WHAT PAPERS PRINT.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 June 1923, Page 5

WHAT PAPERS PRINT.

DETAILS OF DIVORCE CASES. CHURCH URGES SUPPRESSION. MINISTER OPPOSES CENSORSHIP. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. A deputation consisting of Archbishop O’Shea, Bishop Sprott, the Rev. Father Cullen and the Rev. R. Inglis waited on the Minister of Justice (Sir Francis Bell) to ask that the publication of the details of divorce and other cases bearing on sexual matters should be forbid den. Reference was made .by the Rev. R. Inglis (Presbyterian) to certain details published in connection with the Cooper case. He said those associated with him maintained it was most undesirable that the prurient details of evidence should be made public in the way that had been done in the Cooper case. Bishop Sprott joined in the remarks of Mr. Inglis. In the past, he said, the papers had been careful in what they published and the press had been on a high plane. Certain evidence must be published, they agreed, but justice would not be prejudiced if the papers did not publish evidence regarding details of irregular sexual intercourse. The judgment in the Cooper case would not have been different if the relations of the parties had been perfectly regular; at least, the speaker’s own judgment was not affected by what had been published in the way of undesirable details. In the Cooper case the news papers had got rather below their usual level, and he hoped something would be done to see that there was no recurrence.

Archbishop O’Shea supported the remarks of- the previous speakers, and trusted that something would be done to restrict the publication of the details of evidence which were considered to be undesirable.

In- reply to the deputation, Sir Francis Bell said that he had no duty to protect the morals of the people, except through the police. In a matter of the kind under notice it was difficult to intervene by authority. He said that if he were to grant the deputation’s request it practically meant the establishment of a censorship of newspapers, and he could see no way in which that could be done legally and effectively.