TRIAL OF WEBB

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3092, 24 May 1917, Page 6

TRIAL OF WEBB

COUNSELS' OPENING ADDRESSES WAS ACCUSED CORRECTLY REPORTED ? HEARING ADJOURNED By Telegraph.-Preas Association. Christchurch, May 23. The hearing- ot' the charges aganist Patrick Charles Webl> of making seditious utterances ac Ureyniouth on* April 10 was proceeded with ut the Aiagiatnue's Lourt to-day. Air. iiayinond, iv.C, prosecuted, aud Sir John Findlay, K.C., appeared for the accused. In the course of his statement Mr Raymond said: "lu dealing with the circumstances of this case, the Court will have regard to the time and place waero this speech was made. The time was the time ot the mining strike, and tho place was a meeting attended by a large uumber of citizens and others at Greymouth —a meeting of the' Labour Party, at which millers and persons connected with tho mining industry were present. Hβ was addressing what I submit was material easily inflammable, and remembering therefore his responsibility, remembering the audience he was addressing and remembering that this was a time of stnlco, I invite the Court to examine that portion of the speech which was the concluding portion of the speech he made, and which is the substance of the information."

Mr. Raymond continued that it was the usual plea in these cases that the expressions of accused were honest. It was not a question of private rights concerned here. It was a question of public safety, and the State in its own interests had legislatively enacted that if there was seditious utterance, or one having a seditious tendency, then, no matter what the motives of the defendant might be, those motives were not 'taken into account; indeed, the utterance of a wellintentioned man might be more evil than those of a man of evil- intention. The utterance of a well-intentioned man would have weight, would be looked at and appreciated by an audience more than the utterance of a man of evil intention. Ho was not going into the question of accused's motives. Hβ was pointing out that the motives of the accused were quite irrelevant to the Court whatever the rights of the defendant might be. It was not a question of what the rights of individuals might be, but of what the duties of the people were. Those duties were to loyally'observe the laws of tho country, and to promote the interests of the country in relation to its military and economic resources, and were clearly indicated by the Rpecial legislation passed by Parliament in the War 'Regulations Act. That Act conferred on r.uthorities practically dictatorial powers, which would not be considered in times of peace. A Policeman's Shorthand Notes, Constable M'Mahon, of Greymouth, who reported Hie speech, was cross-vxamined by Sir John i'iudlay very closely, and ut considerable length, with regard to his shorthand notes. Witness considered 1-U words a miuute his average reliable speed. Ho would be surprised to hear tiiat avcrago ni Hansard was JSO words a minute. He admitted that there were omissions in his transcript. Sir John I'indlay. What was your duty at the meeting? Witness: To take note of seditious utterances. Sir John^ Eindlay: And what was not seditious in your oyinion was not taken down fully ?—"No." Sir John IHndlay. If Webb used words that were not seditious you were Lot primarily concerned with taking them down or transisripting them?—" No." John R.' Wallace, editor of the Greymouth '-'Star," who also 'took notes on tho speech, said Webb used the words, "The minors were fighting against conscription and would go to gaol rather than shirk their duty." Defendant also said, "They would strike a hard blow for freedom and liberty." . . Case for the Defence. • Sir John Findlay, in opening tho case lor tho accused, said tho defence was, iirst, that tho words imputed were not the statements made by the accused, and, second, what ho did say on April 19 was not a seditious utterance. Before he discussed the facts of the case, he wished to discuss the law and the considerations applicable to tho War Emulations of December i, 1916, and tho limitation that must bo placed on their literal meaning .This task he could best begin by showing that literal interpretation would place in the hands of the Government an arbitrary and despotic power beyond the dreams of even tho Oriental despot. This would bfe shown by an impartial consideration of the literal meaning of the regulations. If the statute provisions in respect to sedition were left unqualified, then it was quite clear that freedom of speech and free discussion would be crushed loth in England and New Zealand. He wanted to make it plain that it thfi provisions of the law were not qualified vitally and importantly, then overt before the war. in England and New Zealand freedom of speech would not have ! existed. He wished to stress that beI cause Mr. Raymond courageously took the ground that no matter how good the motive, how excellent tho intention, or how helpful tho intention, they could not be invoked m a charge of sedition. If the position was as outlined by Mr Raymond, then we were all in a parlous condition m this country at this hour. Sir John Pmdlay contended that ifßeii. latioii No. 5 were right, it seemed tfiat the Defence Department was too sacred tor criticism, even if free speech in New Zealand perished. If Regulation i was to be literally interpreted, .then the speakers at. a recent meeting of protest in Oimedin, including Mr. Gwr-B Ponfficfc, Dean Rbberfc W the ut™l\{ Ystttofc ftieuiseW liable i to imprisonment. It (M luA matlw hoir , \ wy»b tne criticism or how just the evposure, it was no defence it'Mγ. Rav-' iiioiul s MHvtaAron was correct. Similarly under these regulations Dr. Tluickii ' (■«»/(/ have been sent to goo) for his ex- i jiosiire of Trenfham Camp as the deathtrap that it was at that time. Sir John I'indlay contended that if WeU> said ro more than to explain iHuifc was the sent';, ment am! stand.of tho miners, then thai was not. sedition. Where a man was to bo watched by the authorities, the watching should take place by a man competent to repent to the Crown Law authority'.; the actual words nswl. How could His Uoislup convict a man on such shorthand notes as they hnil f,. 01n Constable M'Mahon? Sir John Vimllny submitted Hint fhn raw had alrendv broken down as Constable M'Mahon Admitted hp had left out and altered w> «K If Hi? Wor ship held that the strict interpretation ■"il- by Mr. Raymond upon the regulations was correct, tlipn hn (Sir John Fimllay) would leave that Court satisfiptl that Now Zealomi was no lnnier a plaep where a man with freedom of spirit would cave to live. Several expprioiirod pressmen wprp call p'l and examined ns In their opinion* of Of Stable Jl Manon s shorthand notp. At 5 p.m. the hearing was adjourned until 10 a.m. fo-mormw.