The Taranaki Herald. PUBLISHED DAILY. THURSDAY, MAY 29, 1879.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 3134, 29 May 1879, Page 2

The Taranaki Herald. PUBLISHED DAILY. THURSDAY, MAY 29, 1879.

No Portion of New Zealand has received more checks to its progress than Taranaki ; and we suppose we may expect these drawbacks to continue so long as a native race antagonistic to Europeans is dwelling amongst us. The little episode of the natives at Tapuae during the past week has caused the business of the town to become almost stagnant, besides being the ostensible Cciuse of several intending settlers leaving the place. What district can expect to progress under such disadvantages? It will be seen by our telegrams that the Wellington Press looks very lightly upon our position, intimating that our danger has been greatly exaggerated through "over-anxiety" on the part of the populace. It is time, we think, to become ' : anxious" when we find, within ten miles of the town, in the middle of an old settle. l district, that the natives — who are supposed to be friendly to Europeans, and who, it is imagined, woul i be on our side in case of a fight with the Maoris — in the coolest manner possible, take their ploughs iuto a grass paddock belonging to a settler, and begin to plough it up, at the same time very plainly stating that they intend to occupy it. What is the meaning of it? Have the settlers no redress? Is the Government

powerless to act in such a case, and unable to stop such lawless proceedings? These are questions everyone is asking. Can we, with the fact of the natives being still at work on Mr. Courtney's land, credit the tale so simply told by "one of Te Whiti's principal chiefs to the Inspector of the Police?" Te Whiti, it appears from this, denies that the men were ordered to plough up the settlers' land. But how can we reconcile such a statement with the remarks that have fallen from Paringu Kingi and Te Ngongo to Mr. Shand :

or why would it have been necessary for Motutu to have sent such a reply as ho did to the wily old chief of Parihaka if some orders had not been sent him to break our laws. Te Wliiti may be a man of peace, but every move of his lately has been one of aggression, and the time has come, we think, when the Government must meet the difficulty with firmness, and Te Whiti and his followers made toknow that for the future, should such another attempt be made to annoy our settlers, or to intimidate them, the punishment will fall on him. It is well known that the settlers would far rather endure much than drift into another war with natives, and which we would be the last to advocate. But there is a limit to everything ; and if the natives have made up their minds for another brush with vs — aud, from their sullen looks and bounceable attitude, they appear to ba doing their best to make the settlers break the peace — then let the question be settled at once and for ever ; for it is no good attempting to push the district ahead whilst a few natives can at any time, by their lawlessness, throw it years back again in its progress. If the natives are likely to continue to annoy us, and disturb our peaceful mode of living, then we feel sure that there is not a man in the place who would not rise to the occasion, and once more try the question with the natives as to which is the strongest. If it should come to that — and we really hope the Maoris will not drive us to it — but if it should come to fighting — then we have very little hesitation in saying that the struggle will be a short one ; and, after it, this district will never more receive a check to its progress from the same cause.

The law of ltbel is very liberally interpreted by the judges in South Australia, and as the juries almost as a rule return verdicts for the defendants in cases that are tried, we should imagine that persons there would be deterred in future from bringing newspaper proprietors in the Supreme Court to defend action* of the kind. Chief Justice Way, in addressing the jury on one occasion, said : — " If a public writer, in commenting upon transactions brought under his notice, whilst he is not entitled to sacrifice truth to epigram, and the reputation of another person for the purpose of making a pungent point, is entitled to bring to the exercise of his duty the mastery which he may possess over style and composition. He is entitled to use irony, and tie is entitled to use sarcasm, so long as these gifts arc not abused. So long as the comment is confined within reasonable bounds, the writer may b 3 illogical, he may show bad taste, he may be incorrect, but unless the contents of what he has written satisfy the jury that his mind was actuated by malice, the privilege still exists." In a case lately, he told the jury in his charge that the question they had to dcci le was not whether the article was " strictly accurate i:i pbint of fact ; whether it contains. l language they wouli have employed, or inferences they would have drawn ; but whether the plaintiff had proved it was written with malice — not merely with implied malice or what is called malice at law, but with actual malice, i. o. malice in fact." Journalists, said his Honor, might have great power of language and skill in employing it, alao, they might make mistakes ; but it was to the motive the jury had to look. If the article was not written maliciously the verdict should be for the defendant, and vice versa. If newspaper writers could depend on juries not returning verdicts except when articles were proved to be written with a malicious intent, we should see many grievances redressed which at the present time are allowed to pass unnoticed for fear of the penalty an outspoken article might entail.