The Christchurch Star. TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1930. THE FUNCTION OF THE POLICE

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18971, 21 January 1930, Page 8

The Christchurch Star. TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1930. THE FUNCTION OF THE POLICE

THE SITUATION that has arisen over the Rothbury colliery riots reveals a dangerous attitude of mind on the part of an increasing number of people regarding the proper function of the police. Mr Bavin’s request to the Federal Prime Minister, Mr Scullin, to issue a proclamation forbidding the drilling of persons in the use of arms, or in military exercises, has called forth the reply that the New South Wales Police Force is adequate to deal with the situation. Mr Bavin says he knows it is adequate, but the proclamation ought to be issued. And indeed Mr Bavin has good ground for his argument, for people are forgetting that the proper function of the police is to maintain law and order. Their duty is not to stage a fight against disturbers of the peace to test the prowess of the opposing parties. While Members of Parliament so far subscribe to this idea as to express the view that the police should throw away their arms, and meet the miners in equal numbers in a fight with their fists, there is the greater urgency for the proclamation that Mr Bavin has called on Mr Scullin to issue. The same attitude of mind is revealed in connection with the trouble in Samoa. Certain persons appear to consider that the civilian who resists the police is under a disadvantage because he is unarmed. But obviously he ought to be at a disadvantage, and when the police have to resort to drastic measures in the execution of their duties they cannot be too fully equipped to enforce the law. There is another point in Mr Bavin’s request to Mr Scullin. It is a constitutional one. The Executive Government of a State may call upon the Commonwealth for protection in cases of domestic violence. If the proclamation were issued it would be a guarantee of the good will of the Federal Government towards the police in the preservation of order. It would also afford them a measure of protection, and avert what now threatens to develop into a minor civil war. THE MOUNT COOK DISASTER. 'V\7'IDESPREAD SYMPATHY wifi go out to the relatives T » of the five young people who lost their lives in a blizzard in the Mount Cook region on Sunday. The suddenness of the disaster—which overtook a walking party in an exposed position, from which they had little hope of advancing or retreating even a few short miles to safety—is emphasised by the pathetically gallant failure of the young student guide who perished in an attempt to summon help. It suggests that all parties should carry something in the way of tent equipment, such as Antarctic explorers have relied on, to weather the sudden blizzards that seem to be sure, if very infrequent, visitors in the mountain ranges. With the increase of tourist traffic in the alpine region, there is all the more reason not to under-estimatt the dangers that are incident to even comparatively short walking trips on or near the glaciers. This disaster, one is bound to say, was a thing that could hardly be anticipated, but we may be sure that adequate precautions against a possible recurrence of such a disaster will be taken, wlietfaer it be in the provision of more huts, in the carriage of fuller equipment, or in the more adequate forecasting of storms such as that through which \he region is apparently still passing. THE LAW IS STILL AN ASS. ' I 'HE OFFSIDE TRAFFIC RULE was interestingly dis- -*■ cussed in a case in the Magistrate’s Court last week in which Mr D. G. Sullivan, M.P., who is chairman of the By-Laws Committee of the City Council, and a member of the Transport Committee of the House of Representatives, sought to prove that an absolutely literal interpretation of the rule would be a manifest absurdity. There is a great deal to be said on Mr Sullivan’s side. The rule of the right is a good general rule, but it can easily be reduced to an absurdity. It is obvious, for instance, that four persons arriving simultaneously from the four quarters of the compass at a right-angled intersection, and each giving way to the vehicle on the right, would remain at a standstill until by an agreement among themselves two of them took precedence over the others in defiance of the present law. An equally absurd interpretation of the letter of the law would insist that any motorist seeing a vehicle on his right, however far it might be from him, would be obliged to pull up and give it the right of way. That may be the letter, but it is not the spirit of the law. A motorist must use reasonable discretion as to whether the vehicle on his right is far enough away to allow him to negotiate the crossing safely, and the point that the'Transport Committee of the House should consider is a modification of the regulation defining what would be considered, the safe margin at which a motorist on the left could regard the rule as inoperative. There is undoubtedly a very grave abuse of the regulation as it stands to-day. Speeding motorists, regardless of the distance they may be from the crossing, will “ hog ” their way across, relying on all vehicles on their left giving way to them. Such a state of affairs is undesirable and should not have the sanction of the letter of the law.