Untitled

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 15868, 5 April 1917, Page 6

Nobody in New Zealand will be in the smallest degree surprised that tho Appeal Court has dismissed the appeals mado against the conviction of the Red Fed. sedition-mongers for breaches of the War Regulations. Everybody was surprised that appeal was made, and hardly anyone believes that the appellants really expected any other verdict than that which .ha s now been given. Had tho appeals succeedcd—had the Court held that the law is such as the appellants desire —there would havo been nothing to prevent tho anti-mili-tarists and disloyalists from giving substantial moral assistance to Germany, and they would assuredly havo used this liberty to the full. During the hearing of the case it was suggested that trial by jury would have resulted differently for tho offenders. No doubt the sympathisers with sedition will continue to make that suggestion. "Wo think most people will agreo with us that any honest jury would have pronounced without hesitation that the speeches of Semple and his allies wero seditious.

What, after all, did the appeals really amount to, questions of law aside? Surely, they amounted only to an assertion of tb© right of seditious men to go about the country preaching lawlessness and disloyalty, and stirring up weak-headed men to riot and disorder. That was the intention, as it was the tendency, of their actual speeches. One further point is to bo noted. These men may bo represented a s being imprisoned because they aro working-men, and that their imprisonment is a blow at Labour. Some of them, during their trial, did eay this. It would bo just as reasonable for a burglar to appeal for sympathy on the ground that he was a working-man. Their offences were entirely foreign to tho interests of organised Labour. They were not asserting any trade-union right, or any right specially workingclass, in delivering their seditious speeches. They were not advancing Labour's interests, or fighting Labour's battles. They wero merely seditious mischief-makers with whom, if they were wise, trade-unionists would have nothing more to do.

The new Russian Government's proposals respecting Poland go beyond anything promised by the old Government, ,and there iß\now a reasonable prospect of a free Poland when tho war is over. The first promise made on behalf of the Czar's Government was contained in the Grand Duke' 3 proclamation, which was generous in sentiment, but vague in its terms. No further step was taken until military disasters left Poland under Germany's control. Tho Grand Duke's pledge was then confirmed by the then Premier, M. Goremykin,. and a Special Committee was set up to draft a scheme of autonomy. Nothing came of this committee, and M. noff, as Foreign Minister, submitted a moderato scheme of autonomy to tho Czar and the Council of the Empire, but this was rejected. This delay and uncertainty played into Germany's hands, and Germany's promiso of an "independent" Poland was regarded by niany Poles as something better than anything Russia would offer. In January last tho Czar decided to summon a special conference to go into the question anew. Perhaps tho reactionary forces would havo succeeded in rendering this conference abortivo. But the Poles havo now the best kind of guarantee that a free constitutional Govc-ri-racnt is in storo for them, since it was the spirit of democratic freedom that brought tlie present Russian Government into power.

Amongst tho letters on the wheat question that we printed the other day was one in which a correspondent asked why the Government, as they have compelled men to serve in the Expeditionary Forces, do not compcl farmers to grow wheat—presumably at the consumer's price. Perhaps one reason why this delightfully simple method of solving the problem has not been adopted is to be found in the Government's reluctance to resort to naked robbery. For between forcibly taking £500 in cash from a farmer, for distribution amongst non-farmers, and forcing him to lose £500 in raising a poor crop on unsuitable soil, in an adverse season, there is no difference in kind. The farmers may reasonably ask why Messrs So-and-So should not bo forced to sell boots at 5s a pair, or overcoats at 33 6d each, if they themselves are to bo forced to lose money. But we have noticed our correspondent's letter only in order to show where his supposed analogy fails. Why are men forced to join the Army? In order to help Sir Douglas Haig forward on the Somme. Is that the object of the proposal that the farmers shall be forced to grow wheat here?