MR PARR’S SET BACK.

Grey River Argus, 3 July 1922, Page 4

MR PARR’S SET BACK.

The decision of Mr Justice Salmond in Miss Park’s case well illustrates the high-handed undemocratic methods which for years past the present Government have pursued in endeavouring to enforce a policy of senii-Prus-sianism in the country. It is now evident to everybody that the Minister of Education in ordering an enquiry into some remark or other made by the teacher in question was basing his action upon a. regulation that was legally void. The appeal made in the ease has not only vindicated Miss Park’s stand for the liberties of teachers and public servants, but has shown the necessity for putting a curb upon autocratic ministers. Even if the said regulation had been valid. Miss Park had good reason for the contention advanced that the Minister was so biassed in this connection that it disqualified him from exercising the discretion which he claimed under the regulation. Tliis claim was either to suspend the eer-ilicate of a teacher at his own sweet will, or to cancel it altogether. Considering the flag-waving proclivities of some politicians, it would be the height of injustice to allow them, when clothed with a little brief authority to ride rought-shod over the rights of State servants. Air Parr has been a particularly aggressive propagandist of showy imperialism, with his dag-saluting and oath-imposing edits, and at the time of Miss Itietzel’s case, he showed that discretion was not his strong point where the advocacy of social" changes is concerned. It was in the same temper that he and his advisers, acted when he attempted to suspend a teacher's certificate and compel her submission to an enquiry about something which, magnified no matter how many times, was no more than an expression of personal opinion upon a particular incident. The learned Judge points out that if the Minister had acted as he proposed doing, and the teacher had waited for him to commit himself. the plaintiff could have brought an action for damages against the Crown. So that in issuing an injunction restraining the Minister from either cancelling or suspending the certificate of the teacher, the Court is saving the 'Minister from a serious blunder. The action would not have legally impaired the certificate, but had the teacher quietly submitted to the projected illegality it would have perhaps been the forerunner of an injury to many a teacher. It is time the Government were taught a lesson that it is not a law unto itself and that the constitution of the State is designed to protect individual liberty just as much as to prevent any injury to imperial interests. It is to be hoped the lesson of this successful appeal will not be lost on the people, and that | they will unitedly stand up for popuI her rights in the future.