The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1913. HOW TO FIGHT THE SLANDERERS

New Zealand Tablet, 13 November 1913, Page 33

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1913. HOW TO FIGHT THE SLANDERERS

yj%ffit N America Catholic societies, Catholic leaders, n%Jj y and the Catholic press are giving a. good II ft ea ° f attention to the questions of the < yyk| best way of combatting "the systematic \SJ%M organised campaign which is being waged *£r<L- • in that country against the Catholic (PWk" p nurcn > Catholic people, and Catholic institutions. That campaign is steady, virulent, and persistent. It is represented not merely by the periodic unsavory lecturer of the ' ex ' variety but by the regular weekly out-put of such newspaper scum as Watson's Magazine and The Menace. Foulmouthed, false, scurrilous, frequently even indecent and obscene, these publications, while they undoubtedly disgust the better class in the community, nevertheless by the mere persistent ding-dong of lying and misrepresentation to some extent mislead ignorant people,

and foster a spirit of bigotry and hostility to .the Church which cannot but militate against its progress. Under the circumstances it would appear that indifference is not quite the. proper remedy. Nor will well-meant resolutions passed by Catholic societies suffice to put down the evil. Any adequate scheme for combatting the slander and misrepresentation of which.the Catholic Church is the perpetual victim should ulfil two requirements —in the first place, it should be penal, or rather preventive, and in the second place it . should also be corrective. In other words, it should establish a condition of things in which the muck-raker would find that his muck-raking did not pay, and it should ' also make provision for supplying an antidote to the calumny in the shape of a correct statement of the facts on the particular point involved.

Discussion in America has proceeded more or less along both lines, and some of the suggestions made are distinctly interesting. Here is one, contributed by a correspondent to the Philadelphia Catholic Standard and Times : ( Two plans of campaign occur to the mind of the writer: First, let some powerful society of Catholics appropriate 50,000 or 100,000 dollars to bring such legal action or actions against the defamers of truth and decency as shall obtain a public hearing in a court of justice. Two or three Protestant lawyers of recognised ability , and national reputation should be employed to represent the Catholic side. Give the case ©very setting that will help to awake the interest of the nation: Then the press shall be obliged out of pure business considerations to report the proceedings. In this manner, though Walker and his cohorts get off with a fine and costs, it shall be brought home to the great mass of intelligent American citizens that The Menace is in very truth what its name implies. Second, let some powerful organisation of Catholic laymen organise a bureau to which ©very member of such organisation shall be obliged to report without delay the names and addresses of every non-Catholic person whom he learns has received or read a copy of The Menace. The said bureau shall from time to time select such statements from The Menace as are utterly false. These false statements, or a short brief of them, shall then be published in a monthly pamphlet with the direct proof and assurance that they are false. As money really talks more eloquently than words on occasions, this bureau shall, through their monthly publication, offer a standing reward of 25,000 dollars to any person or body of persons who will before an impartial board of Protestant gentlemen prove that any one of such selected statements from The Menace is true. This pamphlet should be mailed freely to every address reported as aforesaid to the truth bureau, and to help defray the expense of its publication Catholics everywhere should be urged to subscribe to it.’

In the matter of what we have called corrective provision as remedy or redress for calumny the State of Ohio has just passed a new law ‘ relative to regulating newspapers and the publication of nothing but the truth,’ which certainly has much to commend it. The law, signed by Governor James M. Cox, who is himself a newspaper proprietor, establishes a standard method of retraction for untrue publications and provides punishment for anyone giving matter of an untrue nature to a newspaper. It enacts that ‘ If a newspaper company prints, publishes, or circulates any false statements, allegations or rumor pertaining or relating to any individual or association of individuals, it shall upon demand print, publish, or circulate any statement or article setting forth in proper language the truth pertaining to such, which the person or persons affected, or representative, offers to it for publication. Whenever demand has been : made for such publication’ the newspaper company must print and circulate it in the next regular issue, or within forty-eight hours following its receipt. The statement or article must be “phrased in proper language, and be printed without any additions to, or omissions therefrom, in the same color of ink, from like type, with headlines of equal prominence, occupying a like space in the same portion*

of the newspaper, as was used in printing the original article complained of, and be given the same publicity in all respects, and, as nearly as possible, the same circulation as the original article.-/ ’ Nothing contained in this section shall prevent the injured party from alleging and proving actual malice on the part of the publisher and any special damages resulting to him therefrom. Any newspaper company refusing or failing to print, publish, and circulate any statement or article if true, as required by the provisions of this act, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction fined not exceeding 1000 dollars, and the person responsible for such refusal fined not exceeding 500 dollars.’ This means that when the Rev. W. Gray Dixon, for example, writes in the Outlook that Bishop Cleary blessed the National Schools Defence League, the Outlook would be compelled to comply at the earliest possible date with Bishop Cleary’s demand for the insertion of a correction, or consent to be mulcted in the sum of ,£2OO for the Otago Daily Times Publishing Company and £IOO for the Editor of the Outlook personally. It means, also, that a paper like The Menace, which is constantly attacking both Catholic individuals and Catholic associations, would either have to -abandon its objectionable policy or be converted by reason of the continual corrections it would be called upon to publish, into a sort of Catholic Truth Agency or publication.

But the simplest and best suggestion which we have yet seen for fighting the slanderer is that advanced by the Editor of the Milwaukee Catholic Citizen self a lawyer—in these terms: The spectacle of Catholics trying to erect a press censorship in the Post Office Department over what some of our fellow-citizens regard as merely “the give and take of religious discussion,” might engender more prejudice than The Menace can ever engender—and then fail in the object. There is, in our opinion, a better method of remedy, in the direction of State legislation, which should make amenable to civil damages slanderous publications which defame religious houses, fraternal associations, or,pro-, fessional occupations. But such legislation should be offered in no vindictive or sectarian spirit, nor prove restrictive of free discussion. It should be aimed at reckless statements and scurrilous attacks, and be in no wise restrictive of full and free discussion.’ That is clear in its terms, definite in its scope, and fair and reasonable in its aim and spirit. The defect of our existing libel legislation has been often pointed out. ‘ You cannot frame an indictment against a whole nation, declared Edmund Burke. ‘ You can frame an indictment against a whole religion and a whole people who profess and follow it, from generation to generation and century to century, and yet afford no one individual affected by your monstrous rascality a chance to lay you by the heels in a court of justice.’ That is the essence of our grievance against the existing legislation ; and it would be substantially removed by the adoption of our Milwaukee contemporary’s suggestion. The new Defamation Bill now before the New Zealand Parliament will certainly not pass this session, and will come up again for consideration next session. Perhaps by that time our Catholic Federation will be sufficiently organised to be able to get into effective touch with legislators, and to press upon them the urgent need, in the interests of justice and religious peace, for the insertion of an amendment on the lines above set forth.