ax

a: 0 v

In!‘ IWR ‘Vh.

Maw. .5 2..

.vnk . K“ g
. p r:
. p . ...
3m. r... . a w‘ 9m I

A.
“a
.8
t
N
O
H an "‘9'. 9:“
h :33‘ n\“‘
A
(3'

a 0. ”A. _ cf.
.. , S Li.
“M... a}: g (“é

u L ..
3. .e .TM ,) .

inn—rm . (Wu n; "a (.15
an. (I...

v .. t

~ . 6c ...:. ..

mu me an am

an“ a Q a:
”an“ .n..L.

.- walk. 55"

E .;

JV...

 

_._E::_____:___:__:;1:32.322. mm.

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF COKEUNICATION ARTS

MASTER'S THESIS

THE RIGHT OF REPLY IN BELGIUM

ANNE A.PATERNOSTRE

WINTER 1961

(313/75;

 

4/3 i2/5 I
TABLE OF CONTENT
Preface 1
Bibliography ii
Décret du 20 juillet 1831,Art.13 iii
Loi Interpretative du 14 mars,1855 iv
Loi de 1953 sur le Droit de Réponse v
Part.I. The Belgian Legislative System ' l
Part.II. The Right of Reply in Theory 10
Ch.I.The first Question is Who 11
Ch.II.The Second Question is When 18
Ch.III.The Third Question is How 24
Ch.IV.The Fourth Question is What 27
Ch.V.Commentaries of the 1953 Bill 32
Part III.Some Cases of Right of Reply 37
Conclusion 54

Addenda 6O

PREFACE

The purpose of this thesis is to study the
right of reply in Belgium.

In the first part of the work,I shall briefly
describe the Belgian judicial system.I find it necessary
because our judicial and legislative principles are so
much different from those of the Anglo-Saxon countries.
In the second part of the thesis,I shall study the right
of reply in theory,as it is found in the laws.I shall,
also,in this part,examine the various problems related
to the right of reply and the solutions given by the
Law or by the jurisprudence to those problems.The third
part of this work will be devoted to the description of
various cases of right of reply.The last chapters will
be,in fact,a study of the right of reply as it is prac-
ticed in Belgium.

I want to thank the management of both papers
"La Libre Belgique" and "Le Peuple" for the help they
gate me in the redaction of this work.I particularly
thank Mr.Jean-Louis Lohest,Chief—Editor of the paper

"Le Peuple" for his help and cooperation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

"Le Journal",G.Duplat,Bruxelles 1929.
"Code de la Presse",Schuermans,Bruxelles 1882.
"Code de la Presse et de 1'Imprimerie",P.Poirier,Bxl.1932.

"Droits et Devoirs du Journaliste",Dumarteau et Duwaerts,
Association Générale de la Presse Belge,Bruxelles

"Droit de la Presse",Notes prises au cours de Mr Cooremanv,
Professeur a 1'U.L.B.,Université Libre de Bruxelles 1959.

"Documents Parlementaires",Chambre,session 1952/53,n9705,
706,773.
"Les Pandectes Périodiques Belges",n°48,l927.

gPasjcrisie Belge",l926,3,l67 et l928,l,165.

Journaux "Le Drapeau Rouge",2/2/l952 et "La Derniére Heure",
29/12/1951,4/1/l952,26/1/1952,6/2/1952.

_ ii -

DECRET DU 20 JUILLET 1831,ART.13

 

From "Les Documents Parlementaires - Chambre -

session 1952/53 - n°773.

" Toute personne citée dans un journa1,soit
nominativement,soit indirectement,aura 1e droit d'y faire
insérer une réponse,pourvu qu'elle n'excéde pas mills lettres
d‘écriture ou le double de l'espace occupé par 1'article qui
l'aura provoquée.Cette réponse sera insérée,au plus tard,le
surlendemain du jour ou elle aura été déposée au bureau du
journal,a peine,contre l'éditeur,de vingt florins d'amende

par jour de retard."

- iii -

LOI INTERPRETATIVE DU 14 MARS,1855

 

From "Les Documents Parlementaires - Chambre -

session 1952/53 - n°773.v

" Si le journal n'est pas quotidien,la réponse
sera insérée dans le numéro ordinaire qui paraitra,selon 1a
périodicité du journal,deux jours au moins aprés celui du
dép6t,a peine contre l'éditeur de vingt florins d'amende pour
chaque jour qui s'écoule depuis l'omission d'insérer jusqu'a

l'insertion."

.- iv -

LOI DE 1953 SUR LB DROIT DE REPONSE ( EXTRAITS)

 

From "Les Documents farlementaires - Chambre - session

1952/53 - n°706.n

1.Toute personne physique ou morale,nominativement men-
tionée ou implicitement designée dans une publication pério-
dique,a 1e droit d'exiger,endéans 1es six mois,1a publication
gratuite d'une réponse,a condition d'avoir un interét légitime
a le fairs.
2.La réponse ne peut pas dépasser 1.000 lettres d'écri-
ture ou le double de l'espace occupé par le texte qui l'a
provoquée.
3.Sera refusée l'insertion de toute réponse:
a)qui n'aurait pas une relation immédiate avec le texte;
b)qui serait injurieuse ou contraire aux lois on a la
moralité;
c)qui concernerait un tiers sans que cela soit nécessaire;
d)qui serait écrite dans une langue autre que celle du
périodique;
4.L'imprimeur est présumé étre l'éditeur,sauf preuve du
contraire.
This Bill was voted by the House on July 2d,l957.It still

has to be voted by the Senate in order to become a Law.

PART I. THE BELGIAN LEGISLATIVE SYSTEM

 

l.General notions. Belgium is a country of "Sta-
tute Law".The more important legislative rules are the
statutes e.i.the.Acts of Parliament.These statutes are gathe-
red in various "Codesngthe essential rules,on which the
Belgian society and political system are based,are to be found
in the Constitution.

The Custom and the Courts' decisions constitute
supplementary sources to the statutes:when a solution to a
legal problem cannot be found in the statutes,the judge looks
into the Custom and previous Courts' decisions.

The powers of the judge are to interpret the sta-
tutes and to adapt those abstract and general rules to practi-
cal situations.The judge decision is valid for the judged
situation only.It doesn't have the force of a precedent for
ulterior cases:it doesn't impose itself as a solution for a
similar case,coming up in the future.The basis of the judge
decision is the statutes,and not former judicial decisions:
these are used when no solution can be found in the Statutes,
nor in the Custom.

I shall speak,in the second part of this thesis,

of the jurisprudence,meaning the decisions given by the Courts

of a country.

One must keep in mind that,in Belgian law,jurispru-
dense doesn't mean precedents that must be followed, but only
interpretations of the statutes that may inspire the judge.

When these interpretations are commented by the legislative
authors, they become what we call the Doctrine.

We have in the national law two great distinctions:
the civil law which is a part of the private law and the penal
law which is a part of the public law. The civil law concerns
the contestations related to civil or political rights and
originated from the relationships between individuals. The sta—
tutes of the civil law are contained in the Civil Code. The
penal law punishes the injuries to the integrity of the human
beings or to that of the collectivitygthe statutes of the Penal
Code determine the injuries and the penalties.

The judicial power has two functionszl) a civil one
which is to arbitrate the litigations and 2) a penal one which
is to repress the infractions to the penal statutes. In the first
Function the case is brought to the Court by the interested paru
ties; in the second function, the infractions are denounced by
a judicial officer the’NEinistere Public", who has been infor-
med by an official report or by‘a complaint from the victim.

The Courts also are divided between civil and penal
courts. There are three degrees of civil courtszl) the "Peace
Juridictionsw which are the lowest courts; 2) the "Juridictions
of First Instance" which are the second degree of juridictions
and constitute the Courts of Appeal for the "Peace Juridictions"

3) the Court of Appeal which is the appeal for the ”First

Instance Juridictions".

There also is a Court of Commerce which falls into the category
of the First Instande Juridictione. The classification of the
cases are made following their financial importance.

The penal juridictions are divided into 1) the
Courts of Police that take care of the contraventions i.e.the
infractions punished by l to 7 days of imprisonnement;2) the
"Correctional Courts" that take care of the infractions pu-
nished by 8 days to 5 years of imprisonnement and that consti-
tute the degree of appeal for the Police Courts; 3) the Court
of‘Appeal which is the appeal for the "Correctional Courts";
4) the "Cour d'Assisesw that takes care of the crimes (5 years
of imprisonnement to death sentence) and of the press cases
(libel...). The Court of Cessation is tOgether penal and Civil'
its function is to guarantee the correct application of the
law and the unity of the jurisprudence.

gLSome legislative definitions.

We shall now examine some legislative notions that
I shall use in the second part of this thesis.

The first definition is that of "the public order".
The public order consists in the rules that exist in a society
and that cannot be transgressed without endangering the exis-
tence of this society. It is, in fact, the foundations on which
this particular society is based. The rules of the public order
may be different from one society to another, but they always
constitute the essential prerequisites to the existence and
the stability of the society. The reason why? Because parts of
the system of law are based on the famigy.

The family is a socioligical notion which is the foundation of
the legislative rules that regulate the inheritance, the mariage...
The acceptation of polygamy would make that system tumble down.
The concept of family,i.e. the group composed by the parents
and the children born during the mariage, would be completely
disorganized and the systems of inheritance, mariage, filia-
tion... would have to be reviewed and changed. The law must evol-
ve to adapt itself to changing situations, but the complete
overthrow of some parts of the legislative system is not evolu-
tion any more: it is something like a revolution. This is what
would happen if the rules of the public order would not be respec-
ted. We see therefore that those rules are very important. Some
of them are spelled in statutes, but generally they are non-
written.

The second notion I want to explain is that ofhthe
Custom." The Custom in Belgian law is only a supplement to the
statute. It is not considered as a law and it is inferior to
the statute. In other words, the solution of a legal problem
must be searched in the statutes first; it is only when the sta-
tutes don't give any solution that the judge may look into the
Custom and apply, eventually, a customary solution. When a sta-
tute and a particular usage are Opposed to one another, the
statute will always prevail over the usage. This is one result
of our system of statutory law.

I also want to define the notions of person and of
right. A person, in a general meaning, is a being susceptible

to have rights and obligations.

; The physical persons are the human beings; the
moral persons are abstract beings with no real existence, but
to which the law grants certain rights and imposes certain
obligations. The moral personality is granted by law.

To have a right is to be entitled to exercise a
certain power. A real right is the right of a person about a
thing 1.6. the right that a person has on a thing. The right
of ownership, for example, is a real right. A personal right
is the right of a person in regard to a person i.e.a right
that a person has on certain actions of an other person. The
rights originated from the contracts are examples of personal
rights: in a contract, in effect, one person promises to do
something for another person against some counterpart, of cour-
se; the second person, if he has given the counter-part, may
oblige the first one to execute the promise. In other words,
the second person has the right to obtain from the first one
that he accomplished the promise made in the contract. 0n the
other hand, the first person may exige the counterpart before
he executes the promises: he also has a right on the other
person' s behavior.

The notion I shall examine now is the notion of
tort as we conceive it in our statutory law. The tort consists
in what we call wthe Aquilian (I) responsability". The Aquilian
responsability is that of the person who causes a damage to

another person's rights or integrity.

(1)From Latin "Lex Aquilia" which organized the system of
responsability in Roman Law.

Three conditions must be fulfilled to start an action in tort:

a)there must be a $3313 i.e. a prejudice caused to the physi-
cal, the patrimonial or the moral integrity of a person;

b)there must be a damage i.e. the injury of a material or moral
Ainterest;

c)there must be a causal relationship between the fault and the
damage.

The Aquilian responsability is a civil responsa-
bility. There also exists, in our law, a penal responsability.
That responsability consists in the fact that an infraction
(injury to the penal law) has not only injured general interests
(the society's), but also particular interests. In that case,
the person, whose interests have been injured by the infraction,
may be presented in the penal Court to ask a reparation for her
injured interests: we say that this person constitutes the
"civil part" in the penal action.

The notion of prescription is also familiar to
Belgian jurists. It is the right granted to the author of an
infraction not to be prosecuted after a certain lapse of time
fixed by law.For press matters, the prescription is fixed to
three months. This means that l) the author of a press in-
fraction cannot be prosecuted later than three months after
the infraction has been committed; 2) that the Court decision
must be executed within three months: after that delay, the
author of the infraction cannot be obliged to undergo the penal-

ty.

(I)

The last notion I want to examine here is that of
the succession.

We have two sorts of succession in Belgian law:the
«succession ab intestatfl i.e. the case where there is no will
and the "succession testamentaire" where there exist a will.

In the "succession ab intestat", the successors
(i.e. the parents up to the fourth degree) inherit without any
formalities: the succession is opened by the death. The succes-
sion consists in the patrimony of the de cujus i.e. all his
rights and obligations. These obligations as well as the rights
pass into the theirs' patrimony: this is why a heir can accept
or refuse a succession. When several peOple are parents at the
same degree of the dead person, the succession must be divided
up between them. If some of them refuse the succession, their
shares go to the others.

The case of the "succession testamentairen is
simpler. Here, the de cujus has made a will in which he has
distributed his patrimony, or, more exactely, one part of it.
In effect there is one part of his patrimony that he cannot
distributed as he wants to; this part, that we call the "re-
serve", is due to a special sort of heirs i.e. the direct
ascendants or descendants.

I shall now briefly review the principal rules of
the Law of the Press. There is no special Code for the law of
the press: it is to be found into the Constitution, the 1831

Decree, the Penal and the Civil Codes.

The 18th article of the Constitution establishes
the essential principles of the liberty of the press i.e. no
censorship, no compulsory security and "responsability in cas-
cade". The "responsability in cascaden is a special system to
determine the responsible of a press infraction. When the
author of an illegal text is know, he alone is hold responsi-
ble; the editor, publisher, distributor ... are not conside-
red as co-actors of the infraction. When the author is not
known, the editor is hold responsible; when.the editor is un-
known, the printer is responsible and so on, down to the
distributor. The advantages of this system are explained by
Mr.Cooremans in his course of "Law of the Press" (1):

"Our legislators have thought that a system of cumulative res-
ponsability "when all the co-actors of an infraction are hold
responsible) implies a sort of indirect censorship towards the
work of the author, expressed by the feeling of fear of the
editor, the printer and the distributor."

The 96th article of the Constitution insists on
the compulsory publicity of the press cases and the 98th ar-
ticle states that those cases must go to the nCour d'Assises".
In other words the press cases must be decided by a Jury,
which, of course, is a guarantee of impartiality.

The Penal Code takes care of the penal infrac-

tions that are committed by the press and of the "press in-

fractions" themselves.

(1) Cooremans, "Droit de la Presse", U.L.B.,p. 23.

A press infraction is an injury to the society or
to an individual by the publication of an Opinion through the
press. The best example of press infraction is, of course, libel,
The 44rd article of the Penal Code is concerned with libel and
diffamation.

In the Civil Code we also find some articles con-
cerning the press: the articles regulating the contract between
the advertiser and the paper for example. All the articles about
the civil responsability (l382,83,84...) (1) are also valid for
the press.

After the review of those essential notiOns of
Belgian law, I shall study the theoritical principles of the
right of reply. I shall expose the right of reply as we find it
in the statutes and also the legal problems that are raised by
the application of these statutes. This study will form the second
part of the thesis.

(1) See page 5.

PART II. THE RIGHT OF REPLY IN THEORY

 

The right of reply was introduced in Belgium by the
Decree of 1831 about the Press. (1) The law of March 14,1855
completes the Decree. (2)

It is a right of legitimate defense that may be
used together with an action in libel (if the article is libe-
lous of defamatory) and/or with an action in tort (if the ar-
ticle has caused a damage). It is, following Mr. Cooremans,
professor at the University Of Brussels, a very practical system
to give the rectification of a mistake or the justification Of
an act. The person, who is.mentioned in a paper, doesn't have
to go to Court and to start a complicated process: he just has
to write a reply, that must fulfill certain requirements, and
to send it to the paper. The publication of the reply explains,
justifies of rectifies a situation, an action, a behavior.

It sounds easy; in fact, it is not as simple as
that. The law and the jurisprudence answer a lot of questions
related to the right of reply. 1 am going to examine these
problems and their solutions. In my Opinion, this is the best
way to.study such a complex subject.

(1) See page A the text of the 1831 Decree.
(2) See page B the text of the Law.

- 10 -

I. THE FIRST QUESTION IS WHO

 

Who is entitled to make use Of the right Of reply?
The 1831 Decree says:

"Any person, mentioned in a newspaper, either by name or indi-
rectly..."

We have in Belgium two sorts Of persons: the physi-
cal persons i.e. the peOple, the citizens and the foreigners
and the moral persons i.e. the associations, with the legal
personality.

Let us take first the physical persons. There are
three big problems concerned-with them:

1) the citizenship
2) the indirect mention
3) the rights of the heirs.

In the first problem, the Belgian jurisprudence
had to determine whether the "person" of the 1831 Decree has
to be of Belgian nationality to be allowed to use the right of
reply. The law says "any person", it doesn't specify that only
Belgian citizens are concerned. Moreover, this law is aimed at
protecting the public against the power of the press. The ar-
ticle 128 of the Belgian Constitution states that any foreigner
on the Belgian territory receives the same protection as the

Belgian citizens, behalve the exceptions established by law.

- 11 -

The right Of reply, from the very terms Of the
Decree "any person", is not one Of these exceptions. Therefore,
we can consider that it may be used by foreigners as well as
by Belgians.

The term "indirectly" that we find in the 1831
Decree rises the problem of the indirect mention. When is a
person mentioned indirectly? And when will the indirect men-
tion Opens a right of reply? The jurisprudence distinguishes the
different cases Of indirect mention: some of them are admitted,
some others are not.

The mention of a person by a pseudonyms or a
nickname opens a right Of reply only when that person is well
known under that pseudonyms or nickname. This is the case of
movie stars mentioned by their movie name: this may not be their
real name, but, as everybody knows them under that pseudonyms,
the paper has no right to refuse the reply on these grounds:
the only thing that matters is that it is possible for the public
to recognize the actor. For the same reason, when a product
or a public local is mentioned in a paper (in the editorial part,
not in the advertisings), the manufacturer or the owner have a
right of reply: it is, in effect, very easy to recognize them,
the name of their product or local being known. 0n the contrary,
there is no possibility Of right of reply when the mentioned
situation is common to several people and when it is described
in general terms. In the case of an homonym, the right of reply

is not admitted either, but a rectification may be sent.

- 13 -

From these examples, we see that the rule for the
indirect mention is, above all, common sense. If the person who
is indirectly mentioned may be easily recognized, the right of
reply is permitted; if not, the paper is not obliged to publish
the eventual reply. This interpretation seems logical to me:
the right of reply being a right of ligitimate defense, the
person, who wants to use it, must have something to exercise
his legitimate defense against. It may be the malevolence of the
public or, at least, its curiosity. Therefore, this person must
be recognizable in the article of the paper: in fact, if he
cannot be recognized, why should the curiosity Of his neighbours
bother him?

The third important question concerning the physi-
cal psrsons and the right of reply is that of the heirs. The
Belgian jurisprudence agrees that the heirs of a deceded person
have the right of reply for the mention of this person in the
press. But, if the specialists are united on the principle, they
are divided on its justification.

Two thesis are ppposed. The first one states that
the right of reply is a real right i.e. the right of a person
about a thing. (1) Therefore it goes into the patrimony Of the
de cujus like all his other real rights and it is transmitted to
the theirs.

(1) From Latin: Res a Thing.

- 14 -

So; the theirs can only use the right of reply when the article,
where the de cujus is mentioned, has been published before his
death. In effect, following this theory, the right of reply Of
Mister M... is a right he has about the mention Of his name in
a newspaper: the existence of the right is thus subordonnsd to
the mention Of the name. On the other hand, to pass into the par-
trimony of Mister M..., two conditions must be fulfilled: one,
the right must exist i.e. the name must have been mentioned;two,
is must be existing before Mister M...'s death. If the first
point is not realized, the right, being non-existent, cannot go
into the patrimony; only actual rights or Obligations, not poten-
tial ones, can pass into someone's patrimony. If the mention is
made after Mister M...'s death, the right cannot be considered
as exsisting because a dead person doesn't have any legal rights
any more. In conclusion, we can say that this theory of "the
right of reply-real rightn restricts the action of the heirs to
the case of the mention having appeared before the death of the
de cujus. In that theory, also, the right Of reply that can be
used by the theirs is not their, but one Of the dead person's
rights that they have inherited.

The second thesis considers that the right of reply
is a personal right i.e. a right attached to a person and intrans-
missible (1). That sort of rights dissapears with the person:

they don't pass into the patrimony and they are not transmitted to
the heirs.

(1) See "Droits st Devoirs du Journalists",
Dumartean et Duwaerts, p. 151 - 155.

- 15 -

This does not mean that the heirs cannot send a
reply to a paper when the name of their parent have been men-
tioned. They may use the right of reply, not as a right that has
been transmitted to them by inheritance, but as a mean to defend
or protect the memory of the de cujus. The justification hers is
not the legal notion of succession, but that of the familial
solidarity. The heirs in both theories are the direct relatives
(parents-children) or the widow.

In the last part of this chapter, I shall examine
the rights of the non-physical persons in regard to the right of
reply. There exist two sorts of non-physical persons: the associa-
tions with the legal personality that we call "societies" and the
associations that don't have the legal personality and that we
call "collectivities".

The "societies" are considered as real persons and
they have all the rights of the physical persons, except those
that are attached to the physical quality of an individual. The
societies, therefore, possess the right of reply. They are entit-
led to make use Of it when the society itself has been mentioned
of when all its members have been designated. The society exerci-
ses its right of reply through its legal representatives. Of
course, the members of the association keep their personal right
of reply and they may still use it when they are mentioned through
the society.

The collectivitiss, having no legal personality,
cannot use the right of reply. The collectivity may be clearly men-
tioned, no right of reply is Opened, i.e. the collectivity as such
may not send a reply and have it printed by the paper.

- 15 -

There are, however, two possibilities Of right of
reply for a collectivity of more exactely for its members: one,
when one member is personally mentioned he has a right of reply;
two, when all the members are designated, without being personally
mentioned, every one of them has the right of reply.Let us take,
for example, the Jewish community in Belgium. Such a group is what
we consider as a "collectivity". If, in a Belgian newspaper, we
find a sentence such as "The Jews in Belgium have come to impor-
tant economic positions; in certain sectors of the national enonomy,
they have overcome the "Christians", using, sometimes, disrepu-
table methods", the Jewish collectivity doesn't have any rights
Of reply because no member of the OOmmunity have been personally
mentioned or designated. 1f the paper had said" Mister Jacob,a
member of the Jewish community uses disreputable methods in the
battle for economic influence..." or " Some Jews use disreputable
methods...; one pf them has a jewelry store in Market Street;
another is the biggest name in the diamond business; another sells
dresses in rue Longue...", then a right of reply would be Opened.
The first sentence is a case of personal mention: the second a
case of indirect designation. In both cases, the right of reply,
is that of the individuals who have been mentioned (directly or
indirectly):it is, thus, more a problem Of direct and indirect men-
tion, than a question Of the rights of a collectivity. The impor-
tant thing is that these peOple have been designated by the paper
in one way or another: the factrthat they are a part Of a collec-

tivity is not taken into consideration. The rights theyuserifi

theirs, not these of the group.

In fact, they don't get any special rights because
they are the members of the group: this one result Of the sixth
article of the Consultation (1). Besides, a group with no legal.
personality have no rights at all because 1) only persons have
rights and 2) with no legal personality a group cannot be consi-
dered as a person.

To conclude this first chapter, we can say that the
most important problem that was examined is that Of the mentiOn
of the person. In effect, the mention is at the base Of almost
all the questions we have studies up to now I even consider that
it is one of the essential factors Of the right of reply. The
mention is, in fact, the first thing a person must take into con-
sideration before sending a reply; it is the earlier foundation
on which that person can based his right of reply, and this for

two reasons:

1) the mention Opens the right of reply: it is the necessary con-
dition to the right. '

2) the form Of that mention determines whether the right may be

use and by whom.

We shall see in the second chapter of this part some other con-,

ditions to the use of the right of reply.

(1) Belgian Constitution, art. 6:"... The Belgians are equal in
front of the Law..."

- 17 -

II. THE SECOND QUESTION IS WHEN

 

When is the person, who has been mentioned in a paper,
entitled to make use Of the right of reply? The Decree doesn't
say anything about the conditions to which the use of the right
of reply is subordonnsd. The only indication to be found in the
1831 text are the words "either by name or indirectly". These
words, however, concerned the mention: they don't regulate the
use of the right. The answer to the question must therefore be
found in the jurisprudence.

The jurisprudence have established two sets of con-
ditions for the use of the right of reply.

The first set concerned the mention on more generally
the designation: it must be clear and precise enough for the per-
son to be easily recognized. This is what we have seen in the
first chapter.

The second condition creates a new problem: two thesis
are Opposed in the jurisprudence i.e. the "absolute" and the
"relative" thesis. The first one states that the right of reply
is absolute i.e. that the simple mention of the name is enough
to Open the right. There is no need of an attack, a libelous text;
there is no need, either, for the article to have caused a damage
to the reputation or the economic interests Of the person who
claims to have the right. The printing of the name and its publi-

cation is sufficient for the person to use his right of reply.

- 18 _

- 19 -

It is thus an absolute right: there is no condition
for its use. One will note that this is literal interpretation
of the 1831 Decree. In effect, except for the requirements of the
reply itself, there is nothing in the Decree that conditions the
nature of the mention: for example, it doesn't say that the men-
tion must be clear and precise. This is the jurisprudence's
practical interpretation based on common sense. The same sort of
interpretation is used in the "relative" thesis.

Following this theory, the mention must be harmful
or false to Open a right Of reply. In other words, an interest,
even an un-importmnt one, must have been injured. The Court
appreciates whether or not the mention has injured an interest:
if it did, the newspaper is obliged to publish the reply; if it
didn't the paper has the right to refuse the publication of the
reply.

The "relative" theory seems the most reasonable to me:
if every person, whose name is published in a paper, should send
a reply, the columns of the paper would be filled. The law Of
1831 doesn't take point into consideration: it simply sets a
context of general principles. These must be interpreted in the
most practical way. It is exactely what the "relative" theory
does.

I am going now tO examine two special cases where
the right of reply is denied or, at least, discussed.

The first case is that of the critique, the artisi-

tical, literary or scientific critique. Here also we find three

different theories.

- 20 -

The question is wéther the author of a book, a pain—
ting... etc has a right of reply against the critique of the
book, published in a newspaper or in a periodical? It is certain
that the name of the author will be mentioned by the critic:
that fact should entitle the author to use Of his right Of reply.
This is exactely the position defended by the tenants Of the first
thesis: the author's name has been mentioned, they say, ty’
shouldn't he have the same rights as other peOple. The fact that
he is an anthor and that the article is a critique of his work
doesn't change a thing: the law's terms are "any person". Here
again we have the absolute position, based on a literal interpre-
tation of the Decree.

The second theory considers that the author doesn't
have any right of reply in regard to the critique Of his work
and this for two reasonszl) there was a provocation to publicity
by the nature of the work or 2) by a special action from the
author. In the case of artistic or scientific work, the provoca-
tion to publicity is Obvious: a book, a painting, the discovery
of a new treatment medical are made for the public; they exist
only in fonction of the public that must appreciate them. In
fact, they are put into the hands Of the public. This is what
the specialists call a provocation.to publicity by the nature
Of the work. The author may provoke the publicity himself, by
sending his book to the newspapers and asking for a critique.

In both cases, but especially in the second, the jurisprudence
considers that the author has abandonned his right of reply: in
effect, having asked himself for a judgement, he must accept it.

_ 21 -

This thesis is not based on any interpretation Of
the Decree: there is nothing in the 1831 Law about the critique.
The theory has thus been develOpsd from practical cases.

The third theory states that the author may use the
right of reply against the critic qhen he has in interest in
doing so.

In other words, the author has a right of reply against
the critic only when this one has injured one of his interests:
for example: when the article Of the critic contains material
mistakes or attacks against the author's personality or private
life. This position is very rational, I think: the critique, the
publitity, must be concerned with the work, not with its author;
the private life is the limit that must be respected. This thesis
is not founded directly on the 1831 text, but on the "relative
theory" that we have studied at the beginning of this chapter:
here againa one needs the injury Of an interest in order to use
the right of reply. The case is special because everything can
be said on the book; the notion of injury intervenes only when
the critique contains mistakes, falsities or attacks against the
author. There may not be any right or reply against a text saying:
"Mister X....'s book is un-interesting, badly written and pre-
sents no originality..."; but, if the article says:"MisterX...'s
book is un-interesting; X himself is not very intelligent: he
is the worst conformist and has no personality ..." , Mister X ...
may reply to the author of the article. This seems to me the
most lOgical theory.The two other thesis are, I think, too ab-
solute: they don't deal with reality.

-22..

To permit the right Of reply against any critique
is exaggerate: this position denies that the critique is a eps-
cial case. To suppress the right of reply against the critique
is also going too far: it Opens the door to a lot Of abuses .

Certain pros- Of this theory considers that the ori-
tic must stay "moderate", but this term is vague: when does a
text stOp of being moderate? It is not too difficult to distin-
guish when a text is injurious or libelous, but what exactely
does "moderate" mean? It is a very subjective notion: its meaning
may vary with the individuals. The third theory is more precise
and therefore more easily applicable.

The second special case I want to mention is that of
the accounts Of the Parliament's or of the Courts' sessions. These
accounts are immune from the right of reply and from the actions
in libel or diffamation, but there is one condition: they must be
accurate. The same immunity is applied to the Official or legal
publications. .

' Therefore, if a person is mentioned in an account Of
a Parliament's session, he cannot send a reply to the paper where
the account has been published. One exception: an inaccuracy in the
account. For example, it is said in the article that the person
mentioned has made a certain speech when, in fact, the person has
made no speech at all; in this case, the person mentioned may sent
a reply under the form, generally, Of a rectification.

The immunity of these accounts is normal: the work of

the journalist would be very difficult, indeed, if he had to keep
in mind that every person he mentions in his account may use his

or her right of reply.

- 23 -

Parliamentary or Court's accounts are that sort of
articles where the mention of names is necessary: the account
of’a debate in Parliament is not interesting if it doesn't tell
the names of the peOple who have taken a part in the debate. In
other articles, features for example, names are less important.
This is why the parliamentary and judical accounts are conside-
red as special cases and fall under a particular regime. The same
reasoning is made for the official and legal publications.

In conclusion, we see that there are not many condi-
tions to the use of the right of reply.

Up to now, we have been seen what requirements must be
fulfilled by the article to entitle a person to exercise his
right of reply. In the third chapter, we shall study at what con-
ditions the answer will be published by the paper. These are the
requirements that must be fulfilled by the reply itself: if the y

are not, the paper has the right to refuse the publication of the

text.

III.THE THIRD QUESTION IS HOW

 

This chapter concerns the content, the form and the
length of the reply. Let us examine first the conditions related
to the content.

In the first part, there must be a direct relationship
between the article and the reply. This again is plain common
sense: if the person mentioned wants to use his right of reply
against an article, it is normal that the reply should answer that
text and not any other article.

Secondly, the reply must not be contrary to the legiti-
mate interests of the third: the reply may not contain any mention
of the thirds that would enable them to start an action in libel,
in tort or in foreed publication. (l)There is one exception to
that rule: the reply may mention thbflds when the article is such
that the mention of thirds is necessary for the defense of the
author of the reply.

Thirdly, the reply may not be contrary to the honour of
the journalist: if the articles's terms were strong, those of the

replyfyay be strong too, but they may not be libelous or injurious.

(l) The action in "Forced publication" is the judicial action by

which a person, mentioned in a paper,obliged that paper to
publish his reply.

- 24 -

- 25 -

When the article is libelous, the victim may start
an action in libel: he may also send a reply, but this must stay
in the limits of the law.

The fourth requirement states that the reply may not
be contrary to the laws, the public order (2) and the morality.
Finally, the reply must be signed.

The form of the reply does not matter as long as the
contents meets the five requirements I mentioned: it may be a
letter, a speech, a feature ...

The length of the reply is 1.000 letters as a minimum
and twice the lenghg of the article as a maximum. When the reply
is too long, the editor may refuse to publish it or may cut the
exceding part. The fact that the reply may be twice as long as
the article sometimes leads to abuses: in fact, if the mention
consf%s in a few lines of a long article, the reply to these few
lines may be very long; there may-be a disproportion between the
article and the reply. The 1953 Bill on the right of reply chan-
ges this disposition and points out that the lengtffi of the reply
may be the double of that of the text which has provoked it. I
shall examine the articles of this Bill in the last chapter of
this second part.

Except for the lengb&)of the reply, the 1831 Decree
does not mention anything about the content and the form of the

reply.

(2) See page 3.

-26-

All these requirements are, again, the result of the
interpretation of the law by the jurisprudence. They have been
established for practical reasonszl) to mention thirds mayriseall~
sorts of difficulties: it will Open new rights of reply that will
take the space of the newspaper; this would not be fair for the
paper, as it wouldn't have provoked these rights of reply itself
i.e. directly. In effect, why should the paper gives its space
to replies when the articles are not from its journalists? 2) an
illegal reply (libelous, contrary to the laws...) could cause a
lot of trouble to the paper's managers: as they are responsible
for everything that is published in their paper, they would be
hold faulty for the illegal reply; this would not be fair either.
The penalization for having exposed a person to the public is
the obligation for the paper to publish the reply of this person:
nothing more, as long as the article is not libelous or damageable.
When this penalization can become a criminal action against the
paper, there is some exaggeration, there is here a disprOportion
between the "damage" and its reparation.

We see, therefore, that the requirements related to
the content of the reply have one precise purpose i.e. to protect
the press against eventual abuses of the right of reply. We shall
examine in the next chapter the obligations of the newspaper or

of the periodical in regards to the right of reply.

-28-

In fact, in the case Of a refusal to publish it is

the person who has sent the reply who will go to Court and start
an action in "forced publication". There is only one way in which
the editor may justify his refusal to publish the reply i.e.to
prove that this reply did not fulfill the requirements previewed
by the law or by the jurisprudence. If the editor shortens or
changes the reply, its author may considered that it had not been
published and may start an action in "forced publication". 0n the
other hand, the editor may reply to the reply or add comments-
ries to it; both Open new rights of reply. The adjunction of
commentaries is often used by the newspaper as a mean to destroy
the effect Of the reply: this is particularly true in the case
of political discussions. The paper will say, for example, of a
political Opponent who has sent a reply:
"Mister V..., who has not understood yet, sends us this reply..."
This little bit Of irony is sufficient to show poor Mister V...
that his reply will be useless, that nobody, i.e. the paper's
staff and public, is and will be convinced. Of course, Mister V...
could send a new reply, about the commentary, but it wouldn't
be more useful: in those cases, one, generally, abandons after
the first reply.

The second Obligation of the paper concerns the way
the reply must be published. The publication must be made in such
types and as such place that the reply will be as obvious as the
article was. It would be too easy for the paper to bury the reply
where nobody would notice it: it would be completely useless.

IV.THE FOURTH QUESTION IS WHAT

 

What are the Obligations of the neWSpaper when it
receives a reply to one of its article? Some of them are to be
found in the text of the 1831 Decree; some others are the result
of the interpretation of the law by the jurisprudence.

The right Of reply is applied to every newspaper or
periodical for any published article, feature, interview, adver-
tising... The Decree uses the term "newspaper", but it must be
taken in a general sense.

The first Obligation of the newspaper is to publish
the reply; the reply must, however, fulfill all the requirements
of content and lenth hhat we have examined in chapter III;
moreover the right Of reply must be justified. In other words,
the person who sends the reply must be entitled to make use Of
the right; the mention must be "clear and precise" etc... If the
reply doesn't answer all these conditions, the newspaper is not
obliged to publish it.

The publication of the reply must be integral and
textual. The editor may not cut some parts Of the reply, except
when it is tOO long; he cannot make any changes in the reply,
either. If some terms Of the reply seem unlawful tO the editor,
he has not the right to modify them: if he doesn't want to take

the responsability of this illegality, he must refuse to publish
the reply and eventually go to Court.

_ 27 -

- 29 _

The purpose of the reply is to tell something to the
paper's public: if there is no chance for this public to read the
reply, this purpose will not be realized. This is the reason why
the jurisprudence insists on the fact that the reply must be as
apparent as the article. For practical reasons, it is impossible
to oblige the paper to publish the reply at the same_place as
the article. It is not tOO difficult for the editor, however, to
chose for the reply a part of the paper which has a high a reader-
ship as the part where the article stood.

The editor must publish the reply two days, at the
latest, after its deposit; for the periodicals, the publication
must be made in the issue that immediately fOllows the deposit.
These dispositions are present in the 1831 Decree. They also
constitute a defense for the person who is using the right of
reply. If the reply is published a long time after the article,
nobody wilyremember the article and, again, the reply will be
useless.

The refusal tO publish the reply is punished by a
fine of 20 florins (l) by day Of late publication. To Obtain the
publication and tO see the fine applied, the person who sent the
reply must go to Court. The action in foreed publication is a
criminal action: the result is the fine. The author of the reply
:must prove that the reply has been submitted to the editor; the
only defense Of the paper is that the reply does not fulfill the

Obligatory requirements.

(1) a florin was the money used in Belgium in 1830.

- 3Q -

When the refusal to publish the reply has caused a
damage to the author, an action in tort is possible; the author
Of the reply must prove that the non—publication caused him a
damage. This action in tort may be used together.with the action
in forced publication.

‘ The prescription for the use of the right of reply
is of 30 years: this is the usual prescription for civil matters.
The prescription for the action in foreed publication is Of
three years: this is the normal prescription for criminal matters.

' All these Obligations have one purpose: to make of
the right Of reply a useful remedy to the abuses of the press.
That a reply may be sent_is not enough: that reply must reach
its aim. To realize this aim, there are four conditions: l)the
reply must be published; 2) it must be published within certain
delays, so that is constitutes a following to the initial ar-
ticle; 3)the reply must be apparent; 4) is must be published as
it is and in its integrality, so that it reaches the public
exactely as its author has meantit.

All these principles, except those that determine
the limits of the delay for the publication Of the reply, are
originated by the jurisprudence. The 1831 Decree is tOO thin a
foundation for the right of replyzit is too general, there are
many problems that have not been taken into consideration. These
problems have risen with the development Of the press. The rules
of the 1831 Decree may be sufficient for the 19th century;they
are not enough for the 20th.

_ 31 -

This insufficience of the 1831 Decree has made neces-
sary the adOption of a new law rulinfiythe right Of reply. It is
this new law that I am going to examine in the last chapter Of

this second part.

V.COMMENTARIES OF THE I953 BILL

 

The first article of the Bill concerns the mention.

It says: "any physical or moral person, nominally mentioned or
implicitly designated...".

These terms cover any designation i.e. mention, allusion,
omission, as long as it is personal and *identifiable.

The terms "any physical or moral person" eliminate
the problems caused by the nonephysical persons: there is no need
Of an interpretative reasoning to include the societies in the
field of application of the right of reply.

The Bill does not say "newspaper" like the 1831 Decree,
but "periodical", which is a much more general term. Here again
the choice Of the terms saves the jurisprudence of a long interb
pretation. _

The Bill adOpts the "relative theory" of the right of
reply. It clearly states that the person must have "a ligitimate
interest" to use his right Of reply. I showed in the second chap-
ter all the avantages of this theory in regards to the "absolute
thesis", too general and impractical.

The terms "within six months" of the Bill established
a shorter prescription was 30 years, which, of course, was much
too long. The threat of a right of reply cannot stay with a

newspaper for 30 years: six months are more reasonable.

- 32 -

-33...

The second part of the first article concerns the
critique.

The 1953 Bill considers that the critique falls under
the possibility of the right Of reply, unless it has been sol-
licited by the author Of the work. NO right Of reply is possible
in that case, except when the critique does not stay within the
limits Of a thoughtful and fair appreciation. The position
adopted by the Bill is thus a synthesis of the three theories I
have examined. The critique is considered as a normal case Of
right of reply, but there is one exception i.e. the provocation
to the publicity by the author himself. The provocation to pu-
blicity by the nature Of the work is not sufficient to refuse the
right Of reply: the author must submit his work to the apprecia-
tion Of the press. In that case, some limits are set for the
critique: if they are not respected, a right of reply is permitted.
These limits, "a fair and thoughtful appreciation", consists, in
fact, in an illustration of the vague and general notion of
"a moderate critique". As many critiques are the result of a
sollicitation Of the author, we see that the second thesis have
a far more important place in the theory adOpted by the Bill
than the first one.

A "fair and thoughtful appreciation" is more precise
than a "moderate critique", but, in my ominion, it is still too
general. I prefer the third thesis' notion of an injured interest.
In fact, the Court will always come to that notion when it will
have to determine whether an appreciation was fair and thought-

full or not.

- 34 -

What is a fair appreciation, in effect? And a
thoughtful one? It is, I think, a critique that doesn't hurt
the author Of the work in his personality, his private life or
in his legitimate interests. SO, if we finally come back to the
"legimate interest", why let the notion out of the text of the
Bill? The problem of the critique has been tackled by the authors
of the Bill. They give a solution, a legislative solution,where
there was nothing but the interpretation of the jurisprudence:
this is very good, I consider, however, that the solution had
been clearer and more complte, had they adOpted the injured in-
terest theory. They had been more consistent too, because this
theory goes together with "the relative thesis Of the right of
reply" that they have adOpted:

The third part Of the first article answer the ques-
tion Of the rights Of the heirs. The thesis adopted is that of
the familial solidarity. The heirs can send a reply to protect
the memory Of their deceded parent against the publicity of a
mention in the press.

The second article of the Bill establishes that the
length of the reply may be the double of the text that has pro-
voked it. This eliminates the possibility of a disproportion be-
tween the article and the reply: when the mention is made by a
lines Of a long article, the reply may not be more than four lines,
i.e. the double Of’the text that has provoked it.

The third article determines the conditions that must

be fulfilled by the reply: 1) a compulsory relationship between
the article and the reply;

- 35 -

2) the prohibition for the reply to be injurious or contrary to
the laws, the public order and the morality; 3) the prohibition
for the reply to mention thirds when it is not necessary; 4)the
prohibition for the reply to be written in a langague different
from that Of the periodical. Except for the fourth condition, we
find here all the requirements established by the jurisprudence
from the interpretation of the 1831 Decree.

The article four deals with the time-limits for the
publication and with its place in the paper.

The fifth article concerns the fines: the 20 florins
are replaced by 100 belgian francs by day Of late publication.

In conclusion, we see that the 1953 Bill brings a
solution to almost all the problems I have studies in the second
part of this paper. The principles it sets are still general,but
they are more clearly exposed. They are more precise and they
take into consideration the practical sides Of the application of
the law.

The 1953 Bill is more appropriate to the 20th century
press and tO its function: it is certain that the develOpment Of
the number and Of the power Of the press have made the Opportu-
nities Of abuses more real. The defenses Of the public against
these journalistical abuses have thus to be develOped too; the
methods of defense had to be perfectioned. This is what the 1953
Bill does for the right of reply. It makes it more easili appli-
cable and more efficient than the 1831 Decree.

The 1953 Bill has been voted by the Chamber Of Re-
presentatives on July 2nd,l957. It must now be voted by the Senate

before it becomes a law.

-35-

The theory Of the right of reply was found in the
legislative acts, in the jurisprudence and in the doctrine.In
the third part Of this thesis, I am going to turn to the press

and to study some practical cases of right Of reply.

PART III.SOME CASES OF RIGHT OF REPLY

 

Before reviewing some cases of right of reply, I
want to make clear that the right Of reply may be used by any
periodical (newspaper, magazine...) for any article that is
printed. Some authors, as we have seen, hold a "relative theory
Of the right Of reply". In other words, they state that the
right is usable only when the incriminated article has injured
an interest Of the designated person. The interest may be small
and relatively un-important, but there must be an injury, a
damage: the mere citation is not enough to make use Of the right
Of reply. In the recent cases Of right of reply that I have
examineed, this theory seems tO be followed. There is always a
justification in those replys, a justification that looks very
much like a defense. We must keep in mind, however, that the
right is valid for any sort Of article (new, political editorials...)

Another remark I wish to make is that the paper
that receives a reply may add commentaries to the publicatién
of this reply. Often, these commentaries stand before the reply,
like an introduction, and destroy all the effect of the reply.
This is the case for political controversies.

At last, we must not forget that the reply must be

published as apparently as the article was. This rule is usually

respected.

_ 37 _

- 38 -

I shall now study some interesting cases of right of
reply that I found in 5 big belgian dailies. (l) I shall also
examine some more recent cases Of right Of reply that I shall
join to this study.

The first case is that of a citation in a judicial
report. (2) The "Niews van den Dag", a Flemish newspaper,men-
tionned, in a judicial report, the name of Esquelin was an attor-
ney and the mention implied that he had lacked completely of
professional conscience in the case that was judged. Esquelin
sent a reply to the paper, but the editor refused to print the
reply on the grounds that there can be no right of reply for
judicial or parliamentary accounts. Esquelin went to Court ar-
guing that this exception to the right of reply was not to be
found in the 1831 Act. The Court, however, basing her position
on the jurisprudence, decided that the paper's refusal to print
the reply was justified.

The second case I shall examine is that of the paper
"Le Travailleur". In an article published the 20th of December
1925, that paper criticizes some new taxes established by the
City Council. The article, clearly mentioning the City Council

in order tO make sure that the new taxes were necessary.

(1) As I found these cases in the periodicals' collection Of the

Law Library, I cannot join the articles to this study.
(2) See "Revue de Droit Penal"

MBrCh 49 1953 P0 499-

- 39 -

We have here all the elements for a right of reply,
i.e. a mention which is also an attack and a mention in an ar-
ticle that falls under the disposition of the law. Here, we have
not a report of a meeting of the Council, but a critical arti-
cle about a decision Of this Council. Of course, such decisions
may be critized, but is also normal that the persons who are
attached have the right to reply to such anattack.In_that case,
the attack was defamatory (a portion Of the article constituted
defamation) and the Council had a legal defense.

Without the right of reply, however the Council would
be defenseless against the criticism: it would not be able to
justify its decision, to explain its position.

The paper is obliged to publish the reply. The fact
that the Council is not a physical person (i.e. it is a group
Of several persons);cannot be held as an excuse. WE have seen,
in effect, that the associations, which have the legal persona-
lity, are considered as real persons and have all the rights Of
the real persons (i.e. the physical persons). A Common in Belgium
has the legal personality (1). The Council of the Common, (2)‘
being in fact the mere actualization of the notion of Common, has

the legal personality too.

(1)A Common is an administrative division Of the Belgian territory

(2)The Common is ruled by a Mayor and 7 Assistants ("Echevins"),
each Of them taking care of one branch of activity. The deci-
sions are taken by the Council of the Common (Mayors and Eche-
vins and Common's Counselors) and are executed by the Mayor

and the Echevins acting individually for their branch Of
activity.

- 4o -

Therefore, it has the right of reply, through its
legal representative, who is, in this case, the mayor, the head
Of the Common and the president of the Council. The members
Of the Council cannot, in that case make use of their indivi-
dual right Of reply because it is the decision Of the Council
gs,a whole that has been critized. Thus, the publication of the
reply cannot be refused in that case, as long as it fulfills
the regulations of content that are determined by law.

Another example Of right of reply was found in "Le
Drapeau Rouge" of February 2nd., 1952. The "Drapeau Rouge" has
published a serie of articles consisting in interviews Of rail-
roads workers, who were complaining about the conditions of
work.

The CGSP (the union Of the public servants) and es-
pecially the section "railroads workers" Of the union sent a
protestation to the paper. It made clear that the Union was
Opposed to a campaign against the government and claimed that
the Communist Party was using the discontent Of the railroads
workers to political aims.

There were no grounds on which the paper could re-
fise the publication of the reply. There was no attack against
the CGSP, but the articles tended to impute to the Union a
position that was no its. This action, of course, could hurt
some interests Of the Union: a right Of reply was thus perfec-

ly justified.

The reply was published with an introduction and some

commentaries that were longerVfihan the letter itself.

_ 41 -

The commentaries justified the action Of the paper;
they said, in substance, that the paper, in editing those arti-
cles and critizing the government, was merely defending the
interests Of the working class. The paper has also added a litle
to the reply: it said: "An astounding protestation". For that
title and the commentaries, the CGSP had the right to send ano-
ther reply. It didn't; probably because it estimated the printing
Of the reply was sufficient to prove that it didn't endorse the
position the paper wished it to follow.

An article of"La Derniere Heure", published on January
26,1952, also Opened Oa right of reply. The article reports that
a certain Princess d'Anjou Durassov, claiming she was waiting
for a fabulous inheritance, had borrowed 12 millions from too-
confident persons. The article said :

"... even the tennis chamion, Yvon Petra, had welcomed her in
,his Paris appartment and had lent her more than one hundred
thousands francs..."

A few days later, fir Petra sent a reply to the paper.
He said it was true he had lodged Mrs Durassov (who is not prin-
cess, but simply Durassov, remarked Mr Petra) at his appartment
during the summer and that she hadn't paid the rent. But, Mr
Petra added, he had not lent her a few hundreds thousands francs.
He explained that he has paid for Alexandra Durassov a passage
on the "Ile de France" in tourist class which costed him 186
dollars. Mrs Durassov had her passage trangered to the Air France
Company, this with the aid Of another confident person (Mr Thomas
from Nice) who paid the supplement. She finally went to Canada

because she couldn't get her immigrant visa for the USA.

- 42 _

"This" concluded Mr Petra "is the exact thruth and I'll ask you
to publish it because inaccurate news may cause great prejudice".

I think Mr Petra's prejudice in this matter is, above
all, a hurt self-respect, but even such an un—important preju-
dice may Open a right Of reply. Besides, the allegations Of the
paper were false and falsity is always a ground for a right of
reply.

Another case of right of reply concerns a judicial
sessions' report, published in "La Derniere Heure" Of December
29,1951. The trial was that Of some "collaborators" i.e. people
who have fraternized with the Germans during the war. The Decem-
ber 29th session consisted in the deposition Of one of the
witnesses, the Chief of the Police Of Braine l'Alleud, Mr Piette.
Mr Piette was asked, the "Derniere Heure" report said wether it
was true that Wautier (one Of the accused) has fired on a de-
nonciator, in hay 1944. Mr Piette, the report continued, answered
"yes".

On January 4,1952, Mr Piette sent a "precision" to
the paper, claiming:
"that in may 1944, he didn't know wether it was Wautier Who had
hurt Lambert, who was proved guilty Of denonciation, but that
he knew that Wautier was in conflict with Lambert. The later was
Wautier's Landlords". Er Piette added that he didn't want that
people think that he dad been voluntarily silent about this
matter; in fact, he said, the author Of the fact was unknown
to him.

We are here confronted with a strange case Of right

of reply, I could say.

_ 43 -

In effect, the paper was not obliged to publish the
reply because it was a judicial session report. We have seen
(page 22) that Parliament and'Court sessions'accounts were
immune from the right Of reply at the condition that they be
accurate. It seems to me that here there was no inaccuracy and
therefore the paper could have refused the publication of the
reply.

In front Of the Court, Mr Piette answered "yes" to
the question wether it was true that Wautier has fired on a
denonciator. If he didn't realize immediately what implications
that answer could have for him and if he didn't explain his
"yes" in front Of the Court, that is tOO bad for him. The jour—
nalist who was in the courtroom had the Obligation to report
what was said in the most accurate way. It was not his job to
look for explanations that have not been expressed. The jour-
nalist hasn't omitted not changed anything in Mr Piette's
deposition: therefore, the report may be considered as accurate.
Whetter or not it hurted Mr Piette's interests is Of no impor—
tance in this case. In effect, the jurisprudence has decided
that inaccuracy alone was the sole exception to the immunity
Of the Parliament and Court sessions'accounts in regard to the
right Of reply. The lesion Of interest is not takaiin conside—
ration in that special case.

The newspaper had, thus, the right to refuse the
publication of the answer, to go to Court and tO let the judge
decide wether the account was accurate or not and wether the

reply had to be published.

- 44 -

La Derniere Heure accepted the reply and published it
as a rectification. In my Opinion, it was more a "post-facto"
justification than a true rectification (i.e. the correction of
a mistake or Of a falsity).

The cases of right of reply that I shall examined now
are recent: they appeared in the Belgian press from July 1960 up
to October 1960. i

The first case was found in a satirical weekly"PourquOi
Pas"?. The reply was published on the Friday 15th Of July, just one
week after the article.

The "Pourquoi Pas?", in an article about Congo's indepen-
dance day, has mentioned that Mr De Kayser, rector Of the Univer-
sity Of Brussels, has warmly applauded Mr Lumumba's speech. Mr De
Kayser sent a reply, claiming he didn't applaude and that he was,
on the contrary, deeply shocked by the speech.

The reply was published but with one of illegality. We
have seen (second part page) that the paper has to publish the reply,
if not at the same place as the article, at least at the similar
place. In this case, the article was published on page 7. The reply
was printed on page 114, in the "Reader'Letters" Rubrique. I don't
say the reply should have been published on page 7: that particu—
lar rubrique. In effect, this reply is more than a simple letter
from a reader. It is a rectification concerning Mr De Kayser's re-
putation that has been attacked in the article. It should have been
published after the weekly political article and even after a poli-

tical article about the Congo.

- 45 -

To place Mr De Kayser's reply in the "Readers'Letters"
Rubrique minimized its importance: it is not a rectification or
a defense any more; it's just another letter.

The title "An hallucination" and the ironical commen-
tary destroy a great part Of the reply's impact, but these are
legal devices and they Open a new right Of reply.

In this case, we have an example of an indirect attack,
against someone's reputation. The paper doesn't critize Mr De
Kayser's attitude: it simply describes the facts. But, the mere
description Of those facts implied that Lr De Kayser, in applau-
ding Lumumba's speech, approved of his policies and acts in ge-
neral. In other words, Mr De Kayser was a Lumumbist, almost a
Communist and, at any rate, a very bad Belgian. This opinion
about a University's rector could be very harmful tO his pres-
tige and his career. An interest had been hurt: Mr De Kayser was
entitled tO reply.

. He justified himself by claiming that the reported
facts were untrue: that he was not applauding the sppech. Mr
De Kayser, however, like any other Belgian citizen is entitled
to his Opinions. If he wants to be a Lumumbist or a Communist
he has the right to. If a paper critizes him, either directly
or indirectly (like in this case.) he may defend his opinions
by explaining them to the public, by trying to convince his
fellow-citizens he is right. SO,if the reply had been a justi-
fication Of pro-Lumumbist feelings, the paper, no matter how

anti-Lumumbist he may be, had had the Obligation to print it.

- 46 -

On the other hand, the editor is not forced to publish
every letter he receives from his readers. In the case Of the
right Of reply, he has no such choice. If the reply meets all
the requirements set by the Bill and the jurisprudence, the
paper has to print it even if is strongly Opposed to its poli-
tical philosophy.

Before I consider another Of these recent cases of
right Of reply, I want to make a remark. One must be keep in
mind that a great number of the Belgian papers are "Opinion
papers". Together with the news, they present Opinions on diffe-
rent subjects, especially On social, political and economic
questions.

They have a political phisOlOphy and some Of them are
very close to a political party. The "Drapeau Rouge". for exam-
ple is communist, "Le Peuple" is socialist and the "Libre
Belgique" is in favor Of the Christian Social Party. Some papers
like "Le Soir", are "neutral". In fact, they support the govern-
ment, especially when it is a conservative government. I thought
this precision could be useful because some Of the cases I am
going tO expose now are political cases, and only the Opinion-
character of the Belgian papers can explain the critical ar-
ticles one sometimes finds in them.

The right of reply I shall examine now was found on
July 27,1960 in the socialist paper "Le Peuple". On the 23rd of
July, Le Peuple published two articles about a new political
groupement "The Comity for Action and Defense of the Belgians

from Africa".

- 47 -

Times were hard for the Belgiansof the Congo; they

tried to organize ghemselves in such groupings as the Comity.
They organized meetings, marches throughout the city... where
they hold the Government, the Parliament and the Belgian ci—

tizens in general as responsible for the Congo catastrophe.

The paper's articles states that the CADB was a
fascist movement that tried to use the Congo crisis to over-
throw the Parliamentary regime in Belgium.

The articles also associated the CADBA to a certain
JR Debbaudt, former rexist (1) and collaborator with the German
during World War II. Debbaudt was said to advocate the overthrow
Of the democratic system and its replacement by a military
junta, headed by General Janssens (2).

The CADBA sent a reply to the paper which published
it on July 27,1960. The reply claimed that the CADBA was not
an "extreme-rightist" movement whishing to overthrow the Bar-
liamentary regime. It also denied that the Comity had anything .
to do with Debbaudt. It justified its position by clarifying
its Opposition to the "regime". We think that the Government
must pay his mistakes, they said, but we are the resolute enne-
miss of those who want to injure our institutions". It also
stated that it reserved its right to a legal reparation for the

tort made to the association by the journalist.

(l)The Rexism was a National Socialist Party founded by Léon
Degrelle around 1933. It has a certain success in the 1935
elections. During World War II, the rexists fraternized with
the Germans and some of them even enlisted in the German

army.
(2)General Janssens was the high commander of the "Congolese Army".

- 48 -

We can see here that the right Of reply does not.
suppress the other legal appeals. An action in tort would be
perfectly admissible.

An amazing tact to be noted: the article and the
reply were published on the same page, in the same part Of the
page and in the same types (the lower part Of the front page and
in italics). Besides, the article and the replygpt the same head-
line, in the same types. This is the exact enforcement Of the
rule that was mentioned on page 25.

The paper printed a moderate commentary after the
reply. This, also, is unusual: in most Of the cases, the paper
publishes a commentary that destroys completely the effect Of
the reply. .

The third case I shall study is also a "political
right of reply". It appeared in the Catholic paper "La Libre
Belgique", on the 20-2lrst Of September 1960. In a long arti-
cle about the Congolese crisis, the paper mentioned that Mr
Buisseret, a former Minister of the Colony (1), had brought in-
tO the Congo the sordid anti-clerical quarrels that were going
on in Belgium. La Libre Belgique claimed that,<ioing this, Mr
Buisseret had causes the first blows to Belgian prestige and
authority in the Colony.

For the clarity of this case, one must know that, in

1955, Belgium has known a serious crisis about education.

(1) Mr Buisseret was Minister Of the Colony in a Liberal-Socia-
list government from 1954 to 1958.

- 49 -

The country has two educational systems i.e. the
Official system, state-controlled and state-supported and the
parochial one which is constrolled by the Catholics and part-
ly supported by them. In effect, one part Of the parochial
system Of education is supported by the State that gives sub-
sidies to the Catholic Schools. It is on this point that the
problem was raised. The Catholic were constantly asking for
bigger subsidies. The Liberals (Big Business Party) and the
Socialists (who were in the government and who were Opposed to
the second system of education, refused to grant bigger subsi-
dies. In fact, the Opposition exists since the creation of the
parochial system, but, sometimes, the quarrel became more bit-
ter and more violent.

When the paper "La Libre Belgique" claimed that
Mr Buisseret had brought into the Congo the "anti-clerical"
quarrels, it meant that the Minister had introduced the educa-
tional question in the Congo and had 'fought against the mis-
sionary schools that were established in the Congo long before
World War II. _

Mr Buisseret replied that he had never done any-
thing against the missions and against their schools, that the
loss Of authority Of the Whites in the Congo has been caused
by the mistakes made by some Belgian Unions (especially the CSC,
the Catholic Union) in the colony. He also mentioned some
attacks against the official education Of the Congo in the Con-
golese press. He ended the reply by making some allusions tO
the responsability of the Catholic Party in the present Congo-

lese crisis.

- 5o -

We find a here a situation I mentioned in the second
part of this study, page 30. The text about Mr Buisseret con-
sists in 7 lines Of a 3 and % columns article. The reply is a
two columns article. There is a disproportion between the "men-
tion" and the reply. To be logic and perfectly fair, Mr Buisse-
ret's answer to La Libre Belgique" should be an article of 14
lines (the double of the text that has provoked it). This would
be fair to the paper that has sOpken of Mr Buisseret in 7 lines,
without mentioning him in the rest Of the article. The 1831
Decree, however, states thatthe reply may be twice as long as
the article: this is one Of its numerous imperfections. The
1954 Bill brings a solution to this problem.

Now had Mr Buisseret the right to send a reply?
Following the absolute theory of the right of reply, his name
being mentioned, he certainly was entitled to a reply. Following
the relative theory also, a reply was legitimate. In effect,
the mention of the paper could have hurt the former Minister's
prestige or political career. A reply was, thus, completely jus-
tified but I doubt it was very useful.

In effect, this reply was published with a head-
line and a commentary that completely destroy its impact. The
headline is: "Mr Buisseret has not understood yet". The commen-
tary explicitely stated that Mr Buisseret created in the Congo
Official schools with no spiritual basis. This, the paper added,

is contrary to the Bantou personnality, essentially spiritualist.

- 51 -

The paper also claimed that Mr Buisseret had dis—
credited the missions' schools in the promaganda for the Offi-
cial schools and that he tried to reduce subventions that were
going to the pariochal education. Finally, "La Libre Belgique"
explained that the division Of the Whites on the educational
problem has had a very bad influence on their prestige.

We can see that the paper's commentary is an answer
to Mr Buisseret's reply. Hr Buisseret could send another reply
concerning the commentary, but the paper could publish another
article to the second reply and the game could go on and on.

I think that, in a case such as this, Mr Buisseret
shouldn't have sent a reply tO the paper. He should have known
that a paper like "La Libre Belgiquen was not going tO abandon
the controversy so easely.

Besides, the first attack consisted in a few lines
and was not too clear. The second one, the commentary, gave de-
tails and justified the critics by facts: it was for more dan-
gerous for Mr Buisseret's carrer and reputation that the first
one.

The two other cases I have found recently are less
intersting. Both concern a news stdry published in L e Peuple:
the first oneis acrime,the other one a car accident. They look
more like a rectification than like a reply, but we know that
the reply may take any form as long as the content's and length's
requirements are met.

The first story reports the crime of a poliee Officer

who killed his wife and committed suicide afterwards.

_ 52 -

In a letter the murderer said that wife had a lover,
a certain Malfroid, and that this is the reason why he killed
her.

I This was published on the 12th of October 1960. On
the 19th, Malfroid sent the paper a note in which he stated that
he has never been the lover Of the victim Of the Sauveniére
crime. The paper published the rectification on the 20th.

In fact, it was not Malfroid's note that was printed,
but a small article Of 11 lines in which the paper gave a resumé
Of the facts and the rectification of Mr Malfroid. It seems the
1831 rule about the lenght Of the reply has not been respected
here. On the contrary, it is the 1954 Bill that has been follo-
wed in this matter: the mention had 5 lines, the reply II. I
don't think this was intentional, tough. The paper didn't con-
sider this case as "a true right of reply" and it didn't treat
it like one. It handled it like the correction of a mistake or
of a falsity, and, in fact, that is what it was.

I think this formula i.e. the resumé of the facts
and the correction -- is very good in the case of a material
mistake or falsity that does not need a long explanation or jus-
tification to be straightened out. It saved the space Of the
newspaper, which is sometimes used for the useless considera-
tions that are contained in certain replies. The headline, like
in this case, should be the same as that of the news story or

should be such that the news story would be immediately recogni-

zable.

-53...

The case of the car accident is very similar. The
story of the paper said that the driver was drunk when he had
this accident. The driver, Mr Tourney, contacted the paper. The
stated he was not drunk and explained that his deficient health
plus two glasses of beer were the cause of the failing that
provoked the crash.

As in the preceding case, the paper printed a rec-
tification, i.e. as small article, stating the facts and Mr
Tournay's version Of the story. Both articles (the story and the
rectification) were published on the same page, in the same
types and with almost the same headline. It was therefore very
easy to notice the rectification and to connect it with the first
story.

This is the last case of right Of reply that I wan-
ted to study. In the next and last chapter Of this thesis, I
shall give, as a conclusion, some personal considerations on

the right Of reply.

CONCLUSION

 

The purpose Of this study was to describe and explain
a solution to certain press problems, such a solution being
common in EurOpe and almost unknown in the USA. I have tried
to show what the right Of reply is and to explain its someti-
mes complicated mechanisms. I would like, now, tO give the
reasons why I think the right of reply is a good solutio, at
least for our EurOpean press.

The press, in Belgium and more generally in Europe,
is not an "information press", like in the USA, but an "Opi-
nion press". Exceptions to this rule must be made for some
French papers, like ”France Soir", that are the crime-acci-
dents-lbve stories-sort of papers. In belgium, all our papers,
even "the neutral" ones, are "Opinion papers". This doesn't
mean that our press does not give any informations. It gives
news, but it doesn't claim that these news are completely
Objective. Our journalists admit that a complete Objectivity
is impossible. A paper cannot print all the news it receives,
it must make a selection: this is the first subjective ele-
ment. Most Of the news, especially those that come on the
telexs, must be re-written or a least "arranged". They must
get an headline, some news stories must be cut Off: here the
second subjective element appears. A third subjective factor
is the space alOtted tO the news in the paper and the loca-

tion Of the various news-stories.

-54

-55-

When the news is commented or explained,one must
agree that there is not much Objectivity left in the news-story.
Besides,some sources of news can give very different stories
and the paper cannot check every story it gets.A first check
is made by comapring the stories Of different news-agencies,
but this is not always sufficient.

To reach a complete objectivity is impossible for
a newspaper.It may get tO a certain Objectivity in suppressing
any interpretation of the news i.e. in giving straight news
with no background,no explanations.What the paper gains in
Objectivity is then lost in understanding.What is the use Of
an Objective report Of facts if the reader does not understand
those facts,their causes and their implications.l think that
the newspaper,in the 20th century,ahs a mission to fulfill
i.e. to relate its readers with the "outside world".This rela-
tionship will be acheived if the readers know,but also under-
stand,what is happening in this "outside world".The rest of
the universe is too big,too far from us for us to understand
without explanations and commentaries all the events taking
place outside of our small personal world.

I feel that understandable news are more important
than completely objective news,eut at one condition i.e. that,
if the interpretation of the news is subjective,the readers
must know who is talking.In other words,the paper must be
clear about its philosophical and political bias,so that the
readers exactely know what are the prejudices of the paper.

Let me show,by an example, what I have in mind here.

- 56 _

I read in "Le Peuple",a Socialist newspaper,that
20.000 workmen,belonging tO the FGTB (the Socialist Union),
have marched in Brussels' streets,protesting the governmental
policy.The "Libre Belgique",a Catholic newspaper all for the
Social Christian Government,prints that the march was composed
Of 5.000 people.Substracting 7.000 people from "Le Peuple"
story and adding the same number tO the "Libre Belgique"
report,I probably shall get the right amount of marchers.Were
the papers deliberately lying? I don't think so,but,the source-
of "Le Peuple" being the FGTB and that of the "Libre Belgique"
the government,the newspapers got two different strories.

As everybody knows that "Le Peuple" is a Socialist
paper and "La Libre Belgique" a Christian SOOial daily,every
reader in Belgium realizes that,in the first paper he gets a
Socialist explanation of the news and,in the second one,a
Social Christian interpretation of the same news.The papers,
by letting know their political bias,are not cheating anybody.

In our "political" papers,we find editorials and
political controversies where Opinions on facts and persons
are expressed.l think that here,more than in the newsestories,
the right Of reply is very useful.In effect,without the right
ijreply,what could a person do when a paper expresses on his
ideas or activities an Opinion he does not like? When the paper's
Opinion is libelous or defamatory,the person can sue the paper,
but I have three Objections against that solution.

1) It may only be used in very definite conditions.

-57...

It is not as general as the right of reply.Even if we consider
the relative theory Of the right of reply,we must agree that it
is a larger solution than the libel suit.TO be able to sue for
libel,a person must have been the victim of an accusation of

a precise fact,directed to hurt his honor or to expose him to
the public contempt.The conditions of the right Of reply are
simpler:the person mentioned must have one of his interests
hurt,even a little—important interest like self—respect.

2) Some peOple hesitate to start a legal action,long
and expensive.If they can be satisfied with the printing of
a reply that will cost them a ten cents stamp,why wouldn't they
use the right Of reply?

3) I think that a reply,published in a paper,is some-
times more useful than a complicated action in libel or in
tort.ln effect,what will be the result Of an action in libel?
The author of the libelous article will pay a fine and that is
very good because he will probably think twice before writing
a libelous story again.But,is that all the victim Of the libel
should wish? It seems to me the victim would like very much to
tell the public that'the facts in the libelous story were not
true and why.The publication of the judgement,that the Court
sometimes orders,could constitute such a rectification.But,whO
reads the publications of judgements? I think a reply,printed
almost at the same place as the libelous article,with the same
headline and published a few days after the article,is far
more useful than any judgement's publication.With such a reply,

the rectification's purpose will be reached in a more general

way than with the publication of the Court's decision in the

-58-

libel case.As for the action in tort,I don't think the damages
the victim would get,would outweighed the costs Of such an
action.The right of reply seems,therefore,the most reasonable
course Of action.

An American journalist could have the impression
that the right of reply is something that everybody approves,
but that nobody uses.This view is undoubtly mistaken.There
are cases of right of reply in the Belgian press.If they are
not very numerous,it is not because the public does not make
use Of it,but because the journalists are very careful not
to get any case Of right of reply.In other words,the journalists
are very "right-of-reply-conscious" and they are careful not
tO give grounds to a right Of reply when they write their stories.

Another Objection to the right Of reply is that it is
an hindrance to the freedom of the press.I don't think this is
right.0f course,the paper is obliged to publish the reply,that
answered the various legal conditions,but it may add any com—
mentaries to this reply.The paper may therefore justifies itself
in front of its readers.If one accepts the limitations to the
freedom of the press in the cases Of libel and pornography,l
don't see why the right of reply shouldn't be admitted on the
same grounds.

In my opinion,a person my be hurt in his interests
by a newspaper story,even if it is not libelous and it is fair
that this person Should have a way,easy and quick,tO repair the
damage made to his interests by the newspaper.Besides,and this

is very important,the use Of—the right of reply still permits

the use Of the other legal solutions.

-59-

When the use Of other legal solutions is not permitted,
the right of reply may constitute a precious way Of defense.I
know that,in certain cases,the publication of a reply may seem
useless,especially when a paper's commentary destroys the impact
of the reply upon the readers.However,even in these cases,the
victim Of the citation has the possibility to present hi3 thesis
to the readers or to rectify a falsity.

Such a rectification is very important in political
matters.ln effect,the absence of reaction against a paper's
allegations could look like an aknowledgement that would be
dangerous for the future of a political career.SO,if the facts
mentioned by a newspaper are false,the victim has an interest
to send a rectification or a justification to be printed by the
paper.The paper,by an ironical commentary,may ridiculize the
reply and its author.0fficially,however,this one has disavowed
the journalist's allegations.The important fact is not so much
that every reader believes the rectification:it is that the
victim has sent it.

The right of reply is thus an important defense of
the public against the misusee of the press' great power.I do
think that,in our century of mass communications,the public

is entitled to have such a defense.

CLIPPINGS OF SODA-E CASES

OF RIGHT OF REPLY

 

81% m01;7‘fi¢ n+9

 

Reserves 3 nos iccteurs, cettc ruhnque as public two do:
lettres don? l‘ongmal ports le nom e: I'advesse de "expedi-
teur Youtcfois, sc-ules lcs mItmlcs hqurcnt a la pubhcation

ll n'est tenu aucun compts dos lettres anonymes

Rappelons que ce coumev n 'enqaqe que nos correspondents
occasionnels et que l'insertion d' une |cHre ne Slqm'fle nulls-
ment qa 'elle exprime l‘opinion du Iourrnl (NdIRH)

 

 

 

L'hollucinotion

Monsieur le Rérlacteur en Chef,

Dans le no 2171 de « Pourquoi Pas?» du vendredi 8
juillet 1960. page 7. vous avez affirmé que M. De Key-

ser, Recteur (le l‘Université Libre de Bruxelles, avait ;

applaudi le discours de M. Lumumba au cours de la
seance OL‘I l‘indépeI'Iclanve du Congo a été proclamée a
Léopoldville.

Cette affirmation est dénuée de tout fondement et ‘

j’y oppose le dementi le plus formal. J'ai été, bien au
contraire. comma la quasi unanimité des Belg‘es. pro-
fondément choqué par le disc-ours du leader congolais.
Faisant usage de mon droit cle réponse. je vous invite
a faiIe fl; IIIer la pIt'snIie miss an point en bonne et
due plare (laIIs votIe pmczhiin num éIo
Veuillez aaIéer Mon ieur le Rédarieur en Chef l’ex—
pression de mes sentiments distingués
Le Recteur.
W. DE KEYSER.

Dont acte. Nous nous étunnons cependant que les
témoins oculaires qui nous out donne’ cette Informa-
tion 80 soient (1.213.921 lourdement trompés. Et que ce sozt

 

@JAQ IIOL, (Fianna, Ruffle)

Wm: [‘0 C , 3”,. .
22 '3 Attestation
W”? «Van chauffard

tJeudi. en fin d'aprés—midii une
violente collision s’est modulate
Namur, avenue dos Oombattants ‘
Une voiture pflotee par le repre-
sentant de commerce M Fran
'I‘mlrnay, domicilié
mama aBmxellwa
dain ea droite et h mune voi-
tm-e qui roulait en sens inverse et
con par le Dr Delforge.

 

Le choc fut extremement vio-
,lent. Tom-nay fut blessé et
,Mn" Delfor . qui accom ait
son mari. ut oontusionn .
3%“ furent trss importants. Ins

alisants ayant constaté
l’automobfliste bruxellois se tn-ou- .
valt sous l'lnfluenoe de la bols-

le garderent au commissio-
riat apt-Os qu’fl alt recu des some.

Vendredl matln, M. Mélot jugs
d’instruction a Namur. a. d m6

Ilia-gait“ de A row“? '

\

3 I 3. con *re‘r ui te- "11 mandat (1’81? éta charge de
trompé en mI me temps (12 e nou un t e (1 ca dangereux conduc et

nait le Tensezgnement dune autre somce que la notre. d“ chef de Um mvoiont h, E
Une seule eusrplicutmn possible : M. De Kayser a été gt Wm M volant.

d Léo la I (crime d we hallucination collectiie Ses voi-

sins ont CTu Ie roir applaudir le discours de M. Lumum-

ba. alors an au contraire I'l en (wait les mains nouées

d indiqnntion. Ce qui est certainsment une attitude plus

sage. Et aujourd lIIIi, en {out cas, plus opportune”

 

NAMUR PC - .1 LJ
givC'L’crrestation '
[glam automobilisl'e

avpns rapporte samedi l'ac-
cident qui s’étaIt produit a Fave-
nua des Combattants, a Namur.
L entire la vmture de F. Henri
Tourney, demeurant a Bruxelles.
‘ or cells du Dr Delforge. de Namur.
‘ to)” ‘ Lautomobiliste bruxellois fut
~ (’0, écroué pour s ‘étre trouvé sous
C ‘. l’influénce de la boisson au mo-
JIC ment de l’accident.
On nous precise cependant que
M. Tournay nétait pas en état
d'ivresse caractérlsée et qu'iJ est
conmdéré comma un conducteur
raIsonnable. Son état (is same
deficient cumulé a labsorptdon de
trois verres de biere serait, la cause
de la défaillance qui est a l‘Origine
, de ce regrettable accident. M
Toumay a done été plus ‘Inlpru'
dent que désinvolte
Quoi qu '11 en soit apres ea com-
i perution en Chambre du Conseil
‘ oe lundl. n a été remis en livberte

Bow. ‘. QOUJI 0};th Tats.

 

 

 

  — PnovocArIWuR-REXISIE I
L65 Belges d'Afrique DEFENDUS
PAR UN ANCIEN SS!

5 Comité d'Actzon et de Dé-

 

"7‘“

r

pour faire dég énérer en
offensive contre” nos institutions

une monter d l’aosaut ndu Parlement.
fenoe des Beige: d’Afrimle se but encore out a I
"W" 3mm" ”flan-Hm“ ‘I'Ssfl‘m” 9“ “new ”a? W"? ”8.? “"f w“ WWW “W
In ue- assez re s e e e no es s
mag? événements irreversibles. 13‘s sui-

congolaise
organise manifestations et ras- .
WW bruyants et 3 L. m ‘0 Rex Fernand DEW. {

discours
wet-fa ces manifesto sum: PAGE 3. 3... corona“:r

 

cow's dune cos

cegmred’analphabé-
tpoiztzque mous’espdmgten
armes ow
mmwmfascme.
may”. la Belgiqueet to
mom Leon
aflen’eazpasdésavouémm

Exploileurs do In misére

Ansel been let hommes qui mon-
tent sur les tréteaua: de ce_s ma-
Infestations sont d'illustres incon—
nuo presses de sortir des tenebres.
en ram'mant la rancaeur et les
désiuuoions des réfugz'és du Con-
00.118 8e font un tremplin de la

e de ces pifoyables victlmes.
Ils réclament ces II qouvernements
arts) (13 style algérz'en dont
’armée et la haute finance con-

Dans un maggeste diotrflme au

tions, on pouvatt Zine, comma par
hasard, les odiem
oImtre « lam 6mm '
at resistanttaliate tole’re'e no: to
police II. e le regime
cmmaz‘ssom II.
Mau dc Lumum
comparatt lea so
yen‘e dont (8 Congo

901L111
II loo Mau-
II...

theatre aux incidents dAbbe

ville. en 1940. out failllrent comer
vie e DigelLe Et évoquanr
lamémoire Bel

s tombés (111
Congo ce pamphle conclualt en
ces termes :

« Belges. vengez-les. Mon-
tez a l’assaut du Parlement.
Ensemble. nous les balaye-
tons. II

°sz
§'
§
.§

mflfmw—"W

 

PROVOCATION

(SUITEJ
c 11 est trappant dc con-
tact moment on la

a on

do 13 It also in
mime II a pose dans tous
les partis do volt avec quelle
extraordinaire lucidité to
Chat dn Mme“ Rexiste
avait '-— 25 ans amt In full--
lite de la democratic beige

— dénoncé Ids totes du ré-

mtmnmm.

3‘“me

son, pronoun-en conscience
at am on concoction-

ce ».

Les amitiés conpromollanm
On conwiendra grit est pour lg:
mains étonnam volt (as e-
ft'Afn’ déracoquinerdgsam avec
8
mbfimm teamwm

Ce tract, dont lea dirtgeants du
Comtte' d’A Atzc '07: et de Defense
des Belges d'Afrique, semblent

sfltueraient lossature. Nous avons
défa entendu cette antienne. Elle
appmrtient a l'extréme-droite qui

me at propose lea remodes'm

draconiens qui sen-ls pou- mm M 80713 ignores de per.

sonne

 

r’evient ton ours a ses remz'eres tolérer complaisammentla ladiffu- fluent sauver ‘3 nation. glam”?- coll den/t“-
7 p sion, é‘mane d'un certain Mer- n Cette clarté do we 85" no em M2,,” 13513 39
meposer mém _ ce qui rte men't Social Beige dont lflor ane. unit a lo Iois lea vIeux par- ”Wm. ‘1‘“ a“ mvme
étre emu _ que les est « L'Europe Réelle » et f tls, la hante finance at ton- dev Lt to stage}; 1
mteurs dece comite' soientde lanimateur 63‘ ”fie vzezlle COW tea 1% forces nannies 0‘15 (11";th bien TIC;
foi 1'18 divalent 07127241 to” "alssa'we ’9 SS J R Debbaudt!“ exploitaient he pays et qui sfignt sottawu le felt des g3“
dc no point se soucier des louclws aujourd hm granda ”0’09“?“ l’exploitent d’afl leurs encore cnnemts denos ?
”th3 W1 dé7d navlgmt COMO a mm mm W" hem, 9 l Nous 6W3 Wm ".3 met.
m leur sillage. n on est de trés ms durrmt la 0718778. (I endosser “30““ hm “ ”u?" ”5' tr mt tr de t e 1e
rmmndables depuis oer, lunz‘forme hitle’rien pour combat queues nous poursmvons 1e 0 fie 0’ emm
personnaaes do're’s 31,, ”an- tre nos allies. . combat. En somme la latte comm F d DEMANY
chesquz dans la coulisse tirent Cest lui qui révc au-‘I‘ourd hm‘ dos memos contreles memes. ernnn '
(cs flcclles, jusqu‘a des hommes cle II olelns pouvoirs pour le qe' l C’est parce que le program-

main. au passe tres charge

néral Janssens II. Cest luI' quz
qui n’attendent que l'henre H

convie Les ré/ugiés du Congo at me do Léon DEGRELLE gé-

unit et que notre action lea
géne toujours que nous 511-
b l’oflensive sauvnge
d5 nantb du régime. Mais ,
{is plus one Léon DEGREL- i
no se lasso hapression-
ner alors, nous ne nous [ais-
serous intimider auJonrd’hui I
et comma 1111, obstinémont. i
nous ammo tout droit E
In front découvort malgré les
tits do barrage continue-ls et
comma Lu! nous continue- »
tons a dire 1e vral avec la
meme vizuenr et le méme
l atonement.
sSonsletltreIILéon DE-
GRELLE avadt taboo » a
l’henre on les irresponsables
du Parlement galvaudent
I’hérttage do Léopold II at I
oi: lea prébandiers (sic) do i
la haine relnncout leur stu-
plde campazne contre le
«Fascinne M II nous
dormer-one chaque mots la

 

 

gale W 5 flownfe. 9W3?»

 

’flm glolg

 

 

 

    

    

.1-

H“

ggnépnovocmou "manure-11,,

les Belges d’Afrique DEFEND
PAR llll ANCIEN S 5!

LA suite de Particle paru
sous ce titre dans nos
editions dc samedl. le

C.A.D.B.A. nous a adressé la
lettre suivante :

Monsieur le Directeur.

Nous avons mis connoissance.
avec une stupeur indigne‘e. de l'ar-
ticle de M Fernand Demany. paru
dans votre numéro des 23-24 mu.
let 1960. sous le titre : « Provoca—
tion ne'o-reriste — Les Belqes
de/rtque de'lendus par an an-
cben SS ».

Votre collaborateur, pratz'quant
l’armalqamc, ne recule pas devant
1e risque d’identi/z‘er sans la main-
dre preuve le « Comz’te d'Actz'on
et de Defense (163 Belges d'Arri-
que n a l'actzon d'un ancien SS.

(1 la Ieuille qu'z‘l e‘dite et an e mou-
vement I au'il dirz'ae.

Or, le c Cornzte d'Accion es de
De’tense des Betqes d'A/rz ue »
ne connait pas M J.-R. Deb audt.
£1 me In 1amazs rencontre‘. 811 a
eu connaz‘ssance de to rewrite
ou‘edite cet z’ndz'vz‘du. 1'1 reprouve
avec e'nergz’e les c zde‘es » out 0
sont ernrimées at out doivent étre
considere’es comme celles des Di-
res ennemz‘s de notre pays.

Le neo-rexz'sme dont a are re-
clame la alontz‘oatzon du traitre
Degrelle, la destruction de nos in-
stitutions inscrites dans son pro
gramme, nous empéchent a tout
1amais de nous entendre avec lui.
Nous nous demandons d‘az‘lleurs
pour queues raisons le Parquet n a
pas encore mis fin a (mutation
antinatzonale dc cet éneraumene.

Voila notre oosition. Des tors.

 

“ a!

 

(SUITE)

Nous reservons notre droit de
demander en lustice réparatzon a
M Fernand Demany pour le tort
rmuste out) a fat: (I notre Comite
at a sea promoteurs beaucoun
de ces dernz'ers appartiennent our
milieu: de la resistance et des an-
ciens combattants: soit en 1914-
:918. soit en 1940-1945 ils on! de-
I'pndu au peril de leur vie les fiber.
«’65 chéres aux Belges: its ont
mnnu les camps de concentration
nazzs.

Ii serait inconcevable que nous
302/0713 a la remorque d'anczens
inneriens qui n'ont rien appris 711
one nou nous laissz‘ons diitamer
nar ue ou'un qui. pour des fails
.umb ables. a en. a plusieurs reori-
ws. maille a partir avec la iustice.

Pour Le Comite d‘Action et de
Detense des Belqes d'AIrz‘ e .
R Matyn, A. Minet. M. erlin-
den. M Fourneau.

La lettre que le C.A.D.B.A.
nous a adressée sous lot-me dc
droit dc réponse prouve en
tout can one sea dirigeants
n’entendent pas mire ¢ sotte-

PlillVOCATlON

9 ~ _—

‘ NEO-REXISTE

ment le len des plres ennemls
de nos institutions et qu'ils
n'ont pas mix «I tron the Laws
pour le comprendre n. comme
le soutena?‘ Demanv en con-
clusion de son artlole.

Nous leur donnons done acte
de ce que Ieurs intentions sont
pares. S’ils désirent rendre
plus efficace l’orzanisatlon du
parlement. nous tenons a leur
signaler la critique que Léo
Collard. president (in PSB. a
falte du fonctionncment de
cotte institution a la tribune
de la Chambre. tout en prono-
sant une série de remedes ap-
propriés Enfln. il convlent que
les dirizeants du CADBA
soient attentifs an [all que si
des cralntes quant a [cut vo-
lonté do s'en prendre aux in
stitutions en tant que telles
out on naitre ils doivent s‘en
prendre a lean prom-es am-
ches et manllostes. dont le ton
et le contenu étalent pen com—
patibles avec la mise an point
que nous insérons ci-dessus.

...—7

 

 

 

vous commendrez aisement que
nous sommes indiane’s dp Particle
mensonqpr er ditiamo'm'n do no.
tre collaborateur. M. Fernand De
many.

Rectztions done les Iausses al
legattons de M. Demany ,-

1) Nous navons nutlement en.
vze d « expanter polztzquement u
to tragedze conqolazse nous ext
geons umquement que yustzce sou
latte, Nous esumons qu'u emu
absolument contrazre a to iusttc:
et prolondemcnl immoral ue 1c
gouvernement responsaote tan'
d’erreurs, et auyourd'huz de can:
do cnmes, ne pate pas ses tautes

2) Votre collaborateur vent men
recmmaitre que les promoteurs ac
notre Comzte « sozent de Donne
Io: .n. En enet, nous LC sommes
Mats nous ne pouvons absotumem

accepter d’e‘tre tdentz'jzés a
"extreme drone, aussz nocwe que
l’extréme gauche... a to uelle vo~
tre collaborateur a d'az’ leurs up
partenu nomme'ment. A notre ,
sens, les notions de e droite » et
de « gauche u cant vide'es dc £011.!
contenu reel. Nous ne voulons
qu'étre pro/ondement national.

3) Nous sommes les enne1ms
résotus de ceua: qui veulent por
ter (wants a nos :nstztutzons
Certes, nous jazsons ta dzsttnctton-
entre 1e regime politigue qui =1
lait dégénérer nos znstz’tuttons
monarchique et parlementaire —
et un systeme politique qui ren
torceraz‘t to role de nos tnstztu-
tzons, notamment celui du Parle-
ment.

4) Jamais, un manileste ema-
nant du fumiste DEBBAUDT n’a
éte distribue a une de nos man:
lestatzons il est raux d’e'crz're
comme le iaz't votre collaborateur.
que notre Comite’ a toléré c com‘
plazsamment la diffusion d'un
tract émanant du e Mauvemenz
Social Beige ». Nous défions
M. Deman d’en apporter la
preuve. Si 'ailleurs le cas 3e pre
sentaz’t, nous serions les premzers
a nous y Opposer par tous L83

”IMIUTI E

 

@9152, ’00 3

 

 

d

’LLQL EL
T‘Cj-

 

 

 

,
‘1
' i
‘ .
.
. , .
. ’ .
. .
.
n
, , . .
, .
.
I »~ ’
' v. 'I I
u . . ‘
, ‘ - .
.
I A
> .
1. J .
I
l - l
Iht‘r')’~1 " ' ‘ '.
t u-" \ r '- '
.,- 1.._
‘1
.
. .
r ' ‘ -
\t' ‘
. ‘ 1
‘. _
-.
I
, ' I .
'; ' v ‘ ’ l
~r."". ' '
. ‘ A:
. .-e. .
. ‘ ,
. . .
r . — . ,
J' ‘
-. , .
V“ A \
. ’ I
I I: n
. ‘ -. . .
.. ' V - . ‘

 

    
    
    
   
  

 

I WWW m."

responsabilités do drame congolais .

M. Buisseret
pas encore compris

er 1. anoien miniatudee guinea. wéguait que foul-ale

,nmsadresselaleureque c transports )nuoongo denomi-

6:113 cm“ extranemetft‘ lee
ere .

51:19 >. a I’m: rite den Blanca

Ce dieant, l'on ee trompait d'u-

dreeee,
En ponnt, en octobre 1964. 1‘
gemiere re de l'Unlverelté ce-

0 1: run. “21.13;“: do to-

appo u e
$230. at do . Pendant touts
LN?!»

.. ”mule _
mg“? ,m
.

droit do réponse; je ne
que voue la. puhlllez con-
nt 3 lo. 101.
remlene page, event-der-
gnne. votre journal date
' 1, 21 de ce mole, tenant,
nee, une deeee vie ran-

      

 

rudentdehpnrtdu

3231*

Il eet
intolerant: e1: den faction: do t
. mm
In oes ultras et de leurs patella so

profile derriére les dieeenaiona qui.
au cours do In guerre de 1940, out

e-

l
s
1 l

m-

I‘m

 

 

mle en En} la aolidzglté dee blame.

(19,31, MOI-l-

’Tfi; We“)? M

fine... Commmvmtgl
tLe, 119mm (V “3

 
 
 

I

tdnt on evrli 1055. 10m 1!
Element avec 1'1 tation con re 1e mots a;

. CO

l'hebdmnadaire c Tempo nouvenux
g’lllfrlque ) pu-blla l’élo e glee par-
: c
be] 0113 contre la
de Bruxellee et .
ajoutant, a l’intention deg ‘leCteure

“:12:
m is Gamble emit ‘

x .

 
   
    
    
  

nts aux manifes ationa, ré-

(£91106 et pug'llgta
Namurw. engiy

M, . iBulsseret ’7 i
n’a pas encore comp risg'

 

 

M)
you:
join ct, r calico-c1. tn.
“Mtg-p ,h do

lee. ultra. reprlrent 1e

m. [in chute do in eonflame u

unenuneepritdeuvolte 30

man be parent .f
a 11:11. me pour a mo.-

 

136m, 111 photographic do one
.10le examples. ‘ ' eusnget ' mung” inu
Dependant, nos 11 um» not“ . II I III:
vaient applaud-31’ an alt . Oggemdee‘annéeguggfiah 1,.”
ms pour .... muon- 1°? a. :1... 1. sue
:nolra et biancs soient vraiment .l a confl in me ’ impefi
linemen. souacrit a la mmpect. do 11:12:31” juxemen '

f

 

..j

l

d’une emancipation progressive
acquiesce a la polquue en vigue
(en 1958 spree plus de. quake 8.: ,
de oette paix que ’avais, p om

, .m .
‘. equité a la mode homaleienne. '4 .‘1

De nombreua: debate parlementajl-‘I
res portent la trace de 06.3 1nd-
den-ts, qui furent
bane par dee omteurs R520.

J par M. Buisseret

--...J 0“

. w - . L. .. I
mamlestaient z’mdecrottab' Ee’uctaé‘ '
1. ~.

fixes faits .’

. 1m hostile

#811,111; mindstérie
88 Janvier 1965, 1’43)“
£31103: 1:111: publier m

c e e rce
ment genera; que le

. . O
u

j pedestal . __ muwammw‘
Mons offtciellee en favour deg 5 a 11 ee choielt 1111‘ .

. , 0 do 00w
ernats pour 111111 mngeur do our! z." '

des 1111081011., 10 on
Iaires des moniteure.
fn-ent observer que de
res devaient condm're
men: 111 ' e 1!

ecolee. Ila reprochaient au

sineotions 11mm" 13
anement catholmf er a P

eeignement dee missi
tea, at 45 11.0. one deals: do I’Etaq

Portage equitable 2 Non,

. ment. of Pan considers que les mun

sions poeeédalent a some:
pen pres 1a totaine do I’eneeigneg

Congo! O’etau one 11
Ode de M 8111330111,”:th
‘tempe d’ailleun, , "
guerre soumoice, magi

guerre a coupe d’épingle. qui m1;

tipliai: pour mustang les re

signales a la tri-

D’ameure. lee 110111.1'11111‘iomf [alias
temolgnent our-v

 

"~—va—3—~.;

{fisamment de sa

uolonte damm-
nan 'dflflldllu 4.16.0917 av] W
3;! 11mm? 3881,19: mm MW

‘ means) as npxod
a no “rpm-some: mo; 3p ‘lonb
saxdv '09 q at 818A ‘momxequun
an: 9: 9p Jannomed Iazoq no. as

 

9.111.191 311118119 390 moasfim 'N

   
  

one protestanui

   
  
  
  
 
   
  

 
   
  
 
  

Vanities agreer. Handout he 31...

our. l'mreealon do me canal-t
, atlon 1! 31161:.
‘ 11‘.) A. 311mm. f

l

m mlulone catholi-

 

80&c. do; as trade

.- . article! [ut 1111 autre an
.. all , M Nay, qui presen-
11,11 ‘48 moment .
.:‘ ghere‘ d’uprit section at borne”

K

 

FMI'BBJ‘OAIWB 393 up DiMJ V

ne‘er] op ad‘s: of v

:01 mun-o

par W
[and etqpar vocation, rineflable}
de iecken!

1.10pm, to realleateur

du grand descent minio-
de creation d’un mum

     
    
 

.

16m. arantiee e11 .'

fit
3.
g
a
on
O
i
1"

75
t:
i

 

[I momma 1311113111 31 '1'! '
111111119qu up momma
's-aSaap sap mom .1 [onion all
anemauoul 90111.11?me rhea 'ueq
-Iv lO-I up 13 wow 011191 91 99f
xneaquxo: 8‘31 .me ‘arexoa sum; 91
op emquxaw Bap won no ‘R
939 1110 'ooun'cf :0 hm hm
snoop op announce Ma
onqnd no 'Mfi! 'am
«83909 939 8 "3319'! OP 91am
'1 ‘Pi-nW 3013‘ '9! 09 1.10m 9! OP

 

ammo 9; 131139231 mm arm!
81 animal ‘11»!!! 39 and 1m; 1- .

kneaqtuou' op 19 . 91‘

Refit“ mag. Mar:

27“ :50 6103‘." 9"‘"~ "

    
  
  
  

   

 

    

‘11“ h , 1.131 ‘.
Pam 91114110011118 '1) 911m
xxmmd 10111681100
14119115129: £310!!! ‘19;
4910 39 18 on ammoq mm
91 ‘mmanboer 13.111189111111190 lambda
$111192: manna ?

VI SSACR

 

ElanVENIERE

1N ANCIEN GENDARME TUE SA FEMME
1coups DE HACHE PUIS SE PEND..

ES drames-la se découvrent
touicurs de la meme ma-
niére : ce scnt lee voisine
le lendemain, étonnee do

he que i’cn pressent déja

stre de la maison d’ a-cbté

Viennent lee gendarmes.

’eet ninsi que lundi apres-

.1. rue Haute, a Sauveniére.

15 une petite maison ouvric-

portant le numéro 54. 111111

table boucherie fut decou-

usstcrve 06111111111. 53 one. 1111 gen-
e pennionne. Walt cue ea
coups de hache: la victime
819. Long. wne Aldlemsande
de 41 ans 21181111 dans une ma-
cams: our 111 oarmau we 99.

1331138111 fut decouvert oendlu
rampe d’ esoa-lier.
1rue Hawtc a SauMeme. com-
a une 1angée de petites mai-
. ouvmerce.L‘1me dcldes. tree
matte éLait ocowpée dlerpuns 1e
tars 1958 par wn manage venu
says flamand.
n. Gustave Dela-.ttim me he
ran 1997. divorce depuis 1956 de
Josée Fabry domiciliée rue
och. é Schaerbeek wait on
1 ante-n13 de ce premier maria-
tm fills. John. we a Moeseyck
.934. duvoroé 1111 911981 at domi-
nvec an more. ct one 1111 ..e no-
lemrenrt agée de 22 ms.
untave Dela/11171111 avait epouoe
oaThéréoio.
a Hirschau (Allemagne).
mvler 1919.

ha.» — u '

 

Deux son: de clocho

Le m-énoge full. dnbm'd domlcllle
9. K «madden Gustave Dec/mm. eat-
telllnvt de rhuntotieme (informant.
dlwt. éme pensionné de in gender-

moxie. ou 11 11111. lomrcempc en func- 9

tion Ia Delct't tm vlmem a’lnetad-
~ier a. Sauveniere. be volainage
sapel out biemtot one ie méoage
gig-reliant cabin-calm. oomme an

1 .

Cependnnt, l‘AlIllemande Malt
con-he repummon a someone. et
pour les gens de in region detail
11 une brave femrme ».

—— Et son marl. avons—mous de-
mondé ?

— ll avait un dréle de catac-
tére.

Auu fan. Gustave Delaattin 8e
phaignait convent de la conduit/e
de sa femme. On l'alumit entendlu
dire a allueicura remisee

— Je vals surprendre l’amsnt do
ma lemme

Car 11 étcnt persuade de l'incon-
d'unve de cello-oi.

— Elle 11’ a one one conduite l'e-
meuse conflalt-il a qui vouicit
i‘entendre.

131 asswmilt. a tort 011 a reason.
que so. lemme mofiltallt de ses ob-
eences (car 11 fut pmsleurs fols
veilleur de 11qu ur un entrepre-
neur de Sauwenn rel poun- receva
des visites de ses amis.

[In ménage désuni ?
Effective-uncut. 1e menage fut
pLus d'wne fois desum. Therésia
1etourna meme en Allemagne.d'ou

e‘ellle fwt mppelée car com

marl.
Tout dernlérement. elle owns a
11011ku la rue Haul/e 00m 5 ”imbal-

' 101' a Nazmmr.

— Elie n'était pas scule. dim he
‘mm *1

‘ blMans a Souvenlcre. loolnion pu-

uque en doutait. ottribuant a In.
brutal rite diu marl cette separation
car 1e Inge de Darlx de Gembloux
emit etc scion d'une demande de
comma-tion and avail: forbement 11f-
feoté Delatm-n.

— Elle en veut :1 ma pension. di-
salt-ii

Vendredn demler. devam 1e lune
cle max. out lieu une enlm'evwe en
conciliation. Dec temoins nous out
1111. one Dellcttm emit parlaltemem

: m plaids ea. cause mores
den lemme. owl accepts cle re-
rendre m lace cu lover conlueal.
Ce dwmi't tre ea perm

Au milieu du carrelago,
do: signer do déparl

Que 111mm entre les eooux
depuis 5vendredl
Lomue lee momma: dc Gem-
bloux penetrerem bumdl (tans lo.
Debit/e demewre devutée de la rue
Hawte. apres avodr consume awe
Thoreau await. éte twee de Dlaunieure
coups de hachette an Visage et a la
téte. acres avoir concrete que son
nwm'uw s'ébaizt faint. .iustnoe on se
pendant a la ramDe 616809.10me
condo-1 mes Dwrent ce 1evn1dre comp.
be ou une nouvelle fois Thmesxa
s'nooretairt a pawn : ses vaileea

étlalent falltes Dec offers femundns

618113111. resembles dans la 0111811111.
C'évalt uzn depart. (henna-111.1111 dé-
part one '1‘ n'a pas eu le
temps d' exécwter. Elle fwt Luce sau-
vacuum-.1 Quec comm; ses torts ?

Dans Lune IetLre reddgée en fin-1
mnnd et adreceee mu nrocunewr du‘

101 do Nemur. Gustave Delattm
indlque one so. lemme se unecon-
duisai't avec un certain Maxllfroid.

qui venait dae sortir de prison. et'

qrwe hm 1e marl bafowé. s ‘évant char-
ge de felire justice. I1 en deman-
dlailt pardon a sa lemme (1111.111131-
omit-ll. vllvamt encore 1 cc mo-
ment-

Oalr 1e mewrtrler Micros avolr
trance a nlruslewrc 1‘60le e1 avec
wne grande caulvagerle s 'é'tnlt
chance: 1‘. avnlt les vétements mo.-

culés dé sang. 131113 11 s’était lave!

avom dze rédluer so lemme. alcrs qwe
sa. vlcmme 1111011131111; :1 cache en-
sunte la hachette dem‘iéne 1e driven
(be 19. cuisine at wlila se Dendn‘e dams
lo. cage d’escadrier.

On a nelson de dire 1’1 Sou-vernle-
requ' «1113118111. moamotereé
part 11 oe meumm. S. H.

 

 

 

:1)?

AV 0““

\

c
0

Que, 11° 5, T101111. ”OPL @QH‘QL“

 

on so couvient qu’ii c'eet I" .7
. epree evcir tué an Iemm /r

«not en ecu-e M. Andre Mel
Oelut-ci

 

Fflfiflfl. 3.3;.- 1: =
..I; j 32,1 ’ . ‘ 1‘ I

n '— "'1. " “I

 

HIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIE