"PEACEFUL PICKETING."

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1923, 4 December 1913, Page 9

"PEACEFUL PICKETING."

(To the Editor.) Sir, —The leading article in your issue this morning, under the above heading is so unfair that I feci bound to place tho facts before your readers. On July 22 the Minister of Justice moved tho second reading of the Police Offences Amendment Act. In his speech he said: "Clause- 2 is new; but it- is part of an English law which has been in force many years." He then read the clause, which, contained very proper.and desirable provisions against what is known as picketing. Sub-clause 2, read by the- Minister as part of the Bill, was as follows:—"(2) Attending at or near tho house or place where a person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house- or place, in order merely to obtain or communicate information, shall not bo deemed a watching or besetting within the meaning of this section." This, as the Minister explained, is part of the law of Great Britain, where strikes are a. hundred limes more prevalent, more fierce, and more tcrriblo in their effects than in New Zealand. The. Minister spoke of it as "a reasonable Bill," and so on. During its passage through the Statutes Revision Committee tho sub-clauso above f|uoteds\'as struck out. The vote taken in the" House, and upon which von pour such wholesale condemnation, was solely upon the question whether that .sub-clause should remain in tho Bill. The simple reply to your overpouring, therefore, is: (I) Tho Minister of Justice proposed it; (2) he said it had been in force in England for many years; (3) he describetfit as reasonable, and said tho proposals of tho Bill (including, as it did then, subclause 2 of Clause 2) had "had the effect of protecting individuals who ought to have protection by the State." If your readers' will read' again your article in view of these facts, they' will get a new light upon tho subject, and also upon your methods of creating public opinion.—l am, etc.,

G. W. JUJSSEIJ,. Parliament House, December 3, I9K).

I'l'lio answer to Mr. IlusEell is really so obvious and so complete that we are surprised that ho should venture lo think he can delude the public, on the point in the manner attempted in his letter. On July 22 no one in New Zealand had any idea that such outrages as have been perpetrated by the Federation of Labour during the present strike were possible in iliis country. In the light of what has since happened there is no excuse for anyone atleinnl.ing to defend the iniquitous intimidation practised tinder the pretext of "peaceful picketing."]