The Marlborough Express PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1908. A DISPUTED POINT.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLII, Issue 90, 15 April 1908, Page 4

The Marlborough Express PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1908. A DISPUTED POINT.

Lawyers, like other professional men, differ, and when they do the questions upr i which they are unable .^6; agree pa: only be decided in. the light of cormrioiri sense, which is so 'bftbn1 the ' antithesis of: law! '; The Attorney-General has lately decided that a strike is not a continuous offence. When men strike, said Dr. Findlay, they commit an offence against the law by the' mere act of striking (that is to say, leaving work in concert, and without notice). For this the law imposes a penalty, but it takes no cognisance of the fact that the strikers continue '" on strike." This is no offence, and the law provides no punishment for it. Mr C. Skerrett, K.C., on the other hand, takes an entirely oposite view. Men not only break the law by striking, he says, but they continue to break it by remaining on strike, and those who aid and abet them are also guilty of an offence, though Dr. Findlay says they are not. These two learned gentlemen having given opinions so entirely opposed to each other, what does common sense say upon the subject? Suppose, for instance, the -striker never resumes work. Having a sufficiency of this world s goods to maintain him in comfort without the necessity for further work, he decides to refrain from occupation for the rest of his life. Is he guilty of a continuous offence by remaining unemployed? Suppose, again, his employer decides to employ someone else in his place, is he .still a continuous striker? Suppose—but one could go on supposing indefinitely. A recent writer in a Wellington paper has expressed his desire for further enlightenment, after reading Mr Skerrett's opinion, and he pertinently says:—"The other day ten carpenters employed by the Westport-Stockton Company struck work. Their places have been filled. Are they still strikers (by the way, they haven't been fined yet)? If so, shall I be punishable if I meet one of those ten carpenters ten years hence and give- him half-a-crbwn ? Shall I be an aider and abettor? Or will that particular strike be over? If po, how? If not, why not?" MiPse are some of the perplexities which such opinions as those of Mr bkerrett create. Common sense

clearly points to the conclusion that men-may,* without breaking any law, please themselves^ whether they work or notj fund employers may also exercise a similar privilege as to whether they shall; continue to • grant ', employment, even though they may have been guilty of creating a " lock-out," and have been fined for it in the first instance. A clear: understanding of this question is essential, but there is not much doubt that the At-torney-General's definition is the correct one. The law declares the act of striking to be the offence for which punishment is inflicted, and it is in accordance with this interpretation that the Blackball strikers have been fined for striking, but have not been: further dealt with for continuing "on strike." The law having been partially vindicated in this case, there yet remains something further to do. It is one thing^ to impose a penalty, and another to enforce it. The Government has been strangely lax in regard to the latter phase of the question. The Union has'declared that it will not pay the fine, and no steps appear to be taken to compel compliance with the law: Sir Joseph .Ward's,.-latest attitude of '".■masterly-inaction " in this matter does not relieve the situation. The country is looking to the Government to compel for the law, but the Prime Minister practically adopts the policy of "Dogberry" in "Much Ado About Nothing,"—"Let them alone. They that touch pitch shall be defiled . . .they are not the men I took them for " ! But, continues Sir Joseph, " The law must be obeyed, and if either side disrespect it no one need ask the Government for help"!