DISLOYAL UTTERANCE

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2646, 17 December 1915, Page 8

DISLOYAL UTTERANCE

UNUSUAL CASE

CIVIL SERVANT AS DEFENDANT FINE OF £25 IMPOSED. Convictions were recorded by Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday .afternoon against a young man, named Francis Peter Hageh, who was charged with making disloyal utterances. The accused is a young married man, and lias been in the employ of the Public Health Department, but is now under suspension. '1 here were four informations against liim, one of which alleged the following statement: "We would be just as well off under German rule as we are under Britislh rule. Britain is only after territory. The Belgium business was only an excuso to get into it." That had occurred in a conversation on October 6; and two days later, Hageu was accused of saying in reference to the Seventh Reinforcements: "There go a lot of silly s. They'll get what they're asking for." The other informations alleged a statement that Nurse Cavell deserved her fate, that the Ger> mans were justified in the sinking of the Marquette.

Mr., V. B. Meredith, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for the Crown, while Mr. E. G. Jellicoe appeared for the accused and pleaded not guilty. It was agreed that for the 6ake of convenience that all four charges should be heard together. At Mr. Jellicoe's request all witnesses were ordered out of Court until called on to give evidence.

Utterances Nearly Caused a Fight. • Mr. Moredith, in opening the ease "for tho Crown, said that tike informations were kid under Section 4 of • regulations made 011 July. 19 last, the regulations being authorised by the War .Regulations Act;, 1914. In consequence of these regulations, utterances expressive of disaffection and disloyalty m connection with, the present war were prohibited. There might be some contest as to tite meaning of disloyalty, but the circumstances would be determined by the evidence. The accused was a clerk in the Public Health Department, to which he had been transferred from another Department only a few weeks 'before tihe utterances complained of were alleged to 'have been made. "While there he made certain utterances, which got him into trouble with other officers t>i the' Department, and there seemed every probability of there being a light. Certain members of the staif considered that the only way to deal | with the matter was to report it to the head of the Department. As a Tesult of this, some of the accused's utterances were noted, and fornred the subject of tlie prosecution. Mr. Meredith went on to refer to the utterances and to the particular circumstances under which they had been made, and submitted that some of toem were distinctly traitorous. Others of the utterances might not be on quite the same footing, but when the evidence tfas tendered It would be shown that the utterances were not of the class of ''legitimate comment," but were rather the outcome of ji disloyal mind. He tlhen proceeded to call evidence. Walter Gore, messenger in the Public ?f , Department, deposed to'having watched the 7th Eeinforcements carryin® their baggage from the railway station to the whart on October 7 last. A member ot the staff made a remark as to the poor fellows going and to tho fact that they did not know if they would return. Hagen then made the remark: "A ~f y I S ' Th «y're oul J' going to get what they are ; asking for." Witness supposed that tho remark referred to the soldiers.

Continuing his evidence, the witness said that an officer remarked that accused ought to be ashamed to make such a remark. On October- G, members of the staff were all arguing between the: hours ot 11 o clock and 12 o'clock—tho tney did every morning—when Mr. Ell remarked, "God help us if we come under Germaii rule." This caused accused to remark: "We would be just as well off under German rule as we are under British rule. The British were only after territory." Mr. Ell asked: How about flie Belgians?" to which accused replied that that was only an excuse for us to get into it. On' the date on which the news of Nurse Cavell's death came through, members of the staff 1 7 r8 „?S am , ar E nin f> an d accused remarked: She deserved her fate. She was nothing more than a spy." On the occasion of the sinking 'of .the Marquette, accused had said that the' Germans were perfectly justified in sinking, her and firing upon her, 'they , knew the risks they were running, and'' they had no business there.. After. that the witness reported the matter to the Deputy-Chief Health Officer.

To Mr. Jellicoe: Altogether, ten per6ons worked in the roctn where the utterances were, made. All but the witness took part in a controversy, about the war, Che utterances, outlined by witness, had been made in the courso of the controversy, which _ took place daily about the war. , During the controversy, one and_ another made frenuent use of adjectives, which would have been better left unsaid.. Mr. Killick was chief clerk m the room, and it was his duty to put a stop to bad language, and to stop a controversy if it was going too far. Re-examined by Mr. Meredith, the witness stated that Mr. Killick's duties frequently took him out of the office. Leslie John Ell,' clerk in the Public Health Department, gav? evidence as to hearing the accused make the utterances mentioned by the previous witness. The attitude of the accused gave witness the impression that he (accused) meant what he said. -

To Mr. Jellicoe: It was not trne to say that witness had from the first adopted & hostile attitude towards accused. Thomas George Trowern, clerk in the Public Health Department, said that when accused (Hagen) made his remark about the Seventh Reinforcements, witness declared: "You're a nice .sort of • ~o u r ® a pro-German." Mr Meredith: What did you feel like? Witness: I felt like eating him. (Laugh-ter.-j

Witness went on to relate other circumstances surrounding the utterances. Ine particular words had not Jjeen noted • j ™L Ma . " wcallse accused must have paid' 5000 similar things while at the office. The chief clerk hoard tFe dkens"wi. L. faiTouette and saidi: . Whats all this trouble?" The inpuiry .brought the matter to a head fiid resulted in the juspension'of the accused. biles P. S. Johns, cleric in the Public Health Department, also gave evidence as to henriiiff the accused make the utteranceg referred to by the previous witnesses. Mr. Ell drafted the report to Dr. Vahntm* m regard to the accused and it was Mr. Ell who asked witness to sign it. Case for the Defence, Mr. Jellicoe, in opening tho case for the defence said that the plea of not guilty had been tendered to enable a substantial question of law to bo raised and if need be to be taken to the SuP r T,? 9?«rt. Counsel was not there to justify his client's views, for it was clear that- no one had any right to insult and decry the constitution or the country's troops. Counsel went oil to deplore {lie tact that the evidence showed that a vocabulary of blasphemous and opprobrious epithets was prevalent in the Public Service, The Magistrate saijl that the SeTvico was not to be .indited by the utterance ot one man in ono Department. Mr. Jellicoe contended that the tanminge had been tolerated and the 'Service must stand or fall by tho tolerations, lie attributed the condition of affairs to "our Godless system of education." Referring to the War Regulations, counsel argued that the right to express one's opinions was inherent and had not been taken away. It was submitted that the \\ar Regulation, covering the publication ot disloyal uttorances. referred to something significant, of importance, or of moment, as distinguished from words uttered in heat, of no importance and creating no lasting impression. A statement by innuendo would not come within tie regulations, nor of inference. 'Then the statement or matter when proved must indicate and disloyalty meant want of fidelity in the Sovereign, and want of attachment to the lav.' and to the constitution of the realm, Counsel went '<n to cita "■vara! authorities on

the question of wliat was necessary in ail utterance before it could be termed disloyal. lie contended that to come within the scope of the War Herniations, (in utterance had to be deliberate aiid not the outcome of sudden heat. Tho questions for the Court were: What statement or matter was made known by, the defendant's several expressions? and What want of loyalty, what lack of fidelity, or what violation of the natural allegiance to the Sovereign, law, or constitution do the words indicate? Counsel proceeded by saying that he proposed to call two witnesses to the previous record of Hagen. He submitted, in conclusion, that there was-clear evidence of hostility towards Hagen on the part of the witness Jill and that the prosecution was the outcome thereof. The War Regulations never contemplated sncli a position that a minority would be forced to agree witli a majority or be sent to gaol. Alfred C. Tnrnbull, Inspector in tho Lands Department, stated that the accused liatl been in his Department for three years, and left with a good record. He was amenable to discipline, and had great application, but had a habit of talcing part in arguments and of takingup the opposTffOn.

Richard Francis Madden, Chief Clerk In the Police Commissioner's Office, gave evidence on similar lines.

Heplyiwr to Air. .Tellicoe on questions of law, Mr. Meredith pointed out that the authorities' relied on by his friend referred to sedition, whereas the present charge was not one of sedition. The War Regulations created a new ofTencc in regard to disloyalty. The statements made by the accused could not be construed as legitimate comment. A Fine of £25.

The, Mafristrate, in. giving judgment, pointed out' that the facts, were not disputed, and. in spite of the authorities quoted by Mr. Jellicoe, His Worship was satisfied that the words used indicated disloyalty, {■specially the words of October G, averrinj? that wo would be just •is well off under German rule as under British rule. The words .referring to the Seventh Reinforcements were al» dlsloyah Perhaps the words in reference to Nnrse Cavell were not disloyal, but they showed the mind of the . man. The words relating to the Maronptte were another indication of wliat was m the mind of th'o mnn, who could thus refer to the noble women, who had said"Never mind us, save the fifrhtinc: men." view of the possibility of the case goinEf to ft hijrher Court. His Worship would not comment on the conduct of the accused. Convictions would be recorded on the first two informations (the littornnccs of October 8 and October 8), and the other two informations wniffi be dismissed. The maximum penaltv for the offence was ,£IOO, but'the penalty in this ease would be a fine of .£25 on' the first conviction only, the defendant beine allowed 48 hours in which to find thp money. ■ The probability of an appeal was mentioned. '