DUNEDTN LIBEL CASES.

Otago Witness, Issue 1157, 31 January 1874, Page 1

DUNEDTN LIBEL CASES.

We cannot say that we are surprised at the verdict of the Jury in the case Orkney v. Bell. The Special Jurymen who awarded fifty pounds to Captain Orkney because a letter had been published calling him a "Bumble," only followed the example of other Dunedin Special Jurymen. Indeed there never has been an action for libel brought against the Press but what has always resulted in the defeat of the Press. We would therefore not comment so much on the special circumstances of thecasejust decided, but rather point out some of the corollaries that necessarily follow from such verdicts as those given in Orkney v. Bell. One, and perhaps the most important to newspapers, undoubtedly is, that the class forming the special jurymen in Dnnedin does not desire a critical Press. This result again arises from many causes. In a small town, or among.-st a small community, there is a knowledge of every one by his neighbour which rcuikes any criticism at all approaching that of a personal kind extremely unpopular. That there is such a caiise as this a perusal of many of the British papers abundantly manifests. Were a Dunedin paper to publish articles such as appear in t he Scotsman, the Pall Mull Gazette, or the Dublin Freeman's Journal, there would be enough of employment for all the lawyers in libel actions alone. And this very knowledge of everyone by his neighbour is a preventative of the growth of any such thing as public opinion. In New Zealand there is no New Zealand public opinion ; and as for public opinion in the Provinces, there is nothing deserviug such a name extant in any of them. The Provincial system is blamed for this, and no doubt the want of a common centre in the Colony — the want of a head to our body politic — is one of the causes of this Jack of public opinion. But the "knowledge of everyone by his neighbour "is also prejudicial to its existence. If the various libel cases that have been tried in Otago had been tried in a place where the parties to the actions were unknown, we believe the verdicts would have been, different ; and such being the case, this last verdict, coupled with those that have preceded it, is simply the newest warning to journalists, that in tho treatment of any subject they must deal in vague generalities, and avoid sharp or personal criticism. In fact, journals must recognise that there is in New Zealand as active and vigilant a Press censor as ever existed in Louis Napoleon's palmiest days.

In the case just decided there may have been a distinction drawn between the " libel " — for, we supposej we must so designate it — being contained in a letter and not appearing as a leader. Ttiere is, and should be, however, no such distinction. No editor of any paper ever writes all the leaders appearing in his journal. The distinction between the correspondence columns and the leader columns realty is tbdt in the former »H writer*

have the privilege accorded to them of writing on topics of all kinds, and giving expression to their own peculiar views. In the leader columns the views' must have a coherence with the policy advocated by the journal, and must be expressed in a style and manner that meets with the editor's approbation. The editor is, however, equally responsible, so far as libel is concerned, for both ; and to blame a journalist for not at once giving up the name of the writer of a letter to every enquirer shows a lack of appreciation of a journalist's duty. If, by mistake or through inadvertence, a letter has been published as a statement of facts that is proved afterwards to be untrue, no doubt a Journalist would feel bound to give up the name of the writer who had deceived him. But to urge that a journalist is bound to name the correspondent who furnishes him with a letter whenever the person criticised feels offended, would be to destroy the freedom of the Press, and to abolish anonymous journalism. And if anonymous journalism were abolished, the Press would be emasculated, and the newspaper become a mere passive instrument for recording the facts of our social hie. Some people, no doubt, would desire it to be so. There are always some in a community who think if the births, deaths, and marriages, the state of the markets, the shipping, the trade, and the other social facts of a people are chronicled, that a newspaper's work is done. Such persons have a horror o± politics, and dread reform of every kind. Abuses, if they exist, must be reformed by the heads of Departments, or the Government for the time being, and the great remedy for this is an "influential deputation." We doubt, however, if a journalist acted in this way, whether the very want ot decision in the paper would not so exhibit the evils of no criticism, that those very persons would be the first to complain. And yet, looking at the verdicts which have been given in libel cases, every journalist must feel that his occupation is one that is beset with no ordinary difficulties. It is true that it has said that the decision in Orkney v. Bell will have no effect on the liberty of the Press. Possibly an isolated decision would not have. But in Orkney v. Bell the Jury seem to have given a verdict in accordance with the practice of all former Dunedm Juries. And it is this which weakens the influence of the Press. It is true that the Press will exist m despite of libel actions. As m Shakesspbakb's time the « Play," tas the representation of popular social hie, grew and flourished notwithstanding the frowns of people in authority— as Emerson has in his essay on Shakespeare pointed out— so in our day the Press will nourish. The Press cannot be snppressed-but it may be weakened. Its influence in social and political reform may be lessened, and abuses may be allowed to exist because of the dread of actions for libel, and the want of appreciationaraongsttheDunedinJurymen of the functions of anewpaper. Indeed, with the past decisions of Juries in his recollection, he requires to be a bold iournalist who attempts to -find fault with a public institution, or with a public man or a Government officer, This journal had actually to pay a large sum of money simply because it reported the proceedings of an .Education Board ! „, „, And now we may ask, who will sutler for all this? No doubt, in the first instance, a newspaper proprietor has to lose his profits, but he is not the loser | in the end. Like a prudent man , he must resolve not to offend-not to nnd faultand with this resolution the influence for good of the Duned in Press declines The words that are libellous are added to by every new decision, and with tie increase of the libellous catalogue, tho decrease of the journalist's freedom goes on at the same ratio. In former cases this has been pointed out, and possibly the drawing of public attention to the latest verdict of a Dunedm Jury w;ll be useless. We trust, however, that it the Otago people have to complain ot an emasculated Press, they will not hesitate to remember the causes that have led to such a result, and in future, before floraplaining of tto effect, ueek fa remove

that which produces it. We do not, in making these remarks, pretend to say that journalists should enjoy peculiar privileges to be above the law. If a journalist attacks a man's private character, or injures a man in his public capacity, he should be taught to behave better. But without at all entering into the merits of Orkney v. Bell, we regret that at present the law of libel is so vague, and so much left to the caprices of juries, that a journalist cannot knew when he is acting so as not to render himself liable to an action. The jury have to say what is libel and what is not libel j and with such a varying body as a jury list, it is not surprising that the decisions given are sometimes irreconcileable and not understandable. Even in this last case all the journalist has learned is that he dare not call any public officer a " Bumble." In entering it in his notebook the defendant may follow the example of Homer Wilbur, M.A., and say — Dr. to the use of the word " Bumble," £50 and costs. And with such an entry all Government officers may rest assured that hereafter to none of them will the opprobrious epithet " Bumble" ever again be applied.