THE SEDITION APPEALS.

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

THE SEDITION APPEALS.

DISMISSED BY FULL COURT, MILITARY SERVICE ACT PERFECTLY VALID (press associatiox telegram.) WELLINGTON, April v Tho Pull Court gave its decision morning in the appeals by Somplo. Fraser, Brindlo, Cooke, and Thorr against their convictions for seditious utterances under tho War Regulations. The Court unanimously dismissed ail tho appeals, with threo guineas cos is in all cases. Tho main contentions raised by the appellants wore:— (1) That the War Regulations Act, 1914, and the regulations made thereunder wero invalid. (2) That tho Military Service Act, 191(5, was not within tho power of tho New Zealand Parliament to enact. (3) That tho appellants should luvo been given an opportunity to bo tried by jury. (4) That tho utterances in each cajiO were not seditious. Some objection was also taken to the form of tho informations. Tho Chief Justice dealt witli these contentions seriatim. (1) As regards tho War Regulations Act, 1914, and tho regulations maxlo thereunder, he Baid the Act did Dot purpart to extend to matters or things beyond New Zealand, and that none of tho prisoners was convictod of doing anything outside of New Zealand. Even if somo of tho regulations were invalid that would not affect them all. Ho held that-Par-liament Jiad ample* powor to punish anyono in New Zealand guilty or sedis. tion, and: there was no validity in this objection. (2) Dealing with the important questions of tho validity of tho Military Service Act, 191G, and Parliament's power or jurisdiction to enact it. his Honour said that oven if tho Act was ultra vires, tho appeals could not succeed on that ground. Tho regulations were not made under that statute. He, however, was of Opinion that Parliament had power to pass tho Act. New Zealand, Australian, and Privy Council decisions showeu the power of Parliament to make laws for tho peace, order, and good government of .New Zealand, and it could not. therefore, bo suggested that it. coulu not make laws to defend Ncw Zealand beyond tho threo mile limit. The proper defence of New Zealand might require Now Zealanders to go many thousands of miles beyond its territory to defeat its enemies. To uphold tho contention of the appellants would mean that New Zealand was helpless to keep its own peaco. Ho did not know that any enabling words could be clearer than the words in our Constitution Act, which enabled tho Parliament of New Zealand to do everything that' was noccssary for the peace, ordor, and good government of New Zealand. (3) With reference to tho claim to the right to bo tried by jury, Sir Robert Stout pointed out Section 4 of the Wur Regulations Act, 1914, expressly snid that cases should be tried by summary proceedings before a magistrate and not by jury. (4) His Honour hold tb.it the utterances complained of were n'l seditious, that appellants wore rightJy convicted, and tnat the form of ";ho informations was good. In his opinion none of the points raised was good, and tho appeals must bo dismissed. Mr Justico Denniston. Mr Justice Cooper, and Mr Justice Chapman coucurrod for practically the same reasons.