Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

THE "AGE" LIBEL ACTION.
MR. PURVES ADDRESSES THE
JURY.
THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE.
Melbourne, December 12.
The hearing of the action, Speight
against the Age, for alleged libel was re-<*>
sumed to-day.
Mr. Purves opened his address to the
juij. jo.c eaia no aouot cney in common
with himself rejoiced exceedingly that
they bad arrived beyond the wilderness of
the exhibits and the mere useless em
broidery of the case. He had been forced
into putting enormous exhibits before
them, but such a course had been neces
sary in order to bring the facts under
their notice. He then proceeded to explain
the lair of libeL This, he contended,
consisted of injurious, untrue, or
unfounded statements made in print, in
writing, or by picture. It almost pre
supposed malice to attack the private life
of any man, but when it came to a public
individual it was quite a different thine,
and this case was one of those which
might be regarded as State trials, and the
functions of the jury were the functions
of a Royal Commission. He then spoke at
length on the liberty of the press. He
said the press was a mighty power, and a
necessary part of our modern civilisation.
It was a watchdog of the public Carry
ing it a step further, if a man invited
criticism on his public acts he could not
complain if the criticism was adverse.
Did Sir. Speight invite criticism of his
public acts ? Undoubtedly he did. Mr.
Purves then quoted rroru the reports of
Mr. Speight and his brother commis
sioners to show that they challenged
criticism by publicly claiming that there
had not been any extravagance in the rail
way management under them. If the
plaintiff claimed that there had been no
extravagance and asked for criticism
he could not claim to have that criti
cism confined to a friendly one.
This case affected Victoria, for the Rail
way Department was Victoria. ■ The
railways were their greatest asset, and
they affected everyone in the community.
A case of the sorb should be conducted
and decided not on mere paltry legal
quibbles, but on the broad and more
chivalrous grounds of public policy. The
verdict should be no catch verdict.
Mr. Purves then turned to the relative
positions of the parties. Mr. Speight
had been brought from England to
manage our railways economically and
to do away with a faulty system. He
was paid a princely salary; but was
he paid to continue the system of
political interference that had been found
faulty? Was he paid to build railways
on the standard of the best English rail
ways ? Was he paid to build stations in
the country districts equal to stations in
densely populated London suburbs. All
these things Mr. Speight did, and not
one reform did he seem to have initiated.
The sole outcome of his term of office
seemed to be a toy he brought from
America, the so-called refrigerating car.
Turning to Mr. Syme he was singled out
as the proprietor of a newspaper which
had fought its way into a position of some
power by means that had made it many
friends and many enemies. There was
no evidence of private vindictive feeling
between the two men. It was claimed
that the criticisms were the outcome of a
public demand for a change of railway
management. The adverse criticism was
not merely the adverse criticism of the
Age. It was the criticism of the country
press, of the people of the country, of
the Legislative Assembly, and of a few of
the members of the Legislative Council
Individual members of the community
would have no power in attacking a
department. The man of the hour
arrived, and the defendant published a
scries of administrative articles, in the
course of which it was necessary to pry
into the secret recesses of every trusted
official. Such a .series if followed by an
action like the present spelt ruin even
if the defendant were successful.
Mr. Purves quoted liberally from official
reports in proof of the contention that
gross extravagance had been committed
by the plaintiff, and that he had unneces
sarily engaged in works which were far
in advance of the requirements of the
time. He then proceeded to show that
portions of the articles complained of,
which had been struck out, referred to
the condemnation of the commissioners
by the Argxvs, the apologist of the Rail
way Commissioners, according to the Age.
After the reading of the articles the court
adjourned till to-morrow.
$