POLICE OFFENCES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15824, 24 July 1913, Page 6

POLICE OFFENCES.

A careful examination of the Bill introduced by Mr Herdman in tho House of Representatives for the amendment of the Police Offences Act fails to disclose the presence in it of the terrible provisions upon which the heated rhetoric of some o! the members of tho Opposition was expended during the discussion at the second reading of the measuro. The pretence that there is any proposal in the Bill t which would, as Mr Russell suggested, stifle free speech is the most ridiculous imaginable. V 'There is not a word in the measure that lends itself to this suggestion. If there was, public resentment would be expressed against it quite as justly as it was against the proposal of the Ward Government in 1908 to apply a gag to candidates and their supporters and to the press in the interval between the first and second ballots at parliamentary elections. But there is no cause for apprehension on this scoTe in respect of the Bill that is now before Parliament. The puzzle really is to know what provision of the measure it is which

Mr Russell and Mr Roderick M'Kenzie have twisted in order that they might put this preposterous construction upon it. That the Bill contains important pro- ( visions strengthening the law as it now ( exists for the protection of persons who are proceeding lawfully about their business is perfectly true. The need for these provisions was clearly shown, however, during the disorderly and disgraceful occurrences at Waihi after the resumption of work in the mines. It must have been made; perfectly evident to the unprejudiced observer at that time that the law for the protection of peaceable citizens against molestation was not sufficiently effective. Mr Herdman's proposals to ensure that these citizens shall be adequately protected merit, therefore, the support of the law-respecting public. The only valid objection that has been offered to the Bill is that which is based upon the belief that if it is enacted in tho form in which it has been introduced it will have the effect of prohibiting peaceful picketing in times of industrial strife. The provision which it contains on this poinrseems to have been borrowed from an English statute of. 1875. It declares that it is an offence on the part of a person if, with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing, or to do, any act which such person has a legal right to do, or to, abstain from doing, he wrongfully and without legal authority watches or besets the house or otheT place where such other person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place. But the 6ame section of the Bill contains the provision that "attending at or near the honfte or place where a person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to he, or the approach to such house or place, an order merely to obtain or communicate information, shall not be deemed a watching or besetting within the meaning of this section.'' These provisions may readily be productive of confusion by reason of their indefinitcness. And so it was found in Great Britain, J where they led to a good deal of litigation, some of which' resulted in the issue of injunctions to restrain unionists from picketing the works of employers. Under "The Trades Disputes Act, 1906," the Imperial Parliament substituted for the qualifying provision which we have quoted a clause declaring it to be lawful for one or more persons acting for themselves oi for a trade union or for an individual employer to attend at or near a house or place " if the attendance is merely for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information or of peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain from working." This apparently amounts to a legal recognition of peaceful picketing and, as it ia hardly likely that Mr Herdman contemplates the prohibition of this practice, which is not in itself necessarily objectionable, the desirability of the adoption of this amendment may ■ be suggested to him. The effect would - be to removo from the Bill the ambiguity which it now presents, but not to impair the real value of the measure as a safe- ' "uard against the occurrence of disorder ' and the use of methods of intimidation i in times of industrial dispute.