THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. SATURDAY, MARCH 21, 1908. APPLYING THE GAG.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9045, 21 March 1908, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. SATURDAY, MARCH 21, 1908. APPLYING THE GAG.

From the beginning of the Blackball strike t© the present time, the Press of the dominion has been engaged in criticising the conduct of the strikers, and the inaction of the Government in. the matter of taking steps to enforce respect for the law. Mow, when the strikers are nut of the clutches of the law, the Labour Department has taken upon itself to warn the Press that criticism may lead the the critic into serious trouble. Yes- : terday, Mr J. Lomas Chief Inspector of Factories, did us the honour to forward us the following circular letter : "Department, of Labour, Wellington, March. 19th, 1908.—T0 the 1 Editor Wairarapa Age,—l beg to call i your attention to section 113 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act Compilation Act, 1905, which provides that 'lf any person prints or publishes , anything calculated to obstruct, or in any way interfere with, or prejudicially affect any matter before the Board or Court, he shall for every such offence be liable to a fine int exceeding fifty pounds.' This section does not appear to be generally known throughout New Zealand, and in several cases it has been discovered that articles have been written on matters before the Court of Arbitration or Conciliation Boards, which are calculated to prejudicially affect the decisions to be given. I am, therefore drawing your attention to the section in order that you may be aware of *t in the event of your publishing any articles on these matters." Although it is no part of the duty of any department of the State to

utter warnings, threats, or advice in j regard to the terms of the law, we are grateful to Mr Lomas for his kindly consideration. He has, doubtless, been duly instructed by the political head of his department tD enter upon this mild campaign of Press salvation. Most Ministers have an objection to criticism of their acts by the Press, and we are inclined to think that the notice we reprint has been sent out more for the purpose of checking the pen of the critic than with the object of saving him from the penalties of the law. If we are mistaken in this view of the case, we should be glad if the head of the Labour Department would add to our obligations by giving us a legal interpretation of the phrase "calculated to obstruct, or in any way interfere with, or prejudicially affect any matter before the Board or Court." The lay mind cannot fathom the cbpth of meaning it may cover. We do not think the real motive for the insertion of the clause in the Arbitration Act is far to seek. The Ar- j bitration Court, in its main functions, | is not a., judicial tribunal in the sen«e that an ordinary Court of law is-—such for instance as the Supreme j Court. Its business is arbitration, and it is an obvious anomaly to put a gag on the Press in regard to matters under the Court's consideration when strong partizana arc eligible for election to the Court, and it is not illegal for a member of the Conciliation Board to take part in labour agitations, and then to sit to officially hear and decide upon disputes which he himself may have helped to foment. The Conciliation Board is in no sense a judicial body—sometimes ifc is not even judicious; and where the Press criticises matters which are before it, it is generally in the interest'of the community. Neither life nor liberty is at stake in the cases that come before Arbitration Court or Board, though the welfare of the people as a whole may be. and any attempt to gag the Press in its efforts to conserve the public wellbeing is not likely to meet wSftto. popular approval. We' may add in conclusion that the Labour Department does not pay a high, compliment to Board or Court when it assumes the possibility of members of either of bodies being influenced in its decisions by Press or any "other' criticism.