NOTES OF THE DAY

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 7, 3 October 1929, Page 10

NOTES OF THE DAY

During a discussion on the subject of the censorship of literature in the House on Tuesday; the Leader of the Labour-Socialist Party, while supporting the suppression of indecent literature, held that the ban should not be extended to cover political and historical reading matter. Therein Mr. Holland displayed, an inadequate appreciation of the principle of the censorship, which is to protect the community from the contamination of ideas subversive of ■ political and social order; The poison of Communist propaganda, which is the literature of revolutionary violence, may be as harmful to the peace of mind of a community as that contained in indecent publications. Highly intelligent people, like Mr. Holland, might conceivably read both and still escape contamination. But it is not these who need, protection. It is the general mass of people who read without thinking, and so unconsciously absorb ideas prejudicial to the well-being of the whole community.

It is not an unusual thing for a member of the Arbitration Court Bench to record dissent from a judgment of the Court. In the past, both the employers’ and workers’ representatives on particular occasions have done this. Each is entitled to do so, and to submit reasons. Yesterday, however, in recording his objection to the finding of the Court with respect to the new Award for the Waterside Workers, the workers’ representative on the Bench, Mr. A. L. Monteith, so far departed frorii strict judicial practice as to add a sentence conveying a serious implication. “As the increase they are entitled to has been refused,” he said, “I will not accept any responsibility for any untoward happening in this industry as a result of (in my opinion) the inadequate wage allowed.” It is not necessary to go into the question whether Mr. Monteith’s view of the judgment of the Court is right or wrong. The gravity of his offending lies in the implied suggestion that an “untoward happening” might not be an altogether unexpected event, that it might even be justified by the Court’s refusal to grant better terms. For this, he declares, he will not hold himself responsible. Does it not occur to Mr. Monteith that such an event might reasonably be attributed to his very unjudicial observation and that a serious responsibility would rest upon him for having made it? . Most people would regard it as an incitement to the workers to defy the Court. Mr. Monteith may protest that no such sentiment was in his mind. If that is sb, then his objection was most unfortunately worded.