POLICE OFFENCES BILL.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 275, 1 November 1884, Page 2

POLICE OFFENCES BILL.

Referring to the Police Offences Bill just passed by the Lower House the Otago Daily Times says:—ln the year 1884 it seems incredible that a law should be enacted to prevent guns being fired, or work done by those who wish. We can well understand that the Premier, for tactical reasons, did not wish to seem to oppose a clause which is supposed to be associated with the Christian profession; but for him to support it seems to be carrying compliance a step too far. We may say at once that the bill touches us on the quick. If its provisions are carried out by the police, newspaper offices will be closed on Sunday nights, and the unfortunate printers, reporters, &c, deprived of their Saturday evening freedom, and obliged to come to work when the clock strikes midnight on Sunday. The thing is not only absurd, but a gross interference with the liberty of the subject. There is to be no gardening on Sunday. All amusements are to be rigidly prohibited. We suppose that boating would fairly come under the ban, and the wretched boy who indulges in a romp with a ball will be liable to find himself brought before the Police Court on Monday morning. We must confess that the clause is so absurd that it is almost incredible that it should have been passed by a House supposed to be composed of men with average sense. We fancy ourselves back in the days of Piaise-God-Barebones’ Parliament, and instead of Mr. Downie Stewart supporting the clause we seem to hear Mr. Habakkuk Bind-their-kings-in-chalnsand - their-nobles-in-links of-iron snuffling through his nose. Trams and omnibuses will necessarily cease to run, though we notice than an exception has been made for railways, on the principle, we suppose, that a Government, in the words of Sydney Smith, has neither a body to be kicked nor a soul to be condemned. The momentous question further arises as to whether it will be permissible to shave on the Sabbath, for an answer to which we must refer anxious inquirers to the member for Dunedin West. During the debate, we are told, “ Mr. Stout had to admit that, technically speaking, under the bill clergymen preaching in church would be liable to be punished.” Can the force of absurdity go further ? We trust that the Council will nip in the bud this attempt to force Sabbatarianism down the throat of the community. If the bill is passed we take it for granted that the clause will remain as inoperative as that which forbids sweepstakes on a racecourse, but there are few things more insidiously demoralizing than these laws which are made to be disregarded. If the law is to command the respect of fensib'e men, it must not be burdened with silly enactments of this kind, which are as bad in principle as they would be intolerable in practice.