STRIKE SPEECHES.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1983, 13 February 1914, Page 4

STRIKE SPEECHES.

HOLLAND GUILTY.

FINJDINGS ON TWO COUNTS,

HOLLAND'S HARANGUE.

THE JURY FAILS TO AGREE.

Trials'for alleged seditious language ;.the Supreme Court yesterday. The jury iempaholled to try Edward Hunger , ' disagreed , , and a new trial .will probably-Jbe held shortly. In the eases r.Kaiiist.3Honry Holland, the editor of the.jVMaqriland Worker,", the- verdict returiiod: is guilty on twb counts'. Holland ,is ]\iioir on bail awaiting the deci-sionVof-the .Court of Appeal .respecting Bom , ©;' law points raised by his counsel. Th©: Court of Appeal does i not'-sit till April.;-v ;- /. ••■• ■'.:■■ . ; '>:'' '■■-. ■•;'; ■ '■' ]Qunng';.the trials His Hoilpur the' Chie{ justice'(Sir Robert: Stout) presided:; >;i Mr.; P. S. K. Macassey !r;ejjre-' sented.^ihe;>Grown, "and Messrs.-:'T,'-11.' WjlionKand/Cl , ; J, ,'O'lipgßii appeared for the-'jicensed./ -.■•', ~ . ; ■) ■■'

;Hiinte(vat the Park. ■ The wbipaOaflcged -fo have beeli li&ed by Hunter iiii.his speech are tho following, <5r words to like effect:— ''K- : "Ymi fellows, must realise that if you are going to control things' properly yuu..must have might bc» ■ hind yoiu;V;-/¥pu cannot do it with a .box-,of ; "cigarettes and a match. : The,.s£.nKei ; s>cbntrol 'the Coast, ami all- law and order. The jnojfrptt'.strikc were told by tin, ' ]eaders4!iin'they.had tho freedom of tlie?eity''there; and, having that, could ;do -anything'they thought fit. Tljqro.is , a Mayor in Westport, but set'.aside; and every- - tmn'g-is- 'controlled by the strikers. TKey;-'mvh:bring tho 'specials', round . taiitiio'i.Coast, in fact, wo give them a'tfspeoial ',invitation, and I sivear-. this, in the naniojaf the .party most.,. concerned,,; ;that i '>'foi?->'-'.bvery one ■'; - 'special.-they.care to put down on the-Coast; iip to one thousand) wo ■ canput'.dowu one beside him, just as gopdvafm'a.n, and if thisyis going to as to who is-going to w.eyiro; prepared to makfe]b£s;contest. Mortf> than :-, that, 'we'.'men kiio'w-tlmt /ernmeutS^hedding"blood. ..We had .-■'" our fellow-iybrkors brutally murdered inWaihi';;...There 13 no one in- ■ stance from' 'the ■ workers' ;■" ranks where we hayei caused any bloodshed. N&ivy'if they- aro going to shed ouiiihloVd, whyshould we look on atibiu'jjojlucn and, children being clubbef^.-'andj6ffcr -ho.'retaliation! , Nowjv"i β-ifliey want a revolution, theSftl3iave'..,it:;... r 4f ! ;.tliey,Joice, : ..- it (jii'-'ti'S'-.thcy- 'ca'n havo < a revolu- • ■ ,tipnjjw/-f; u ;-\' . • : ' : :. ■/ .'■ the..Chief JusticeJvSir-" Itobert Stout , , is presiding ;at fcliOf'ti'ial.'! Mr. 'P. '-'Si K. Macassey is repftis&itmg the...Crowni.-'and Messrs; :j4Q'P9S a » a™ derejicjiiig<Hunter.■'/;■' v' v: -;\ , V ,; :Y <.:;. ' Solicitor's/ '« r

Tlie«evidence',iu.Hunter's-case was and Mr.'.Wilford .. addressto the jury., before on, that,da'y. When , the Court resiim'ed yesterday"; .Mr. Macassoy • jury. .. •'.. ■'.';■ . '.■Mr;,H-,_M&c(issey said that there wore two pbjntsJiiutho case;whicli the jury had tpYbpsWdr—(l)-'Were. the words ia' the irifliciinfint;} or words substantially to I that effccKSijoken by Hunter? (2) Were ■ those ■wordsrseditious?. Tho evidence which had 6'efiiv given by Mr..Edwards, who reported tho speech as it appeared in The Dominion, was clear. That wit-. ness. had. taken down in shorthand the words which Hunter used, and in the '.appeared there;were' some wards' which, while perhaps not' ; 'alto?, gtlther the words of Hunter, coi)veyed •his meaning. Was thoro-any,reason why that-evidence should not .b<i taken'?. There was' no suggestion' wit- 1 ! MsS'Was biased. Moreover,his eyideiice' did not stand alone. There-wis'alsd'tbe ' evidonceof Detectives LeiHs.and' Demp-. sey, -who were impartial raeui If reports iu the. "Times" and the "Post", : ' differed from that of Tnn Dominion's re- ; port, w}iy''wero the reporters of those papers rnot; called for ,-th'e defence ?'• As to the ovideiico ; ;giyeii by Hunter,\theres " were two points 111 the'jildibtmeiit which ne had practically' admitted) . He, had. admitted the nse of .'these Words:-—•: ; ' .*•'■'■' .■ • ■' 'They pan', bruig' - tho •, J specials' ', round to .the Coast; in fact' them a special and I ■swear this ;n the'namo'of Hhe .party '' /.most concerned .that for. every one 'special' they caro to put down, on tho Coast'up.-to"1000/we can put down one beside him, just as good a 'inaii. And if this - is going/to be a contest as to who is going to c,on- • trol, then we are prepared to make ■ ; jt'-'a contest." . iHunter said (that, that meant an intclleptnal coutest, but 'it was an insult t<r the intelligence-of the jury to ask them to accept that as an explanation. The;indictment charged Hunter' with having said:— ■ -. . -'.'Now, if they are going to shed' our blood, why ishould we look on" ,at our women and children being •cmbbed.and otter n,o.Vetaliation?". . jjHunte'r said in evidence that the word '...Bjt used was "protest, , - , not "retaliation. Was that conceivable? . . . 31frMacassey';tlicii referred ;to'thefact; that itl had. been .suggested by the defence that the- speech; was made at a tiiije of quiet—when the strike was practically over. He contended that 'it was not necessary for a riqt tofoltow'. ft-was .Tittering with intention that mattered, not the consequence-: which followed. As; to Hunter's declaration in the wit- ., ness-box'that .he 7 !was:iiot in favour of violence, and tr(ne of one brotherhood, MOlaca'ssby referred to the accused's phrase, '(You cannot do it witlf.a box of cigarettes arid a match," and -liis allusion to7thc baton which was termed the key with Tvjjich the port was "going to. bo'kept locked. On the- whole/this wa's-'acaso iit : ; which sympathy', : with . tho - • a'ccu'spd should not be/alld}v.ed.'by r : .thb jurjtto:-ln-Jlifenco th|sni.'v";He*>\©;|iot , .VHn ignorant man, but la gift "W' speech; ajid 'tile;jpb^'.W'ilead-others' ■ 'by his;latlgviage?fc-*^v^ :; ' ' "'. -.'

Chief Justice; jdri \tiaW'; and Order. Mis HoAdiir.-tK^jii; ttelrvdtetV his chargo to:the charge of; seditious -jata»go-.;,was; : h] rare. ono ; ; iiv New Zealaiife-.jTh'is vDbminio.n-.Jiad Hhatl" ■ a 'gradual 'til we hfUli'tiiblio'di'mir , . present'.'■, J rah'- : ehjse.,. Hitherto'.jy , e. : ;Ji'ad.:ji<3vi»r .heard of ■ thisjlyhd of ; ;charge ; ; : ;The'Jeariy' settlers Jiad been•al)lo ; ;to-niafia'tKeif ferioVaiicos known without adopting moaii3 which i&re soraoriines-'taken' latterly.' Tho ofily violence of the past which New Zealand-;knew 'had been in- the;' wars with the Maoris. • However,-juat recently thero had.been" violence WelIljigton. Violence meant the ' 'setting aside of law. and ordor, and no country could carry 1 oh'in' such' circuiristanMß. There was no country whore all the pepplo agreed ; politically, religiously, and socially, but, though that was so, vlolei!ce.Tflul(l..not b? tolerated. The cpimtrv, which allowed law and order to be t- r -«»lo wilil not be worth living in. pnd ,tlin jury had to consider whether Hynier's speeqh •was intended to promote violence. >' ; ;Jhe John Burns Case In England. . . ; :Coiinsei for L Hunt?r had made considerable quotation from His, Honour Mr. Justice Cave's 6pe«:h : to" the jury in

the case in which John Burns, the English politician, and others wero tried, but;l that was an entirely differoiit caso ffom -the present. Every case had to be considered in its own circumstances. At the-time of Mr. Justice Cave's speech there was no statute in England such as wo now had in New Zealand. Our Parliament had adopted Stovens's code, and wo had not to rely on tho common law. Wo had tho statute law, and by that statute law wo were bound. Tha Provisions of Our Statute. Statute law defined sedition, and dofined tho meaning of tho words, and how speeches delivered, though apparently seditious, might iiot bo seditious. First of all, tho Statute said that anyone who spoko seditious words was "liable to two years' imprisonment. Then it said that theso were words expressive of a seditious intention, and that a, seditious intention was, among other things, to incite to violence, or promote hostility between different classes. If a man said that- all the police- and specials ought to be- attacked, that would be inciting to viol-, encfij.and would be seditious, lint, in order?to preserve liberty, the Statuto said that fair oriijeism of the Government and institutions was allowable; but people must not bo urged to tako things into thoir own hands by violence. The remedy must ho taken through the Parliament of- the country. . -~ Tho Problem for the Jury. The' question was, Was tho speech made by Hunter such as to urge or incite the pebple to violence, and to disregard law and order? If the jury thought that the words used on that occasion were intended to urge people to- disregard law and order, and incite, to violence, then their duty was to find Hunter guilty of tho use of seditious words. ■ If not, tho jury should ajequit the accused.. Tho Crown was net bound to provo all the words in tho indictment, but to -prove Avoids that wero seditious. The fact that some'of the words were not proved would not ajlow the jury to acquit Hunter if the jury thought that some of the words in the indictment were pi oved, and that tlioso words were intended to promote violence. Some of tile words in the indictment Hunter had admitted using. First ho had said that he used these words: "You follows must realise that if you arc going to control things properly you must have right behind,,you. . He says that he did not say 'liiight," as the reporter stated, but "right." "If you . aro going to control things"—what does he mean by that? The Crown says that mean's the setting of law and order aside. He admits ho said: '-'We control, the-Coast," and he wanted to say that that merely meant the getting of subscriptions for food. But he admitted that ho said that they prevented ,i-steamer from leaving Westport until the people came to their terms.' Thathad nothing to do with the getting of food. ~-..-.

■ His Honour went on to say that Hunter claimed that the contest which) ho spoke of was to be intellectual. The ,'testVas, what would any ordinary man understand by. the passage referred to? Was it, within tho bounds of reason'that the crowd considered that Hunter ,meant that every special, as .he arrived at the coast, was to be met by another man, and they were to have an a'rgu-' menfc about the situation?. Could the jury .think, that- he meant a. contest of tongue? > Hunter had said: ."More than that, we men know that this Gov-•errim«*nt,.--is" shedding blood." Why need there be anything about blood if it was to bo only an iiitcllactual rou'.te'st.? .. AYhy' ;did. Hunter, say: ' Why ,should we '.look' on at cur women and children being clubbed, and offer no protest"?- Did the jury believe that Hunter could mean that if the special constables .-went on using thoipibatoij9 after the others had done arguing, the others were to make ' an intellectual protest?' Then the accused hnd said: "If they Want a revolution, they can have it!',' If Hunter meant a peaceful revolution, he had been most.unfortunate in his use of the English language. ■,:.-■ •■•.■■-. ■ ■ .'•'•; ' ■

The People Cuard the Law. -Referring to the reporter's evidence, His Honour said that there was no suggestion that' Mr. Edwards had any personal feeling against accused. A reporter would not falsify the notes that he'had taken down in shorthand. The jiirymen'wertJ "thq guardians of jthe peace. : The jury was an English institutionj and did not obtain in all countries. ■ The people in English eountries are supposed to keep crime down and maintain law and order. It was not left, to officials. If the jury see,-that crime is committed, and say .that it shall not..go unpunished, tlferc would-be law and-order, but if the jury qllowod crime' go .unpunished there -.would bo disorder. 'The-jury, were in retirement for 4-J hours, when they returned .and announced that they could not agree. \ •'.•Mr. Macassoy- asked tho Court Vo order a new trial. . ■ - '. His Honour said that; he would leave the fixing of a now trial over for the time being, and Hunter is to appear at the Court again on February 23. Meantinifc ho is on bail. HOLLAND'S TRIAL. TWO SPEECHES,& THE RESULT.' The following alleged seditious language was charged against Henry Edmund. Holland, who spoke at tho Basin reserve on Sunday, October 26:— . "The waterside argreomeut was . broken .when the men were obliged to take- a day off; when Mr.Liverpool—Lord Liverpool—the gilded popinjay, the figure-head of capital- ■ ism in New Zealand landed here; • and the name, thing occurred when Sir Joseph Ward's- Dreadnought,, .came. 1 remind them (meaning tho.police) of words, used by meat Broken Hill in Australia, an occa- . .sion when 1 1, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment ou a charge of ' sedition. I told the miners: 'It' they hit you with a .baton, hit them with a pick-handle, and have the pick at the end of it.' Here is your opportunity, .you John Hops .(moaning the police). "Ihey (tho employers) want to give you a miserable eight bob a day, and, the soul and clothes of a slave, and want you to rcab on Labour." Newtown Park Address. , Holland was also .charged with havJrig usjd seditious words in making the .■ftiljo.wing speech at Nowtown Park on Novembers:—• '■ v,; "Wollingto.a has seen what is -''uliiqilo in ' Australasia. You have a 'Galling gun on the wharf to-day, ,: and. there- is one on'tho turret of V tho;Post'Office, they tell us. 'When r.. Massey's,Cossacks • como down upon i'■:> usr-I.was going -to. say 'men,' but ;!.I;do'n't. want -to be guilty of libel. -:' Tho 2000 men offering in tho Wai- . katoaro''heroes, because they will come fully, armed, provided Mr. '•Masse.v gives them full protection. If free labourers arc put on, thov will work with a revolver in'their belts and a bludgeon "alongsido them, and anyone who attempts to ( interfero with them can be shot by them.; I urge the navals present (meaning the sailors from His Ma-' jesty's.ship Psycho that is lying in the port of "Wellington aforesaid), when they are ordered to shoot, to remember where their class interests lie, and to point their gnns accordingly. Tho railwnymen should not carry free labourers. Let the trains rot and rust. Tho strike was Hot mado by the working classes, but by the master classes, who are pouring their armed hundreds into Wellington, not in tho daylight, but like thieves in tho night, coming utterly ashamed of the work they are undertaking. .1 They eneak in in the midaicnt hours

but old grey-hairc'l women come out on the balonies to jeer them as they pass. The railwaymen have jsaid they aro prepared to stop tho trains; tho drivers can stop the I carts and :\\o seamen tho 6hips. Uniformed police can deal a staggering blow by tearing off their unitorins, and standing by the water- • siders, Wo aro going to win, and, by God, we aro going to do it no matter what means we are going to use." Mr. Macassey pointed out that this case was different from- that of Hunter, ill that Holland was one of tho strike leaders, and had taken a prominent part in tho strike. Detectivo β-awlo deposed that he had heard both tho speeches, ami that tho words in the indictments wore substantially correct.. . .: Evidence. was given by Leo Stephen Fanning,- <of the editorial. staff of tho "Post," that Holland had used the words alleged in his Basin Roservb speech, and Arthur 'Vincent O'Brien, of .The Dominion, deposed that tho indiotment respecting, the park speech was correct. ■ , 'Detective Lewis deposed-, that The Dominion's report of Holland's speech was substantially true. The jury retired at 3.40 p.m., and returned shortly, befere 6 o'clock. The foreman announced a verdict of guilty on thft first charge, and feaid that respecting the. second count they were unanimous in finding the accused guilty of sedition in his reierenco to the naval men. - Point Reserved for Appeal. Tho Court has reserved ■ two law points raised by Mr. Wilford.' Tho first point was that the second indictment was incitement fa striko, and no more, and that -the.'-tvords were not capable of being deemed seditious. Tho second point was that the accused had already been acquitted of a charge arising out of the same circumstances. The Court of Appeal will not sit before April 20, and, ponding its decision on. the points raised, Holland is released on his own recognisance' in the sum of £100.