MRS. FREEH'S CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 296, 14 December 1936, Page 12

MRS. FREEH'S CASE.

It was a good tiling for tlic fair name of New Zealand that a Labour Government, with its broader international outlook, was in oflice when the Freer case occurred, otherwise it is certain, with their traditional orthodox attitude, the Forbes-Coates Cabinet would have fallen into the same trap as Mr. Paterson in Australia, and would have meekly followed the example of the Commonwealth in unfairly preventing Mrs. Freer from landing here. Fortunately for us we were saved from being made a laughing stock, partly by reason of the humanitarian stand taken by the acting-Minister of Customs, the Hon. Mr. Fagan, M.L.C., and the fact that the Dominion some years ago did away with the unethical subterfuge of making a British citizen submit to a test in a language which the Customs officials do not even understand and have ascertained- the applicant - does not

know. It is an iniquitous thing tliat in a British Dominion, a law for the regulation of the entry of undesirable foreigners and those who. want to engage

in subversive tactics should have been invoked on purely domestic grounds, to do something for which the civil Courts are available. The alleged morals of the parties concerned have nothing to do with the principles of the case, but the whole matter, as the protest and indignation aroused, shows that the Press and many individuals appreciate the point of the insidious attack on the liberty of the British subject. While ! most people feel sorry for Mrs. Dewar | and her child, a case of the eternal triangle should not have been made, as it has never been made before, to do an illegal thing. Even the average man in the street does not see more in this instance than a quarrel between two women, one of whom, through friends and others, has moved bureaucratic officials to wrongful action, put the lover of freedom is up in arms at what has taken place, because he appreciates the warning of that familiar phrase, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." The misuse of the machinery of a Department of State to set its regulations in motion to effect private vengeance on a defenceless woman, when the Courts were open to secure a remedy, is the reason of the furore which has staggered Mr. Patcrson and his colleagues, and the case may have farreaching repercussions. Under this new interpretation, if' in the future Mr. Patcrson returns from a trip abroad and another Government is in power in Australia, it will be quite possible to brand him as an "undesirable" person because of his methods in this case, and submit him to a test in Greek, which, if he does not understand, will justify his exclusion from his adopted country. F.M.G.