The Timaru Herald. TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1877.

Timaru Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 1761, 26 June 1877, Page 3

The Timaru Herald. TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1877.

The libel case recently tried m the Supreme Court at Timaru does not appear to bave attracted nearly so much attention on the part of the Press as its importance would have led us to expect. One principal reason for this probably is that all the parties to the action were journalists, and that Press writers are loth to embroil themselves m what may possibly be regarded as a professional quarrel. This view is no doubt a very proper one to take with respect to those actions which frequently arise out of mere newspaper squabbles. The case before us, however, was of a totally different' nature. The libel was aimed at the prosecutor m his private capacity, wholly without reference to the fact of his being Editor of a newspaper; nor had it the slightest connection with any previous journalistic contest. It will not, therefore, be out of place if we make a few remarks concerning it. Libel is a publication the tendency of which is to degrade a man m the opinion of his neighbors. It acquires its force almost entirely from the artificial state of society produced by an elaborate civilisation. In rude ages, when bodily strength, or the possession of wealth alone, gave a man supremacy over bis fellows, libel was not formidable. It might be irritating, as an insult, but as a personal injury it was insignificant. To bruit it abroad that a Crusader was a. seducer, would not bave hurt him. He rested bis claims to regard on his military qualities, hot on bis character -for virtue. Had he been denounced as a coward, he would havo at once disproved it bf fighting all and sundry, and his fame would have been enhanced by the process. To have hinted that Shylock bad been slippery m some of his dealings, would have caused him no anxiety. He plumed himself, not; on his honesty, but rather on his moneybags, and what we should now call bis business capacity. In our days the case is very different. To so great an extent does every man's success m life and position m society depend upon the estimation m which he is held by those about him, tMt

n-pu'.atioii i* worth more than anything else. So fur is this enrried thnt even a vague suspicion of some unknown and long-past delinquency, suffice to injurn a m:in very »«riou«lv. Who does not know m every community one or more of those unfortunates of whom it is said, with a shrug of the shoulders, " Oh, he is under a cloud," or " lie lives m a glass housa," or "There is a screw loose somewhere"? What, m fact, c r m afford so great peace of mind, or be of so much value, as the feeling that no man has a word to say against one's good name ? This is a blessing which the wealthy cannot buy with money, nor the powerful acquire by influence. Happiness m a great measure depends upon its possession ; and to men of the highest sensibility, even death would be preferable to its loss. Now, the effijct of libel is to deprive a man of this inestimable treasure ; an act which seems to us indisputably more injurious than a highway robbery or a bodily harm. It must bo remembered also thnt libel not

only injures the person against whom it is directed, but that it (alls with cruel weight on those against whom tho libeller can have no griide — the innoennt wife, children, or relatives of his victim. Viewed m this iiprlit, we cannot help thinking that libel ought to be regarded, both legally and morally, as a grave crime; and that society ought to bo proportionately protected against it. Judge Johnston, at the close of the recent trial, made some very pertinent remarks on this subject ; but he did not, if we may be allowed to say so, quite put the matter m its trno light. He tell into the mistake of confusing what we may cnll criminal libel with the liberty or license of the Press. We own that we cannot" see the connection between them. The difference is this : The hold journalist, dealing with questions of public concern, states openly his opinion of public men, and m connection with those questions, criticises or exposes their character freely. Tims the World, m dealing with the question of low monpy-lenders m London, exposed unflinchingly the character of several men ji's such. These prosecuted the writers m the World for libel ; but so far from their being blamed for what they had done, thfij Judges m acquitting them, said they deserved the thanks of the comumnity. Why was this ? Simply because the World has only done what was necessary to expose low moneylenders. It did not attempt to blacken their private character, or m any way to damage their reputation except as money-lenders. There have, too, been many casfs where conscientious journalists have undoubtedly carried the liberty of thu Press very near to the limit of public safety ; or have perhaps exceeded that limit. Very different, however, from even this, is a case where no public question >s under discussion, but where an attack is made on a man's private character with the sole object of damaging his reputation as a member of society. This is not Mberty or license of the Press at all. It is rather, a total abuse of the Press. It is not as if a reckless, ignorant or careless medical man, were to give a patient an unpalatable or unsuitable drug. It is as if he were lo administer a poison to him with the deliberate intention of destroying his constitution. The first would undoubtedly be a case ofmal-practice, which might or might not deserve punishment. The second would manifestly be a crime of a very high order, and would be totally distinct irorn anything like professional license. When these points are takeu into consideration, it will, we think, be conceded that the recent prosecution did not partake of the character of persecution ; and that the penalties inflicted by the learned judge, were assessed with that wisdom and humanity which are characteristic'^ him.