PUBLIC OPINION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17219, 10 December 1923, Page 6

PUBLIC OPINION.

WHAT OTHER WRITERS ARE SAYING. THE RIGHT TO QUIET. This right, if it be conceded, was never more in need of being respected tha.n ;t is to-day. Most medical men, if asked for their opinion, will agree that people appear to be becoming more “nervy” than they were even as recently as ten years ago. The war had much to do with making them so, especially in the case of those who were within range of German air raids. Nervous people may be a nuisance to themselves and to everyone else (who is not so afflicted): but it is only the neurologist who can say with certainty whether the case is one for treatment by the sufferer himself in co-operatior, with the physician or by the latter alone. In their case unnecessary and preventable noises may, and often do, assume the form of positive torture. Even in the case of the well in body and mind such noises, especially if they are close enough to a dwelling, may constitute a nuisance of an impeachable kind, and utterly destructive of the right of the individual to quiet.— “Evening Post,” Wellington.

FREE SPEECH. It is one thing to interrupt on the spur of the moment, and another thing to organise opposition that will deny the candidate a hearing. It is this deliberate assault on the right of free speech that has provoked a protest from Mr Asquith and produced a declaration from a member of the Cabinet that Parliament must consider counter-measures. A great deal of this interference comes from men and women witli Communistic convictions or leanings. To the true Communist the right of free speech is what either ’Lenin or Trotsky said of freedom—“ a bourgeois superstition.” With such a fanatic every weapon must he used against the enemy, and whore a Soviet State is set up criticism is not permitted. Fortunately such enemies of British traditions are not numerous compared with the millions who have abfarbed these traditions. Mr Asquith was' right in holding such methods repugnant to the leaders of Labour. Men like Mr Ramsay MacDonald, Mr Henderson and Mr Thomas have too much regard for fair play and constitutional principles to sympathise with what really is a, return to savagery.—Auckland “ Star.” ROAD TRANSPORTATION. Local bodies, remembering that the heavy expense of track-laying and electrification must be met before a single car can run or one passenger be carried. are naturally chary of such undertakings. The motor bus or the railless tram offers a feasible alternative. It involves very little initial expense, comparatively speaking; a ser vice with its aid can be commenced without delay, and if it should prove unprofitable the vehicle can be transferred to some other district, as it is not bound to any i-ailed route. These considerations have no doubt weighed w'ith the Auckland council and prompted it to give the ’buses a trial. The experiment will be watched with interest. as there are possibilities in its development which open up a vast vista of interesting and payable possibilities, besides which its successful inauguration would enable a city to be carried further and further out into the country. obviating the congestion so often a deplorable feature of our centres of population and giving to the people these natural surroundings which ari the harbinger of good health—perhaps man’s most priceless possession.— “ Southland Times.” Invercargill. THE MAIN ROADS. If there are to be five toll gates on the first fifteen miles of the Main South Road, how martv wotild there be in the remaining 500 miles before Wellington is reached? r Fhe cost of staffing so. many toll gates would itself pay the interest on a considerable reading loan. The local bodies must therefore look elsewhere for their remedy, find in the present instance a very strong case could be presented in seeking ai:i under tlfa provisions of the Main Highways Act. If the local bodies interest©d can secure the definition of the road as a main highway, they will then be entitled to receive from the main highways account grants up to one half of the capital cost, and up to one-third of maintenance costs. Such a measure of relief should reconcile ratepayers to the necessary expenditure ami secure the construction of the road as desired. The local bodies, concerned would therefore be< better advised to give support to the existing legislation ancl press for its early application to their particular road, than to pursue a scheme \ that offers no prospect of realisation —“ New Zealand Herald,” Auckland.

RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH. The essence of the offence with which Mr Craig was charged (in New York) is “ that it is against the public, not against the Judge—an obstruction to public justice.” This was made quite clear about ten years ago in the cause celebre in which the New Zealand Observer ” was ehaxged with contempt of Court for ‘•the publication, after final adjudication, of scandalous cartoons of a. Judge of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, reflecting on the said Judge's conduct at the trial of a divorce suit in Auckland.” The Full Court, while declaring the cartoons to be objectionable and probably libellous, held that they “were not calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice, and did not therefore amount to contempt of Court.” This decision showed that the Courts of today. while rightly as jealous as ever of comments upon proceedsings still pending, are rightly very tolerant even of severe criticism after the ease has been concluded. “If.” said Mr Justice Williams. “ a Judge so conducts himself at, a trial as to suggest undue bias in favour of one party or the other, the public are at liberty to say so.” Mr Justice Denniston was equally broad-minded and even more emphatic. Public opinion nowadays lias. he said, a strong and, in my opinion, a wholesome suspicion of privileged, self-constituted and co-operative tribunals. You cannot comnel public respect- for the administration of justice by flouting public opinion. Judges, like all other public men, must rely on their own conduct to inspire respect. The peril of free speech in America and the unfortunate conflict between the Court* or* the one side and the Press and the politician* on the other should make us additionally grateful to our own Judges for the wisdom and the self-restraint, with which they have subordinated their own feelings to tha public interests, and reconciled the due administration of justice with the rights of fre speech in as liberal a manner a-, any sane popular Legislature could possible have devised. America would be thankful to be , equally well served.—Wellington *• Post,”