts of judicature. However, we presume the Honourable the Attorney-General having i had time for reflection, knew what he was doing, and we call not the wisdom of the i procedure intj question. But- we feel that, so far as the conduct of the House itself is concerned, the proceedings were simply contemptible. The House had at first adjudged the offender guilty, then summoned liim, and asked him what he had to say. He demanded an opportunity of proving his statements — the Housa refused it; and member after member got up in his place and asserted that the statements in the article were untrue. How did they know they were untrue ? . What evidence had . they of their untruth'{ Their prisoner submitted no evidence, good, bad, or indifferent. He merely pleaded Not guilty, and re- \ served his defence. Members were conffessedJy ignorant of the whole case, and = yet they had the audacity not merely to pronounce him guilty of having told untruths. but dilated on the enormity of his guilt. Sheltered by that protection which enables members of the Legislature to say anything they please against outside persons, and which punishes anyone who dares to resent the impertinence, they, in the most cowardly fashion, took upon them to prejudge a case which they knew was about to proceed before a jury, and which tliey had not had the moral courage to deal with themselves. This operation was what they call "maintaining the dignity of the House." As we have said, our only comment is on the action of the House. As for the law case, that was the form it should have taken at first. But that the House should have prejudged the case, as it did by the mouth of nearly all its members, and have made it a case of .all the Colony against George Jones, in which, whether win or lose, we, the' colonists, must pay the costs of cleaning the character of Sir. aWhitaker, constitutes a ground of objection on which we claim emphatically the right to take our stand. Precluded as we are from comment on future proceedings, we yet may venture to advise Mr.' Whitaker : to wit, that he, by his influence as Attorney-General, should change the venue to Wellington or Auckland, and not have the ease tried in the district in which the alleged offence was committed. By taking it to Wellington he may have the benefit of the Government's prestige, and of the influence of officialism which pervades society even down to the crossing-sweeper. By taking it to Auckland he may find a state of society of which it has been asserted that- there never has been, and could not be found there, a special juiy that would dare bring in a verdict in oposition to the ruling clique. ([FROM THE NEW ZEALAND SUN.] The Attorney-General has succeeded in attracting unusual attention to those disgraceful land-sharking transactions in the Kcrth which have indeed left a good many unclean hands behind, and that . . ." . people will become convinced that there must be fire somewhere when so large an amount of smoke is so pungently perceivable. We need scarcely refer to that old threadbare controversy, the Piako Swamp question, further than to remind certain parties concerned that Mr. Whitaker is actually, at the present moment, a partner of Mr. Thomas Russell in connection with this Piako business ; that their firm and that of the Morrins, of Auckland, have been intimately associated on the directorship of the Bank of Kew Zealand ; and; that, last and not least, Mr. Whitaker is justly celebrated in the Colony for remarkable smartness in matters requiring deep and dark Governmental wire-pulling. . . . . . Jones, before the Bar of the House, is charged with, "a breach of privilege, and not with having committed libel. These absolutely tw.o distinct offences, and Mr. Whitaker in the most ingenious manner possible has - endeavoured to utilise Parliamentary pressure to bear upon the success of any claim against Jones which he may institute in a Court of Law. i- . ; We : «hall await

those new magisterial proceedings against Jones, jun., with some curiosity, and, in the meantime, we can only wish hiui success, as he has probably done much towards extirpating that Hydra with many heads, that loathsomefiand-shark-ing question in the North Island. 1