Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price 1d. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1886. The Liberty of the Press.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XIX, Issue 1881, 8 September 1886, Page 2

Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price Id. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1886. The Liberty of the Press.

The verdict of a jury in the case of Sir Julias Vogel, the Colonial Treasurer, v. Messrs Boydbouse and Wakefield, the proprietors of the Evening Press, has been the means of protecting the independent section of the Preos in this colony from one of the most disgraceful and monstrous attempts ever made to tetter and gag it, by a corrupt, unscrupulous, and time serving Government. The facts in connection with this State prosecution of a public journal for alleged libel, have already been fully laid before the public. It is therefore only necessary to in lieate some leading points of the ease, in order to afford the required basis to comment upon it as a whole. The District Railways Purchase Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in 1881. The Bill was otended to work a gross job, and the Leg slative Connell threw it out. In 1885 the Government brought in the Bill ag.uo and got it—with great difficulty— passco. Major Steward, a member of the House, worked hard to get the Bill passed, and afterwards was employed by several of the Distiict Hallway Companies to sell their lines to the Government. Major Steward negotiated with Sir Julius Vogel as Colonial Treasurer and sold, through him, to the Government, the debentures of the Waimate Railway Company. Major Steward w»b promi-ed by the Company a commission of £lBlO for his services, and, we believe, this sum has been paid to him. Strange leports got afloat about this transaction, and last session a select committee was appointed to investigate the whole affair. The Committee brought forward a report strongly condemning the conduct of Major Steward in taking a money commission from the Railway Company while occupying the position of a member of Parliament. The report also condemned strongly certain opinions expressed by Sir Julius Vogel, to the effect that Major Steward was justified in pocketing the commission, The whole affair amounted to a grave scandal, discreditable alike to Major Steward and to Sir Julius Vogel. The iudepeudent section of the Press of the colony, from the North Cape to the Bluff, all condemned the conduct of Sir Julius Vogel and Major Steward. Foremost amongst the newspapers which adopted this course were the Evening Press,jthe Wellington Advertiser, the New Zealand Times, and the Waiuaraim Standard. Sir Julius Vogel, stung into fury by the trenchant attse'is upon him, threatened a whole host of a 'lions fur libel. First of all, Sir Julius ci no down upon the youngest, and-jq the pecuniary sense, the weakest of his assailants—the Wellington Advertiser, He instituted a criminal prosecution against Mr Hoskins, the proprietor of that journal, for the publication of an article upon the Waimate Railway Scandal, and got him committed for trial to the Supreme Court. That case has still to come on at the criminal sittings in October. Next, Sir Julius Vogel assailed the Evening Press by issuing writs against its proprietors claiming £ISOO damages iu two oases for alleged libel. The alleged libels were stated to be in two leading articles published in that journal commenting upon the Waimate Hallway purchase business. We carefully »«ad those Slides at the time they were ....i.ijMhß* * nd considered them to be perfectly fi»ir'and the facts connected with the case m , ‘ ,Bt,oa VV^ 10 ( JJ ] bad been laid before the public by means the report of a Parliamentary Committee and the published Parliamentary debates. No term of condemnation of the conduct of Sir Julius Vogel and Major Steward which bad been used in those articles, were one half as strong as those employed by certain leading members of Parliament in their speeches in the House on the same question. Nevertheless, these articles so stung Sir Julius Vogel by their truth, that be resolved to have evenge, if such were attainable. He there:'ore served a writ and claimed £3OOO in all as damages from the proprietors of the Evening Press. The case was tried and tiirly fought out. Mr Travers, as counsel lor Sir Julius Vogrl, made the best fight he could for the wrrt bedly bad aud unjust case which had been placed tn his bands to plead, in the words of the poet it might be said of him

“ For he was falae and hollow ; “ Thom.'!' ’;‘s tongue dropped manna, “ And tried to make tho wone appear tbe Utter reason. But Mr Travers did not succeed in his ’(tempt. Mr Bell, {or the defence, made a 'riumphant vindication of the right of the public Pee.,a to comment in the most fearless, outspoken and independent manner on the acts of public men in their pnbiio capacity ou all questions which affected tbe interests of the public at large. Mr Bell, from tbe very first, carried the jury with him. In truth, Mi Bell was fighting in favor of a groat cause and a principle c| (be rwy Wgbeit

importance iie wan hghi. a ■ !*>r the aoerty >i me Pu-an ; for the right of i : mi independent cuument by it ou the acie of Ministers —and lie was also fighting against the unwarrantable and tyrannical action of the present Government in trying to tread that right of the Press under foot. Mr Beli did his work ably, fearlessly, and vigorously. He carried everything before him, and when the Judge had summed up with admirable impartiality and the jury had retired to consider their verdict, it was a foregone cenoluelusion what that verdict would be. And so the event proved. The jury soon returned into Court with a general verdict in favor of the defendants, thus completely justifying their comments in the newspaper, and rendering the plaintiff, Sir Julius Vogel liable to pay all the heavy costs of this most unjust and unwarrantable libel action. The proprietors of the Evening Press are to be heartily congratulated on the high courage and stout determination which they have displayed in fighting the affair pluckily and gallantly to the end. In truth, Messrs Royd. house aud Wakefield ran an enormous risk in this matter. In nearly every previous instance, Wellington special juries have always given verdicts against newspapers when actions have been raised against them. It might have been the same in the casee of Messrs Eoydhouse and Wakefield, and then they would have beeu ruined. But this particular special jury, disregarding all narrow and technical considerations, took a broad, enlightened and liberal view of the issues submitted 'to their decision, and so vindicated the free andjunfettered right of the Press to comment upon the acts of public men in an honest, independent and fearless manner, and yet be free from all danger of legal pains and penalties. All honor to that special jury for their conscientious and just verdict. That verdict will, in a great measure, put a stop to unjust libel actions against the Press in the future, and will also teach the present Government and all Governments to come, that they dare not attempt to stifle and gag the independent journals of the colony in fully and freely criticising the acts of Ministers and public men generally. That right has only been fully established and recognised in those more modern days. As Lord Chief Justice Cookborn -once remarked during the trial of a libel case

"Our law of libel has in many respects only gradually developed itself into anything like a satisfactory and settled form. The full liberty of public writers to comment on the conduct and motives of public men has only in yery recent times been recognised. Comments on Government, on Ministers and officers of State, on members of both Houses of Parliament, on judges, and other public functionaries are now made every day which half a century ago would have been the sub* ject of ex officio actions and informations, and would have brought down fine and imprisonment on publishers and authors. Yet who can doubt that the public are gainers by the change, and that, although injustice may often be done, and though public men may often have to smart under the keen sense of wrong inflicted by hostile criticism, the nation profits by public opinion being thus freely brought to bear on the discharge of public duties." Surely these'are great and noble words. It is a pity that Sir Julius Vogel did not remember them when he started on his mis* sion of trying to gag and stifle those independent newspapers which still exist in this colony. Sir Julius latterly declared in Parliament “ that he meant by actions for libel to teach the Press, the Times and the Advertiser a salutary lesson.” Well, he has tried the experiment with the Evening Press, and the result has been hardly what he expected. Instead of teaching the Evening Press a lesson Sir Julius has been taught one bimseif, and has had to pay some hundreds of pounds sterling, the cost of the educa tioual process. But Sir Julius Vogel has still plenty of other experience of. a similar kind to go through. He has to teach the Times a lesson by suing it for libel, and claiming another £3OOO of damages. Is Sir Julius game enough to try that experiment ? Then, after that, Sir Julius has still to criminally prosecute an humble printer called Hoskins, aud, if possible, get him sent to gaol for a couple of years for daring to print aud publish just what all the world was saying about that scandalous and disgraceful Waimate Eailway purchase business. Sir Julius Vogel may try a few more libel prosecutions, but if he be wise ho will drop 4he whole business and keep as quiet as possible in the future. After his recent experience, Sir Julius Vogel would be mad indeed to again go before a jury just at present as “ an injured innocent ” appealing for justice. Sir Julius has already had a taste of justice, and should he persevere he will get a few more lessom of a similar and much needed kind. If Sir Julius Vogel will be guided by the counsel of prudent and judicious friends he will steer clear of the law courts and libel actions for a long time to coma. i