The Star. THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 1911. SUPPRESSING THE FACTS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 10104, 16 March 1911, Page 2

The Star. THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 1911. SUPPRESSING THE FACTS.

It is reported from Wellington this morning that a Court case that has been the subject cf a good deal of talk in the city was taken at the Supreme Court today, and the Chief Justice announced through the Registrar that the Press would not be admitted to the hearing, and, moreover, that the names of the parties to the action were not to be published. We are not going to speculate concerning the nature of the case, and of course anything in the shape of comment on the action would be improper, but we cannot let the policy pursued by the Court pass without a protest. We cannot conceive circumstances in which the exclusion of the Press from ordinary Court proceedings would be justified. In America money lias bee?i known to secure a special sitting of a Court at an unusual hour for the hearing of a divorce suit, the reporters were excluded and the action was disposed of in two or three minutes. That sort of thing is calculated to bring any Court into disrepute, but apparently any kind of irregularity is tolerated in the United States provided there is enough money available to shut the mouths of people who might protest. We mention this case not to suggest that the same thing is happening in New Zealand, because we know that the administration of justice is above suspicion of sordid corruption", but what we have to remember is that irregularities always begin with the suppression of facts in the interests of morality. The newspapers ought to be trusted, and in this country they can be trusted to treat all classes of news with discretion. The recognition of the right of the Press to be represented in Court is the surest guarantee of the clean administration of justice, and we have before this recorded our own conviction that the measures already adopted in New Zealand for the suppression of law news constitute a grave danger. The newspapers should never have consented to the rule which empowers a Judge to prohibit the publication of the evidence in divorce and other cases. The idea that the interests of morality are conserved by the prohibition is ridiculous. If people want to read the sordid details of domestic differences they can get them in plenty for the asking, and the very fact that the details of local cases are not given to the public by the newspapers in the ordinary course, suggests to evil minds that "spicy'' matter is being suppressed. In the present case we shall have another illustration of the,truth of the axiom that the fame of Erostratus established many centuries ago. Erostratus sought fame by setting fire to the great temple of Diana at Ephesus, and the fathers of the city, in order to defeat his ambition, ordered that his name should never be mentioned on pain ol death. The consequence of this drastic order has heen that the name of the incenddarist has never been forgotten. Similarly we shall surely find that the exclusion of the reporters from the Supreme Court in Wellington will lead directly to the fullest dissemination of gossip concerning the case. The public will fill in for themselves the details that are not reported and the grossest exaggeration will be the general rule. In a few days the names of the parties and the stories about the case will be known all over the dominion. The curiosity of the public has been stimulated, and it will have to be satisfied. It would have been a thousand times better from every point of view if the reporters had been admitted and a quiet word had been addressed to them from the Bench as to the propriety of recording only the bare facts. Such a word would scarcely have been necessary, but it would have served the purpose that the Judge ha-d in view.