STREET NUISANCES

Observer, Volume XXIX, Issue 41, 26 June 1909, Page 3

STREET NUISANCES

The Wail from the Soap-box Orators

THE City Council is being implored by William Richardson and the Single Tax and Socialist street orators to repeal No. 115 of it 6 municipal by-laws. This is the regulation which is directed against the holding of street meetings, and me blaring of brass bands in the city streets. It is easy to see that repeal of such an enactment would suit William Richardson and the soap-box orators to a nicety. If the regulation were swept out of the way, it would enable them to draw together their admirers in whatever portion of the city they list, and to baAvl their Prohibitionist and Socialist propaganda, into the ears of all and sundry, the willing and the unwilling auditors.

But would the repeal of the bylaw serve the interests of the bulk of the citizens ? Most assuredly it would not. The streets are made for traffic, and not for noisy agitation. A provision that prevents the obstruction of the streets, whether that obstruction comes from band performances, shrieking orators, or the unreasonable blocking of footpaths with piles of goods, should have the support of all law-abiding citizens. Certainly, there is nothing tyrannical about it, so long as it is administered with proper discretion. The trouble about the Auckland ny-law is that as far as the street meetings are concerned it has seldom been enforced at all. The Socialistic and Prohibitionist meetings haA'e been tolerated until they have grown into an unmitigated nuisance. And yet the promoters of these disturbances are not satisfied.

One salutary effect of the existence of the by-law, however, has been that it has relegated the zealous spouters and the Salvation Army and Mission bands to the less frequented streets. There, so long as they keep within the bounds of reason, their gatherings have been winked at, and the City Council's prohibition has been held in abeyance. Why can they not be content with this amount of license ? It would be perfectly reasonable for the Council to say that if people wish td spread " reform " propaganda, or to preach sermons, they must either build or hire halls, or betake themselves to the public parks, where they would be out of the way of the city's business, or, at all events, avoid the main arteries of traffic. Instead of that, it enacts a stringent by-law forbid-

ding the holding of street meetings, and then leaves it to the police to enforce that by-law whenever any infringement occurs that amounts to a public nuisance.

On the whole, William Richardson and other demagogues have a great deal to be thankful tor in the license that has been extended to them in the past. An attempt has been made to show that the Minister for Justice is opposed to the by-law, and has staged that there will be no further prosecutions under it. If there are to be no more prosecu tic-toe, then

what have the agitators to fear ? If the by-law is to be a dead-letter, why trouble about repealing it ? It is, however, unlikely that the Minister's pronouncement goes so far as has been represented. What is probably meant is that there will only be prosecutions where an absolute interference with the rights and convenience of the general public can be proved, arid that is a reasonable enough Ministerial attitude. The by-law itself, however, is a perfect- < ly proper regulation, and it is to be hoped that the City Council will see the wisdom of retaining it.