WEBB CONVICTED

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3093, 25 May 1917, Page 6

WEBB CONVICTED

THREE MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT

SECOND CHARGE DISMISSED

By Telegraph.—Press .Association. Christchurcli, May 2-1. The hearing of the charge of seditious utterance against P. C.Webb, M.1 , ., whs resumed to-day. ■Webb giivo evidence in liis own defence. He Said ho ' remembered the -Blackball strike in November Inst. On the first day of the strike lie interviewed Sir .laiueji Allen, and in this interview ho said to Sir James Allen that the men had no desire to create industrial trouble in order to force of the Conscription Act. They desired to be allowed to advocate its repeal along constitutional lilies, . and he said' to Sir •Tonics Allen that no trouble would oeciir if a reasonable amount of liberty was given. Sir James Allen said it was quite reasonable and lawful to advocate the repeal of any Act, and on this understanding witness communicated with. the. strike leaders, and the etrike ended. Public meetings were thereafter held, and he believed tliey were held with the consent of the Acting-Prime Minister. Never since then liad the Government intimated that they were not at liberty to advocate the repeal along constitutional lines of the Military Service Act. On the night of April 13 last ho was still under (he impression that the Government had no objection to the repeal being advocated at public . meetings. [ Witness outlined the efforts lie had made, in conjunction with the Hon.. J. A. Hanan, to terminate the, trouble in connection with the restricted output. Be- ' fore April last it was deemed advisable by- the Government to send someone to Australia, and it was suggested that he should go and explain to the miners in Anstralia the position here.. The Act-ing-Prime Minister approved of this selection, and arranged for his passport and his berth on a shii> at the Government's expense. Ho did not niako fto trip because advice was received savins: that the coal strike in Australia had ended. His assistance had been invoked more than once by the Government to settle industrial troubles. His platform work was begun in November, and from that time on he advocated the repeal of the Conscription Act. Ho spoke upon two broad lines. One was that the Act should be repealed, and the second was thot if men were conscripted, then their responsibilities should also be conscripted. . He wa3 aware that other speakers in New Zealand, apart from Labour men. hold theso views. Ho knew the Police Department was sending shorthand men to take down his speeches, and ho provided some of them with seats,' so that they would lie able to got his speech accurately. Up to the time of his arrest he had received no intimation that anything he said was deemed to bo seditious. On. no occasion had he expressed approval in any way of the recent strike of miners as a means of forcing the repeal of the Conscription Act. His mission tq Wellington was to secure a conference with 'the Government and the mine-owners to rectify the miners' conditions. The miners expressed a desire for witness to go to the West Coast to endeavour to effect a settlement. Hβ did so, and met the, Ministers there, and was in touch with them all the time they were there. Practically ho was with them day and night,, as. they stayed at the same- hotel. The Ministers addressed the miners at various places, to endeavour to get the men to return, but on a vote being taken the majority against their proposals was greater than tho majority by which the miners had decided to strike. After this, witness .jjot the Strike Executive to listen to his appeals to give up tho conscription issue, as a basis for tho strike. He consistently took up this attitude, and finally it was largely owing to his efforts that a settlement had been achieved. He desired to say that the Ministers, by going to the West Coast, anil their tact there, also contributed to a settlement. Hβ did not claim the sole honour for settling tho strike. Ho merely played hie part. On the charge which was the subject of the present hearing being read to witness, he said his comment upon, it would be that every important qualification he had made in his speech had been entirely left out. He did not deny using the majority of. the words contained therein, but with the quaiifications which were omitted in tiie charge. He was merely restating the miners' attitude and position, which had been published in the Press three or four days before. He was defending the miners from the vile misrepresentation they had bftn subjected to by the Press of the country. Ho did not in any way, by implication or otherwise, approve of the. strike as a weapon against conscription.

, To Mr. Raymond, witness said lie did not think the Government was at any time entitled to infringe the right of liberty of speech, to prevent people from honestly criticising the ■ maladministration of the Government.

Mr. Raymond; You feel you are entitled in a time of colossal, peril to have your off a opinion, and to proclaim it? Webb: Jnst so, providing it is in the interests of the people of the country. 1 deny the right of the Government to gag the people and prevent them advocating more equal sacrifice on the part of the whole community. Mr. Raymond: You talk of people voluntarily enlisting. What steps did you take to advocate, on the public platform or otherwise, voluntary enlistment when ■voluntaryism was in force? Webb: 1 don't know whether it has anything to do with the case, but I will answer it. Whatever work I did in con'liectiott with recruiting I did on the lloor of the House.

Mr. Kaymond: Bid you at the Greymouth meeting express your disapproval of the strike against conscription? Webb: I was not there to express my approval. You may take it that! religiously kept away from the trouble then existing. Sly object was one of peace and not trouble, and 1' thought it best not to say anything about the strike iu' any ehape or form.

On the Court resuming after lunch, Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, H.iM., eaul he had given very careful consideration to the case, and lie felt that it was a case m which ho niust convict defendant. His Worship said 'he must consider the whole of the circumstances. Defendant attended a meeting of the Labour Party at a timo when there was a strike on. The speech, up to a certain point left nothing to be said against him, but towards the end of the speech he made use of the words in the information, and other words. The words, he considered, had offended against tho regulations. Defendant muet be convicted. His Worship inquired whether Sir John Findlay wished to say anything in respect to the penalty. •■* Sir .Tolm Pindlay: I prefer to reserve that for appeal. .. The Magistrate said he would hear the other case against Webb before .imposing a penalty. Sir John Findlay said he would prefer that sentence should be imposed before the 6econd case was heard. While he respectfully dissented from His Worship's judgment, and would advise defendant to appeal, he wouid ask that His Worship consider the peculiar circumstances that surrounded this case. Looking at the Rood service the man had performed and his obvious honesty of intention, the case was, he submitted, not onn in , which severity should be applied. The "Magistrate said he was inclined to agree with counsel for the accused. AcoTised had worked to get the strike finished, and ho believed ho was instrumental in settling other Labour difficulties. His utterance was not nearly go bad as those of the other men. Defendant was sentenced to three months' imprisonment-, the term to date from the day of his arrest, ]\Fay 1. The Taylorville Speech.

The hearing eC tlio charge in respect to tlie speech jit Taylorville was taken in the afternoon. Evidence a 9 to the words used was given by Constable Bodgers, who was the only witness for the prosecution.

Mr. Bailey, S.M., in dismissing tlio wise, said that this nnso stood on a very (lllturcnl footing from the Groymoutii one, on which Webb had boon convicted. The noto was taken, in longhand, and tuo constable .himself, liad .to admit that,

even if lie got portions of a sentence down accurately, ho lost a. lot. It was qiiito possible that there might l>6 a good dent between the two sentences charged in the indictment which would vory iiuicli modify it. The matter was alse difleront in this way, that TTeTib ,was a member of Parliament, and was giving an account of his stewardship ami accordingly more latitude might be allowed, although it could not be said Hint he would be allowed to speak sedition. Taking all tlie circumstances into consideration, he did not think this was a case in which lib should be convicted.