The Evening Star FRIDAY, DECEMBER 1 1939. WAR REGULATIONS AND UNITY.

Evening Star, Issue 23438, 1 December 1939, Page 8

The Evening Star FRIDAY, DECEMBER 1 1939. WAR REGULATIONS AND UNITY.

It is not only Mr .Scrimgeour whom the Government might have restrained before now from activities in direct conflict with its own pleas for political moderation in war time. In the latest number of its official organ the Prime Minister’s well-inspired , appeal is followed, within a few pages, by one of those rabid tirades, extending for almost a. page, with cross-headings, by which that journal has aspired to show the “ capitalistic Press ” how leading articles of real restraint should be written. We pass over explosives —— t£ innuendo,” ** misrepresentation, “ deliberate lying,” “ hypocritical,” “ ” —hurled at the unperturbed Press, to come to the real point. This official organ of the Labour Party wished to see use made of the emergency regulations. (We employ the past tense for a reason which will he afterwards explained, giving cause for the hope that the article which we are reviewing will be the last of its kind.) Deepairing of annihilating by mere words—even such words, and such an abundance of them—all those who dare to express opinions contrary to its own, the article prescribes sharper treatment for them. Not for the Press alone is such Nazi, or Soviet, method advised. “ Subversive statements made at meetings throughout, the country,” as well as in the Press, interpreted as “ likely to hinder the Dominion’s war effort,” are held to merit a much wider application of it. “ The statements that have been made in various parts of the country by farmers, by importers, by business men of one sort or another, and by the newspapers themselves, appear to constitute sedition in many cases, and all of them are designed to create public alarm.” As sedition they should be dealt with under the Emergencies Regulations Act, which the Hon. Mr Fraser apologised for when he brought it down, as only justified by a national emergency.

It is plain that the Hon. Mr Fraser and the official organ of the Labour Party have been at variance. Let us quote the Minister further. “It would be an entire misuse of these regulations,” he explained, “if they were used to suppress free expressions of opinion that neither infringe the ordinary laws of the country nor endanger it in any way. Nothing could be further from the mind of the Government in that connection, and, even at this hour of national danger, care should be taken to see that those who differ from the Government, or who believe that actions taken are wrong, should have the right of criticism conserved to them.” The party organ has been also at variance with Mr Savage, who, in the appeal for “ fair play and national unity ” published in its own columns under those headings, said: “ 1 have no love for far-reaching war regulations that make it technically possible to put the national life into a strait-jacket. Nor, I imagine, have the other Governments of the British Commonwealth, which have passed similar legislation, any more love for it than we. All these powers are provisional; they are drawn widely only out of abundance of caution.” The inference was, plainly, that they would not be used if their Use could be avoided. As evidence that 11 vested interests are waging war on the Government,” in the midst of a general War, making cause for sweeping recourse to the emergency regulations, the leading article cites certain meetings which have been 'reported in the Press, general criticisms of the Government’s policy pronounced 'by the same Press, and statements made by individuals at fanners’ meetings. Since these last were made by individuals, and did not express the intentions of the meetings, the Labour journal waa probably justified in its belief that no harm would be done to the war or anything else by publishing them in a collection, and so giving them much more emphasis than they had previously received.

We have hope for the Labour journal. The offence of its colossal article is not one tint need be rubbed in, since there ate special circumstances. An explanation on an earlier page, which casual readers might too easily miss, though m doubt it -was njOAftt to bo-aeon, seti>

out that the article was written, and in type, before the Prime Minister made his appeal of Sunday night. It was allowed to stand, to show how differently lie might have spoken. The Prime Minister’s appeal to reason was wiser than his journalistic supporters’ appeal to unreason; we can hope Mr Savage’s lead will be followed in future. With regard to the war regulations, 'which were based on British example, Labour, with others, will have noted that the “ Tory ” Government in Britain is amending these provisions so that the largest amount of liberty may be allowed in war conditions. The regulation, referring to influencing public opinion is redrawn so aa to apply only to use made of false statements, documents, or reports. That liberal action reinforces the case for the most cautious administration of the New Zealand regulations till these also can be revised.