Tokens: 11
.
I
regret
that
I
can
not
accept
this
argument
,
despite
its
considerable
persuasiveness
.
The
matter
seems
to
me
to
turn
on
the
effect
of
the
word
"
interference
"
in
the
phrase
"
There
shall
be
no
interference
...
with
...
except
such
as
is
...
necessary
...
for
the
prevention
...
etc
.
"
I
think
the
better
view
is
that
this
contemplates
the
act
itself
that
is
carried
out
in
the
exercise
of
the
restriction
,
rather
than
the
restriction
or
type
of
control
from
which
it
derives
.
It
is
the
act
-
in
this
case
the
refusal
of
permission
–
that
constitutes
the
interference
,
rather
than
the
taking
of
power
to
do
so
under
a
regulation
which
,
theoretically
,
might
never
be
made
use
of
.
In
other
words
,
it
does
not
suffice
to
show
that
in
general
some
control
over
the
correspondence
of
prisoners
-
and
even
on
occasion
a
stoppage
of
it
-
is
"
necessary
...
in
the
interests
of
...
public
safety
"
or
"
for
the
prevention
of
disorder
or
crime
"
.
If
that
were
all
,
it
could
be
admitted
at
once
that
in
principle
such
a
necessity
exists
,
-
subject
to
questions
of
degree
and
particular
application
.
But
it
has
to
be
shown
in
addition
that
the
particular
act
of
interference
involved
was
as
such
"
necessary
"
on
those
grounds
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O