OBJECTION TO PROPAGANDA.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18598, 20 June 1930, Page 8

OBJECTION TO PROPAGANDA.

WARNING BY ARBITRATION JUDGE. By Telegraph—Pre?s Association. CHRISTCHURCH, June 19. A warning against the publication in the Press of statements concerning disputes to come before the court was given by Mr Justice Frazer in the Christchurch Arbitration Court yesterday. at the conclusion of the hearing of the application in connection with the Engineers’ and Boilermakers Dominion avterd. “It has been stated that there has been some ill-feeling over this application,” his Honour said. “There has certainly been some misunderstanding, and the members of the Court are rather afraid that statements appearing in the Press commenting on the application may have had something to do with it. We do not want to suggest that these comments were due to one side alone, but we have i noticed that responsible people on one side or the other will persist in making statements to the Press regarding the details of disputes and applications before they come before this Court, and expressing personal views. “I notice that a short time ago his Honour, the Chief Justice, found it necessary to make some comment in the Press in reference to cases coming before the Supreme Court. The members of this Court join in the tribute paid by his Honour to the general good tone of the Press. We are quite willing to absolve the Press from any intention of doing anything improper, but it is desirable that we should repeat what the Chief Justice said concerning the impropriety of publishing ex parte statements on anything to come before this Court or any other Court. Section lio of the Arbitration Act put the matter very concisely, and reads as follows: ‘Every person who prints or publishes anything calculated to obstruct or in any way interfere with or prejudicially affect any matter before a Council or the Court, is liable to a fine not exceeding £so.’ It is quite obvious that Parliament, in framing the Act. desired to make it clear that there should be no discussion of any matter to come before this Court. “Possibly a word to the wise may be added,” his Honour concluded. “If responsible people who knew that section exists would refrain from making statements to the Press about anything to come before the Court, they may save the Press the trouble of paying a £SO fine.” Comment by Advocates. Earlier in the day, w’hen Mr R. F. Barter, the employees’ representative, had raised his third objection to the hearing of the application, there was a reference to the newspaper reports on matters connected with the application. His Honour said that he realised that certain notices had appeared in the newspapers regarding the matter. Sometimes newspapers published reports that should not be printed, and the present appeared to be an instance. Mr T. O. Bishop, who appeared for the employers, said that he had intended to call attention to the newspaper notices. However, he was more concerned with the hostility that had been shown in the Court by the other side. Mr Barter remarked that if any spirit of hostility had arisen, the action of the employers was responsible for it. There had been numerous Press reports referring to that matter, and he wished to state that the employers had been favoured by the paper. He added: “There is an account from an English paper relating the opportunities for women in the engineering trade. Yesterday I found the same thing; an account of how a woman worked in an engineering shop and what a wonderful time she had—for a fortnight.”