The Washington times., 1930-01-31
PRIVILEGES FOR
PRESS URGED
IN LONDON
CONTINUED from Page y

| (ContInued from rage ~
were committed to prison for re-
fusing to divulge any informar
ton on this subject. In the
case of the American journalists
the sentence was final; that Of
eight days passed on their South
African fellow-journalists can be
renewed for a further period Of
eight days. In America the re-
porters did not appeal; in South
Africa there has been talk of the
case being taken to a higher
court.
No Privilege In U. s.
Thus the question has lately
arisen in two widely different
parts of the world whether a
journalist has or should have any
special privilege in a court of law.
Since there was no appeal from
the decision of Judge Peyton Cor
don it may be presumed that, at
any rate in the District of Colun-
bia. journalists enjoy no such spe-
cial privilege.
This would seem to be the law
throughout the United StateS-eX-
cept indeed in Maryland. where
statute of 1896 specially pro-
tectS journalists in that no jour.
nalist can be compelled to disclose
in any legal proceeding the source
of any news procured by him for
his newspaper.
THE South African Society of
Journalists, however, have strongly
supported what they regard as an
important principle. A journalist
who has communications made to
him in confidence should. it is
said, be entitled to keep such conf
municationS secret and need not
divulge them in any judicial
process, though it is fully ad-
mitted that it is the duty of every
citizen to do all in his power to
assist the authorities in the detec-
ton of crime.
Difficult Distinction
"Mr. Prov. the minister of JUS
tice, in speech last Monday, took
the view that a distinction could
be made between communications
on a legal and those on an illegal
matter. AS to the first journal
ist might we'll be entitled to some
privilege. but as to the second it
was the duty of Journalists to as
Sist in maintaining law and order.
1t may be objected to this point
of view that the distinction be-
tween legal and illegal matters
would in many cases be impossible
to establish without the disclosure
of the very communication for
which privilege is claimed.
AT Washington these matters
came before the Grand Jury not
on indictment, but under their
power of inquiring into matters
of Importance brought to their
notice. In Johannesburg the
magistrate summoned M essrs.
Louw and Cope-under the pow
ers given to him by statute to
answer questions in order that
the police might secure enough
evidence for their Investigations.
That, it must be remembered, is
a procedure which does not exist
in English law as administered
today. In England no privilege
attaches as such to doctors.
clergymen or journalists; but
they are not liable to be com.
PEELED to answer questions to help
in the detection of crime.
Plea for Privilege
1T would certainly seem right
to allow some privilege under
this inquisitorial procedure 20
journalists whose access to in.
formation is to the public bene.
fit. 1t has frequently occurred,
for example, tn a an eX-
poSure in the press has resulted
in the discovery of signal abuses
and in the punishment of those
responsible. To allow the informa-
ton upon which exposure is based
to be extracted under compulsion
would fetter this beneficial ac-
tivity.
That is quite a different mat
ter from saying that a journalist
when called as a witness in a
criminal trial should enjoy spe-
cial privilege. In English law
a journalist in the witness box
is in exactly the same position
as any other citizen. While it
allows the press freedom to ac-
quire information, it ensures at
the same time that necessary evi-
dence in a criminal trial cannot
be withheld on a plea of the