THE COLONIST.

Colonist, Volume VI, Issue 625, 20 October 1863, Page 2

THE COLONIST.

NELSON, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1863,

A NEWSPAPER EDITOR PROSECUTING FOR

LIBEL,

A curious libel case has just been decided before Mr. Justice Richmond in the Supreme Court at Dunedin. The plaintiff was Mr. Julius Vogel, editor of the Otago Daily Times,, and the defendant one James Gordon Stuart Grant, of whom the papers give no designation, but he appears to be a person of rather extreme pamphleteering "proclivities," a keen electioneerer, and with strong antipathy to the modern descendants of the chosen people of old. In what estimation Mr. Grant is held in Dunedin may be learned from the fact that when a criminal information on account of this libel was laid against him, he could not find, two men in that city to come forward with bail for his appearance at the assizes, and the unfortunate libeller was committed to prison, and lay there for two months waiting his trial, though the amount of bail was only £40. Mr. Julius Vogel belongs to 'the Jewish .persuasion, and in June last he stood as a candidate for the House of Representatives for the city of Dunedin against Mr. Patterson, and was defeated. Mr. Grant seems to have taken a strong stand against Mr. Vogel, and had issued a pamphlet containing the libel complained of. Mr. Vogel also raised an action for civil damages against the unfortunate printer of the pamphlet, who compromised the case by paying, if we recollect aright, £50 to the fund of some charity. The libel was entitled "Jeshurun," and Bpoke of the plaintiff as editor of the Jew's Harp. In reply to his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond, who asked the prosecuting agent to point out " some of the ' plums' of the composition—those expressions which were deemed malicious and libellous," Mr. Gillies, the agent, called attention to the words, " Which he now, repays with flagrant ingratitude, and the foulest misrepresentations of the fathers and founders of this country." These words he declared, were " sufficient to establish a libel, and that the publication was intended to bring the party alluded to into ridicule or contempt, which was evidently the object of that placard."

The writer also styled Mr. Vogel " the Wandering Jew." These are the only " plums " the document appears to contain • —at least, they are all the prosecutor's agent refers to. The " flagrant ingratitude and foulest misrepresentations " mentioned apply to certain editorial comments by Mr. Vogel on the " Old Identity,' i. c., the early settlers of Otago, whose moderate progress was greatly accelerated and at length superseded by the sudden and great swelling of the population, through the instrumentality of the gold discoveries.

The language no doubt is strong. No responsible or gentlemanly writer would care to adopt it; and it evidently had been refused insertion in some of the Dunedin newspapers, and so the writer found refuge in a pamphlet. Yet strong as it is, we have seen, within the last few weeks, as ungentlemanly and coarse language printed in a Nelson newspaper, and made to apply to Dr. Featherston, a man better and longer known than Mr. Vogel.

We know nothing of Mr. Grant, and we do not take his part in the least; but so far as the sentences on which the charge is grounded are concerned, there seems little room for a parliamentary candidate to complain, and very much less when that candidate is a newspaper editor, one of a class of mien who, for the public good, claim a right of free speech and full criticism of the acts and opinions of public men. The defendant, in his address to tbe jury made the following statement, which the prosecutor's agent never contradicted or questioned, but we would fain believe it to be incorrect:— ,

" A proposition was not long since made to me by my prosecutor that this prosecution would be dropped if I consented to withdraw my plea of not guilty, and plead guilty, with this proviso, that if ever I attempted to speak, write, or utter a word against Mr. Julius Vogel, I was then to be again arraigned for it. It was to be like the sword of Damocles suspended by a thread continually hanging over his head.

If this be true it is an attempt to smother criticism which we think few members of parliament and still fewer newspaper editors would care to emulate.

In his charge to the jury, which was a common jury, his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond after defining the law of libel said

" If they considered the production of the defendant to be libellous, they must pronounce accordingly, and leave it to him to award what punishment he would deem so paltry a charge would deserve. The defendant had just cause to complain that he had been so long incarcerated, and that he could not find two men liberal-minded enough to come forward and keep him from that gaol, and deprivation of his liberty, of which he so justly complained. It wa» an unusual thing for a defendant to be imprisoned on such a charge." '. '

The jury after an absence of twenty minutes returned a verdict of " Not Guilty" and the defendant was discharged. We think, and we trust the public will think, that the jury returned a very proper verdict. Such a case, with such miserable grounds for an action as the report of the trial contains, should never have been brought before a court. Whatever position the man Grant occupies, it is a very great hardship that he should have been obliged to undergo two months'imprisonment, because of an offence of which a jury of intelligent men found him not guilty. Of course we know that technically his incarceration was due to his non-

compliance witfy the order of the court, by his

inability to find bail for £40; but actually the fault lies with the law, and with the prosecutor, who chose to make use of a bad law by raising a criminal action, instead of, as he did in the case against the printer of' the document, proceeding by a civil action. Possibly, in'vulgar parlance, the man mighty not have been " worth powder and shot; "■ .but if so, and if a verdictgiving damages had been obtained, the retaliatory feeling, could have been satisfied by means of imprisonment for non-payment of the sum, but that imprisonment could only be inflicted after> and not before the jury's decision.

In any case a newspaper man should1 be the last to bring an action for libel. His own honesty of purpose ought to render him impervious to personal abuse if he be assailed, and his own pen should be the best, weapon of defence and teach his assailants caution. That honesty and that weapon ought to form the best defensive and offensive armour he

can employ.

The English law of libel which is the law in the colonies, demands instant amendment;, and the occurrence of an action like this is the best evidence of the fact. Why should the power of the Crown be dragged into a dispute between two men ? Or why should what is essentially a civil action,—an action laid for the purpose of assessing damages, for obtaining money reparation, be transformed into a quasi-criminal prosecution ? The practice is a disgrace to English law; and is a relic of the fetters with which in the days of judicial censorship, law makers and administrators manacled the press. The social crime of seduction under promise of marriage, by which a weak woman may be ruined for life, does not infer criminal proceedings, but only money damages. labelling a politician is a simple offence in comparison with such an act, and its consequences are never so far-reaching. Yet the latter is liable to criminal punishment in addition to damages. The proof of how this law may be abused is seen in the preliminary imprisonment of a man whom a jury has declared innocent, and. of whose offence the judge speaks as a " paltry charge." There are cases on record where base advantage was taken of this law, for it is not always that judges are so calm and judicious as was. Judge Richmond in this case. If a really patriotic minister would introduce a law rendering libel a civil offence only, as virtually it is, he would do a service to free discussion and prevent the possibility of vindictive feeling being gratified by improper use of imprisonment.

The law of Scotland regarding libel, although requiring amendment in some points, is much superior to the law of England in thia respect. There an action lies only in the civil court; no criminal proceedings' are taken, and the common jury assesses the amount awarded for the damage sustained. So should it be in English law. We would ask for no immunity for the press, beyond the protection of free and full discussion of the doings of public men. The malicious libeller who abuses that freedom deserves to suffer for his offence, but it is a matter in which the Queen and the Crown agent ought to have no concern, for it is simply a question of civil reparation between the libelled and the libeller.

It is with sorrow that we find the editor of an influential and leading newspaper forgetting this important truth and thereby •doing injury to the great principle by which professionally he exists; that principle of free speech and full discussion, which forms the mainstay of the people's liberties.