THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, JANUARY 11, 1923.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18758, 11 January 1923, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, JANUARY 11, 1923.

CENSORSHIP OF LITERATURE. The matter of the censorship of literature is engaging some attention in the dominion just now in connection with the -prohibition 0 f a rather' notorious book dealing with an unpleasant but, unfortunately, not negligible subject. It has been suggested that there is a mystery respecting the particular authority exercising the censorial power, but there does not appear to be any substantial ground for this- idea. In the House of Representatives on March 19, 1921, the Postmaster-General, in answer to a question put by Mr Holland, stated that “the Attorney-General .decides on the action to be taken, and the instructions go through his office, and automatically they get down to the Customs Department.” The Prime Minister, supplementing Mr Coates’s statement, said there was an officer under the control of the AttorneyGeneral whose business it was to examine the literature brought into New Zealand, to, see if there was any objection to its circulation. That officer, wc may remark in passing, must have his days and nights fully occupied. “He wont through the literature and formed his own opinion and then expressed that opinion to the AttorneyGeneral.” We can understand that it may be considered inexpedient to reveal the identity of the AttorneyGeneral’s adviser in these matters, but it is obvious that the responsibility of decision and of any action rests with the chief law-officer himself. Tims there is no warrant for the supposition that “the system of hook censorship is managed with the importation of dainty fabrics and highly coloured flannelette.” It stands -to reason that an officer charged with the onerous (and unenviable) task of going “through” all the literature that is brought into New Zealand can have no time to spare for investigating the mysteries of flannelette and fabrics. On December 1, 1921, the Minister of Customs, replying to another question by Mr Holland, declared that “the Censor (that is, presumably, the Attorney-General’s advispr) was a broad-minded man.” Incidentally Dir Dowuic Stewart denied the report—amazing enough iu all conscience—that Emerson’s works wore likely to he placed on the censored list. Of course, what may bo broad-mindedness in one person’s judgment may bo narrow-minded-ness in another’s. Our own view is that the censorial discretion, in relation both to books which are concerned with political doctrines and to those which raise moral considerations, should be exercised* in the most liberal spirit possibly compatible with regard for public safety and common decency. The ultimate futility of the veto furnishes one, though perhaps not the. most conclusive, reason for displaying this large tolerance. Indeed, the prohibition of a particular book is likely not only to bo futile hut actually to defeat the object which the censorship has in view. Books, as; an Auckland tradesman observes, have “often had a big sale simply through attempted prohibition, which meant a free and undeserved advertisement.” In more than one instance the prohibitive attitude of certain English libraries has notoriously had the effect of vastly increasing the sales

of a book justly or unjustly deemed to contain objectionable matter. Apart from this consideration, however, the day of prudish intolerance and timid obscurantism in literary matter has gone by. It is as unreasonable to place free-spoken French books of classic repute on the “index expurgatorius” as it would bp to ban Shakespeare or Burns' or even the Bible. Literary prohibition does not make for mental or moral robustness. Assuredly we hold no brief for the writer of the’ book which has occasioned the present bother, but we think that her special propagandism may safely bo left to stand or fall on its merits or demerits, and wo should be sorr3 r if New Zealand were to ac-

quire the reputation of being a nervously and unintelligently squeamish community. ''