"PEACEFUL PICKETING."

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1922, 3 December 1913, Page 6

"PEACEFUL PICKETING."

That clear dividing line which separates law-abiding methods in 'conducting industrial disputes from the. lawless practices which have become far too prominent in New Zealand during the last year or two is evidently invisible to some of those members of the House of Representatives who took part in the discussion on the Police Offences Bill in the House of Representatives last night. Of Me. A. H. Hixdjiaissh not very much in the way of stability is expected, but Mr. YV. A. Vkitck is regarded as a mere or less responsible Labour leader, and he should be propared to take- up a very different stand from that which he adopted last evening when the subject of picketing was before the House. It would be interesting to know where Me. Veitch and those who share his views really arc in relation to this important matter. All that the member for Wanganui succeeded in doing last evening was to create a disagreeable impression that, while ho declares himself au advocate of sane methods in dealing with industrial disputes, he is prepared to pander to the irresponsible fanatics who attempted to gain their ends 'during tlic Waihi strike by resorting to intimidation and other lawless excesses, and have since repeat!ed the attempt at Wellington" and other places throughout the Dominion. Picketing is a matter which j touches at the root the persona! liberty of (he individual, and any sane Labour representative in discussing legislation intended to regulate it should be prepared to take a mudi broader view of the subject than party exigencies mav dictate. The Attorney-GrxniUL summed up the position in a sentence, when he said that it was one of the cardinal principles of British law that a man should be allowed to g<>_ about his business without being hindered by anybody. Mit. Vkitcif failed ns lamentably as (\id Mi:. Hixumarsh lo rise to this conception of citizen liberty. Instead, both Labour members urged jhat a clause should lie embodied in the Bill, making "peaceful picketing' legal. Tinprincipal argument advanced in support of the proposal was tint such a. clause exists in the linglish Act dcnlint? with ofT-ncos in 'times of industrial disorder, The Police!

Offences Bill, as drafted included ii similar clause, bill it !ml been .struck out by the Statutes' Ik-vision Committee, and the Minister moved to accept the amendment on tho ground that the clause was unnecessary. No man could be convicted of an offence, he pointed out, for merely speaking to another. Before a man could he convicted it must be shown that lie had attempted ,to intimidate or to exercise compulsion. The Minister's view wis upheld on a division by :>B votes to 13, and although they had not pone so far as to actively support the Labour members in their unjustifiable attitude, a number of Oppositionists including Mi:, G. W. IlcssEU., went with them into the division lobby. Messrs. Wehh,. Payne, and Koeektso.n - were absent, If they had been present they would no doubt have cheerfully joined Mil. TUtssell and those associated with him in supporting Messrs. Veitcii and Hindharsh. There arc only two possible explanations of the attitude of those members who supported the "peaceful picketing'' clause. Either they deliberately engaged in an insidious attempt to give a special standing to strike-picketing that would undermine the present legal safeguards of personal liberty, or they were carried away, in mere weakness, by an unreasoning passion for slack administration of the law in times of industrial disorder. Either way their conduct is equally reprehensible and unworthy of responsible representatives of the people _in Parliament. It must be obvious to the meanest intelligence that they lifted up their voices in an unjust cause. The English precedent has no weight at all, for local legislation must be adapted to local requirements. Events of the past year or two in New Zealand have amply demonstrated the necessity of putting down with a firm hand* the lawless practices which the Federation of Labour and those unions which have adopted its abominable | tenets are only too ready to ineul- ; catc and adopt. This was admitted either in so many words, or tacitly, by the very members who championed peaceful picketing. The necessity of the time is to adequately protect law-abiding citizens and not to unearth pretexts for ignoring tho !offences of fanatics and irresponsibles who make industrial disorder an excuse for overstepping the bounds of law. In the absence of any special provision protecting his peculiar activities, the strike picket; Who approaches a workman in the street or elsewhere is entitled to exactly the same measure of legal liberty as any other citizen. It would be absurdly unjust, and, in view of recent happenings, an outrage against the public to erant him any additional privileges, and only fanatical Labour extremists would venture to directly advocate anything of the kind. Mb. Veitcii and his sunporters in the House of Representatives last night lacked the courage to openly and plainly declare their aim, but obviously that aim was to confer special privileges upon strike-pickets—men whose furction it is to molest law-abidinn-citizens. They were apparently unconcerned that in order to do this it would bo n?ccssarv first of all to abrogate the legal rights and privileges of the general body of lawubidinc citizens. That, in fact, was the ■ issue upon which the division above referred to was taken | in the House of Peorosentativeshst night, and the xlefeyted minority could hardlv have found a more unjust cause in which to exert themselves.