WHEN LAWYERS DIFFER

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 6492, 11 April 1908, Page 8

WHEN LAWYERS DIFFER

The unwisdom of the Attorney-General in expressing an authoritative opinion on tho merits of the legislation dealing with the Blackball strike, instead ot allowing tEfe statute to he interpreted by the Courts, is exemplified by the opinion which tho Employers’ Association has obtained from Mr Skerrett, K.C. It will bo observed that Mr Skerrett disagrees almost entirely with Dr Findlay’s interpretation, upholding in a decided way the view that Parliament, when it passed the amending Act of 1905, rightly regard-

ed a strike as a continuous offence, and the aiders and abettors of a strike as contributory offenders. There can bo no doubt that this latest development increases the difficulty with which our administrators are confronted. They have been advised by friends and foes alike that the issue was one to bo faced and not evaded; that no good could come out of interference; that partisanship was intolerable; that finesse was impracticable; that inaction would bring the law and its administration into contempt. They have ignored all admonition and advice, placed an academical construction upon the law, and pursued' a course of vacillation and ineptitude. They have waited for a strike “ which is an offence within itself” to fizzle out, hut a strike which Parliament contemplated, and which the law was really meant to deal with, has gone steadily forward. The object-lesson is plain. It is the duty of a Government to see that the statutes are competently administered, not to stand on a pretext with a danger signal impotently hoist between the law and the law-breaker. The strike is no longer of consequence. It will presently collapse because of its inherent weakness. But the Government will have a difficulty in explaining to Parliament its reason for allowing a statute of recent making to fall into contemptible desuetude.