}
17
beure
dmure 4
the General Officer Commanding had not at the time seen,
did not ask that action should be taken upon it.
A.
but he
224
On the following day the Colonial Secretary
received from the General Staff Officer, who carries out the
· functions of Military Censor a minute, copy enclosed, which Major-
General Kelly told me, when I discussed the case with him prior to
sending a reply to Colonel Iles' minute, he had himself written,
covering the enclosed report by the Provost Marshal, a young man
formerly in the Royal Artillery and now employed in a local
Insurance Company.
5.
On Colonel Iles' minute and the accompanying papers
being submitted to me I saw Major-General Kelly and told him that
I could not approve the action that had been taken. I explained that the Censorship of the Press tested on a voluntary agreement
between the Press and the Colonial Government, an agreement which
the General Officer Commanding admitted had been most loyally
adhered to, and I said that I proposed to let the matter drop. I
added that I could not admit any claim on the part of the Military
Authority to institute a Censorship of the Press by virtue of
Clause 3 Section 1 of the Order-in-Council. Major-General Kelly
agreed that it would be best to let the matter drop and asked me
to inform him officially that I had no objection to fair criticism
of the actions of the Colonial Government. I replied that I would
not commit myself to a general statement of that nature but that I
would inform him that I regarded the letter that had given rise to
this case to be not outside the bounds of fair comment.
6.
Accordingly I caused a letter, copy enclosed, to be
addressed to the General Staff Officer of which a bare acknowledg-
ment only, copy enclosed, has been received.
Retoruve 6.
Louve
7.
Under date of the 26th January the Managing Director
of the Daily Press wrote a letter, copy anclosed, to the Colonial
Secretary, whom I instructed to interview Mr. Cartwright, who has