The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING "LUCEO NON URO” WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1937. Five Men Go To Prison

Southland Times, Issue 23389, 22 December 1937, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING "LUCEO NON URO” WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1937. Five Men Go To Prison

Five Auckland taxi drivers have decided to serve prison sentences rather than pay fines imposed recently for a breach of the Transport Licensing Amendment Act. “There is not one of us who can afford to pay a fine because of the persistent dictatorial persecution we have ha,d meted out to us during the past two years,” said the men in a statement printed yesterday. “Yet again there is not one of us who can afford to turn down absolutely legitimate business, for which we have been specializing for years, because our No. 1 Licensing Authority decides to give the business exclusively to a chosen few.” That the “chosen few” might receive additions to their ranks was hinted by the Minister of Transport in a telegram to the men; but the phrase “if additional cars were required” was not likely to encourage them to lodge a formal appeal, together with the “prescribed fee.” The case is interesting because it brings before public attention the dictatorial powers that have come to Cabinet Ministers as the result of Labour legislation. The Industrial Efficiency Act and the Transport Licensing Amendment Act are the outstanding examples of this legislation; they are both alike in their restrictive effects on private enterprise, in their tendency towards a closer regimentation of industry, and in their direct interference with individual freedom. Bills of this kind can become law without any perceptible impact on the outer structure of society: the voice of criticism sounds faintly in the ears of men whose immediate welfare is not affected. But the law becomes suddenly real when it is applied in practice to special trades and industries, and individuals throughout the country are made to realize that the development—and sometimes the mere continuance —of enterprises to which they may have given the best years of their lives is no longer in their own hands. The field of enterprise is being carefully zoned, and there is only a single authority to which appeals can be addressed in cases of injustice or hardship. This authority is vested in a Cabinet Minister; and although, while public opinion is allowed its free expression under the surviving forms of democracy, cases of glaring injustice are likely to create a pressure of indignation which will force a Minister to give the matter very close attention—and may influence his ultimate decision —it cannot be said too often that the framework of authoritarian government already exists in the laws placed on the Statute books in the last two years, and that it could support a more rigorous control if means were found to curb the free discussion of grievances. The Auckland case proves clearly that the Transport Licensing Amendment Act was framed in the spirit of narrow and rigid departmental control, that its arbitrary disposal of power is undemocratic, and that its provisions for appeal give no promise of anything better than a dilatory and uncertain adjustment of errors. No one will want these five men to go to prison, especially at a time of the year when most people like to forget the more sombre phases of life. But their decision may be productive of good in more ways than one. How far they are right in their present attitude is a question for informed opinion. But they are clearly in earnest, and they believe that they have been hindered and persecuted in their “honest endeavour to earn a livelihood.” They are not “capitalists”, it should be remembered, but workers who have attempted to extend their legitimate activities. They are without the support of powerful unions, and in refusing to pay fines which they believe to have been imposed in accordance with an unjust law they are making the only kind of protest which can draw immediate public attention to their predicament. If the Transport Licensing Amendment Act had been framed more in accordance with democratic legal procedure their case could not have been disposed of so summarily. In the meantime the new Auckland Provincial Freedom Association should find itself with a case worthy of its active interest. That it may be necessary for men to choose a prison sentence instead of accepting what they believe to be injustice is a sufficient proof that there is need for a closer watch on the trend towards a ministerial dictatorship in “‘God’s Own Country.”