PEACEFUL PICKETS

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 172, 16 April 1932, Page 12

PEACEFUL PICKETS

Legislative Councillors Suggest Ban MOB PROCESSIONS Representations that provision should be made to prohibit peaceful picketing of relief work were made by the Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Bell in the Legislative Council yesterday during a discussion on the Unemployment Amendment Bill. The Hon. Sir James Parr, Leader of the Council, in .replying, said that amendments were to be made to the Bill by a Governor-Gene-ral’s Message, and this would provide an opportunity for the Government to consider the question raised. Sir Francis said that the time had arrived when steps should be taken to declare illegal peaceful picketing of works provided by the Government to meet unemployment. He suggested that the Council should invite the Government to insert in the Bill an appropriate clause. It was well known that one of the objects of peaceful picketing was to keep the young people in the towns and prevent them going into the country. Leader’s Reply. Sir James Parr said that the question required some consideration, as that was the first intimation he had received of it. It might be that the situation could only be met by special legislation. He did not know. He suggested, with deference to Sir Francis Bell, that the whole question should be left to the Government to decide. It would not be right for him to commit the Government nor did he propose to do so. Personally, he was not aware that peaceful picketing was going on.. Voices: What! ' Sir Francis Bell said that in addition to a prohibition of peaceful picketing it should be made an illegal act also to prevent young men ( going into camps.

Sir James Parr said that amendments would be made to the Bill by Governor-General’s Message. An opportunity would then be afforded the Government to consider the representations. The Hon. R. Moore said that the vote of the Council should be taken on the question. He thought the proposal put forward by Sir Francis Bell would be carried unanimously. It would show to the Government just what views were held by the Council on the subject. The Hon. L. M. Isitt said that the deplorable incident at Auckland emphasised what he had to say. So long as man was man there would be differences of opinion, but one was weary of the unjustifiable criticism continually hurled at those who were doing their best to extricate the country from its difficulties. The integrity of those who were bearing a tremendous responsibility was being questioned and their purpose scouted. It was most unfair. “As a matter of fact, we are at war,” Mr. Isitt said. “We are at war, not with a foreign foe, but with worldwide economic conditions. I would like to make an appeal to the newspaper editors. I feel the editors of our newspapers must realise the great responsibility resting on their shoulders. I feel they must realise their stern duty to close the columns of their newspapers to the spiteful, unscrupulous, and altogether unjustifiable criticism hurled at the leaders of a Government which is intensely concerned to do its best in the difficult circumstances we are all facing. I believe that from the Prime Minister down to the last man in the Cabinet ail are doing their best to relieve the conditions of distress. New Zealand has a Cabinet of which any country might lie proud. It is up to the people to stand loyally by it.” The Hon. J. A. Hanan suggested that the Police Offences Act was the appropriate statute in which to embody the amendment proposed by Sir Francis Bell. Question of Demonstrations. The Hon. C. J. Carrington said he would not be surprised that when the full story of the riot was told it would be found that certain women and young hoodlums were to .blame. He contended that some provision should be made in the Bill to protect relief workers from what was known as intimidation. Sir James Parr said he agreed that the Offences Act might be the proper place in which to incorporate the amendment. There were provisions in the Police Offences Act to deal with peaceful picketing, but it was a question whether they were sufficient to meet the position. “I think it is unwise to permit these mob processions,” Sir James added. “They do no good- If. I were in Auckland and had authority I would prohibit the marching of demonstrators through the main streets. If they want to inarch let them march in side streets where no one would see them.” ONLOOKERS WARNED Riot Act Will be Read MAYOR’S STATEMENT By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, April 15. An announcement that if disturbances similar to that of the past two nights occurred again he would have no hesitation in reading the Riot Act was made by the Mayor, Mr. G. W. Hutchison, to-night.

"The effect of the reading of the Riot Act will be that one hour after it lias been read, if the crowd does not disperse, every person who remains in the vicinity will be liable to arrest and imprisonment for life," the Mayor said.. “That would mean that whole streets would be cleared.”

“As to-day was late shopping night, and the disturbance was purely local, 1 did not consider it was a fair thing to make everyone leave tlie street, and thus disturb business. Further, I was relying upon a request 1 had made through tlie Press that everyone who proposed to walk the streets out of curiosity should stay at home. As, however, they did not go home after the shops closed it will undoubtedly be necessary in the future to take sterner measures and bring the public to the realisation of its duties under such circumstances. If there is a further recurrence of the disturbance, with the attendant crowd of onlookers, I will not hesitate to read the Riot Act,” added tiie Mayor. “Those who then elect to remain in the streets must take the consequences.” At a late hour it was ascertained that thirty arrests had been made to-night, irincipally on charges of rioting and mischief. No actual looting is reported. The ambulance treated thirty men for minor injuries, three cases being taken to hospital.