Journalistic Ethics, Judge Wanliss, and Mr. Mullaly

Letter to the Editor

WITH reference to the article appear- ** ing in your issue of September, headed “Judge Wanliss and Justice in New Guinea” and with particular reference to your Editorial note thereto, may I hope that you will permit me space in your journal to enquire on behalf of numerous New Guineaites, of many residential years’ qualification, knowledge of the country’s personnel, requirements, attributes and vicissitudes, on what authority do you, who claim to be an impartial chronicler of Pacific Islands affairs and requirements, justify your Editorial vilification of a gentleman whose 15 years’ honourable work as, amongst other

Mandated 1 ha/ stairpped him be!

yond dues,ion an outstanding asset and personality in Australia s occupation and administration of the Territory-a gentleman of whose record both Australia and this Territory must be justly proud and upon whose occupancy of his high office both countries have cause to congratulate themselves most heartily.

New Guinea could well have utilised the services of on© hundred men of similar calibre in the conduct of its public affairs during the past 20 years, and be reaping the benefit to-day.

So far as I am aware, your practical knowledge of current New Guinea affairs —including that of justice—which one gathers from your latest and previous effusions of the subject is so unevenly dispensed by the Chief Judge from the Suprem© Court Bench—has been gained

on two or three fleeting - trips to Rabaul and “round trips” to outports and the Goldfields, per mail boats—l 2 to 14 days each in all—during which you have bounded about, like many of your kind, with an air of importance appreciated by no one but yourself, and bounced out again, leaving behind little if anything other than a sense of amusement amongst those not unduly impressed with any thing about you other than an air of pomposity, taking with you little, if any, knowledge of the administration of Jus tice or, for that matter, anything else vital to the conduct of the Territory’s affairs.

a IE

/Libre anTfdeaJs “SfdentS

( this Territory—lrrespective of their sectional or denominational viewpoints— would have realised at least that

mly bl sa^le

wi th some of the sentences of His Honour Ju(J Wanliss> there are few it anv. amongst his ''critics” who will agree with your subtle insinuation that his admini stration of justice is or has been at any time “a menace to peace and good gov ernment,” or that he has been other than “a friend of decency and justice in public life,” any more than they would expect His Honour to tolerate any person, let alone a highly placed and responsible Law official, doing in his opinion “public wrong” from a “desire to protect a mis guided man against injustice masquerad ing as justice!”

Permit me to further observe, Mr.

Editor, that I doubt whether such jour nalistic clap-trap and partisanship as is employed in your editorial note will add

to either the popularity of your journal or to your personal prestige amongst the community of this Territory, no matter what may be the individual opinions of its members regarding the specific matter of your attack upon the chief of its judi ciary.

In view of your well-known and oft expressed antipathy towards the highly respectable Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of this Territory (his qualifications and achievements in the sole interests of New Guinea during the 15 years’ associa tion with the judiciary of the Territory are too well-known and appreciated by those who count, to need recognition here) one would imagine that —to quote your editorial words —“as seems apparent there is to be an official enquiry into the matter” of His Honour’s remarks relative to the Crown Law Officer in the Zimmer case, decency would demand of the Editor of any journal, other than those gener ally associated with “the yellow press,” that he would refrain —at least until the promulgation of the findings of such enquiry—from partisan and condemna tory remarks towards an honoured and respected gentleman, debarred by the ethics of his high office, if by no other motive, from any reply to vituperative attack.

In the interests of the justice you so earnestly and effusively lay claim to champion, I venture the submission that you might well have left your vitriolic

editorial outburst until a higher and better qualified tribunal than yourself (self appointed) has decided the merits of the case, which incidentally are not the subject matter of this letter.

In conclusion, I suggest that should James Larkin be released within the next few months, the circumstances of such action will be as well-known to you as they are to many others, as being in no way whatsoever associated with the de velopments. in the Cranssen case, as in ferred by you in the penultimate paragraph of your editorial, or to the fact that the appeal Judges of the High Court saw fit to disagree with the sen tence passed on Cranssen by Judge Wanliss.

What about making an effort to cut out prejudice and strive for a little fair mindedness, Mr. Editor?

I am etc.,

J. C. Mullaly

Non-official M.L.C.

Rabaul, 19/10/36.