HOLLAND'S SPEECHES.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2117, 7 April 1914, Page 6

HOLLAND'S SPEECHES.

_.— -+ IN STRIKE TIME.

CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL,

LIVELY ARCUMENT.

Some little time ago Henry Holland, editor of the "Maoriland Worker," who ■ was a strike orator during last year's industrial trouble, was tried before a jury in tho Supreme Court on two charges of having uttered seditious words. Tho jury found h,im guilty on each indictment,-but .His' Honour tho Chief Justice (Sir Kobert Stout) deferred (Sentence pending tho hearing by the Court of Appeal of two law points raised by Mr. T. M. Wilford, Holland's counsel. Tho Court of Appeal opened its session yesterday, and tho first en. taken was Holland's. On the Bench were Their Honours the Chief' Justice (Sir Robert Stout). Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice Edwards, and Mr. Justice Sirii. The Crown was represented by Mr. J. W. Salraond, Solicitor-Gen-eral ; and Messrs. T. M. Wilford and P. J. O'Regan appeared for Holland. Holland's Speeches. Tho first indictment against Holland was that on November' 2, 1913, in making, a speech at Newtown Park, he uttered seditious words, to wit: \ ''Wellington has seen what is unique in Australasia. You liavo a Gatling gun on tho wharf to-day, and thero is one on the turret of tho Post Office, they tell us. When 'Massey's Cossacks como down ivpoii us—l was going to say men, but I don't want to bo guilty of'libel. The two thousand men offering in tho Waikato aro heroes, because they will como fully armed, provided Massey gives them full protection. If free labourers are put on they will work with a revolver in their belts and a bludgeon alongside them. I urge the uavals present (meaning sailors from His .. Majesty's ship Psyche,, then lying in the port of Wellington) when they are ordered to shoot, to remember where their class interests lie, and point their guns accordingly. The railway men should not carry free labourers. Let the trains i rot and rust. The strike was not made by. tho working-classes, but by tho master-classes,, who aro pouring their armed hundreds into Wellington, not in tho daylight, but like thieves in the night, com- , ing "utterly ashamed of tho worfc- , they are undertaking. They sneak in in the midnight hours, but old grey-haired women come out on tho balconies to jeer them as they pass. The railway men have said they aro prepared to stop the trains. Tho "drivers can stop the carts and tho seamen tho ships. Tho uniformed police can deal 'a staggering blow by tearing off their uniforms and standing by the watorsiders. Wo aro going to win, and, by G , we aro going to do it no matter what mean's wo are going to use," or . words to the'likc effect." Tho other indictment against Holland was that, on October 26,. 1913, in making a speech at the Basin Re'servc, he uttered seditious words, as follow: — "The waterside agreement was ' broken when the men were obliged' to tako a day.off when Mt. Liverpool—Lord Liverpool—the gilded popinjay, the figurehead of capitalism iii New Zealand, landed hero; • and the same thing occurred when • Sir Joseph Ward's Dreadnought came. I remind them (meaning ■ tho police) of words used by me at Broken Hill in Australia—an occasion when I was sentenced to two. . years' imprisonment on a charge of sedition—l told the miners, 'If they hit you with a baton, hit them witha pick-handle, and have tho pick at the end of it. . Hero is your opportunity you John Hops. They., tho employers, want to give you a miserable eight hob a day and the soul and clothes of a slave, and want you to scab on labour," or words to the like effect. The Grounds for Appealing. The two law points raised at the trial were-.-r(l) That the first indictment disclosed no offence at law. (2) That tho accused had been acquitted by _ a 'Magistrate on a summary charge of inciting certain persons to resist the police,- and that the evidence in proof of that charge was tho uttering of tho words set forth in the second indictment, and that tho accused had been acquitted. At the timo that the points • were raised the Chief Justice, stated that he was doubtful whether the second point could be taken, as the prisoner had already pleaded. The point should have been raised prior to tho plea. Mr. Wilford dealt with tho second point first. Ho quoted Section 6 of tho Crimes Act, which was as follows: "■Where an offender is punishable both under this Act and any other statute, lie may be tried and punished either under this Act or under such other statute: and where an offender is punishable under two or more sections of this Act or of such other statute hemay be tried and punished under any ono of such sections.' Provided that an offender shall not be punished twice in respect of the same offence. Mr Wilford also referred to Paragraph (<r)'ot Section 24 of the Acts Interpretation Act, which is as follows:— "Where a.n act or omission constitutes an offence under more Acts or sections of an Act than one the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under any one of those Acts or sections, hut shall not be liable to bo punislied twice for tho same offence. Questions from the Bench. Mr. Justice Denniston asked whether Mr. Wilford contended that a mail could not in- tho one speech commit two offences. A speech, he said, was something like a revolver —one weapon which might be directed at several objects. Mr. Wilford said that tho prosecution was in the position of having to choose Whether it would proceed respecting an incitement to resist the' police or an incitement to sedition. Mr. Justice Denniston: In dealing with tho same words? Mr. Wilford: The same set of facts.i ■Mr. Justice Denniston:'Same words. Mr. Wilford road again Section 6 of tba Crimes Act, and then remarked: "These words are very strong; They, say ho can't be prosecuted; that he is not punishable. Mr. Justice Edwards: They say ho shall not bo punished; they don't say that he shall not bo tried. The Chief Justice: Is not your argument that a man sball not bo put in peril twice for the same thing? Mr. Wilford: Yes. Mr. Justice Edwards: Is not tho wholo of your argument inconsistent with Section 443 of tho Crimes Act? Mr. Wilford: I don't invoke it, Your Honour. Mr. Justice Edwards: I am aware you don't invoke it; but is it not inconsistent? Mr. Justico Denniston: You do not get rid of a statute by omitting to invoke. It would bo a very convenient method. Mr. Wilford: Wo-do not think Section 443 is of any value to us, nor of any harm to us. Proceeding, Mr. Wilford said that the whole of the speech made by Holland was given in evidence on the charge of inciting to resist tho police. [

Mr. Justice Denniston: Tliat is only fair to him. Mr. Wilford: Tho reporters on the newspapers provod tho whole iliing. . . . In the Magistrate's Court no particular words were relied on, but emphasis was laid on particular words. Mr. Justice Denniston: Tho Magistrate, did not acquit him of having inarii: the speecliiv Mr. AVilford: Oh, no. Mr. Justice Denniston: Suppose that there had been an incitement to murder an individual and an incitement to resist the police generally, you say that because Jio is indicted of resisting the police and the whole speech is used in I evidence the acquittal can bo pleaded as. ! <in acquittal on tho charge- of inciting to murder? Mr.-Wilford: I say that nothing else can bo road out of tho Acts Interpretation Act. I claim that tho prosecution must elect. ... I say that if a man makes a. speech in which ho says some very wicked things about tho police and then incites a mail; to burn clown a liousi, tho Crown must oleet for which they will prosecute him. Mr. Justice Denniston: You say they can't prosecute him for both? Mr. Wilford: No. I say that the offence is tho speech. Mr. Justice Donniston: Not tho terms of the speech. Mr. Justico Donniston repeated his illustration: of the man with tho revolver who might kill six different men, and asked if Mr. Wilford contended that that man could not bo tried for sis murders. Lively Interlude. Mr. O'Rogan remarked to Mr. Wilford that tho man could not be hanged six times. Mr.&Wilford (to tho Court): It conld not bo held that the man could bo punished for six different murders. ■ Thoir Honours (in chorus): What] Mr. Wijford: Well, you couldn't hang him six times. ' Mr. Justico Denniston: Oh, Mr. Witford, do you put that forward seriously as ah, argument in a Court of Justice? Mr. Wilford: Well, no, but I thought that Your Honour addressed me in a spirit of levity. Mr. Justico Denniston: ' Spirit of what? Spirit of what? Mr. Wilford: I thought that Your Honour was addressing mo jokingly. Mr. Justico Dennistou: Jokingly? Mr. Wilford: I thought by Your Honour's attifcudo Mr. Justico Denniston: Attitude! Attitude! Do we strike- a special attitude for jokes? Attitudo!, ■ Mr. Wijford: I took it that Your Honour was'joking. Mr. Justice Denniston: Oh, dear, no, I w.i-s putting ■ what I thought was a very clear answer to your point. If you had said that your own argument was a joke—well, I could.have understood it better. Mr. Wilford; lam sorry. I apologise to Your Honour. Shortly afterwards- His Honour the Chief Justico handed down to Mr. Wilford a- book which counsel hatt remarked that ho had not got by him, but Mr. Wilford remarked that ho (lid not think ho would refer to it just then; Mr. Justice Donniston: I don't tliiiil? there should bo any stay upon Mr. Wilford's time. Mr'. Wilford: I onco walked into a Court of Law in England and watched two counsel arguing there, and I could easily havo picked which side I would rather havo been on. Mr. Justice .Donniston: That is a cryptic.observation, tho exact,effect of which I don't exactly sec at present. On Pointing Guns. Mr. Wilford then turned his attention to the first of the two law points, amiproceeded to argue that the -words charged against Holland were not seditious; they were a criticism of the stops taken by the Government. % Mr. Justice-Denniston:. Is it not against the iaw to ask soldiers and sailors not to do their duty?, As to pointing their guns, where do they have to point them?. ■ » Mr. Wilford: In the air. The Chief Justice: Do their class lαterests lie in tho air? Mr. Justice Denniston: To disobey their orders, and when ordered to slsoot to point thoir guns cither in the air or at the master class. Mr. O'Regan then submitted to the Court that if a man had been placed upon his trial and acquitted that should he an end to the matter. His Honour Mr.. Justico Denniston asked Mr. O'Regan: Do you say that if a. man makes a speech inciting beo-plo to murder A and to attack tho Throne th.it thnt constitutes only one offence? Mr. CRegnii Ye 3, your Honour, This concluded tho case for Holland. ■ Solicitor-General's Case, When Mr. Salmowt rose ho was informed that the Court wished to hear him only on the point of previous aequittal. Mr. Salmond then argued thai if a man had pleaded be must take bis. trial; ho could not after pleading raise a pica of previous acquittal. The accused was not imperilled twice in ' respect of {-he same offence. There was , a difference in punishing a man twice for the same offence and twice for tho same act, Mr. Wilford then quoted from fho caso of Regina v. Elrington, in which Lord Coburn said: "It is a fundamental principle that out of tho same, 'set of facts'' a series of prosecutions is siot to be allowed. He referred to another, authority which said that tho tree, test was "whether tho evidence necessary to support a second indictment would havo been sufficient to procure a legal conviction on the first indictment." His Honour tho Chief Justice observed that tho Court would take time to consider the matter.