THE WAR REGULATIONS

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3104, 7 June 1917, Page 8

THE WAR REGULATIONS

SIR JOHN FINDLAY AND THE WEBB CASE A REPLY TO THE ATTORNEY. GENERAL (To the Editor.) Sir,—l observo that the Attorney-Gen-eral, in an interview appearing in your issuo of ■ to-day's dnte, makes certain strictures upon my speech in Christchurch in defence of Mr. P. C. Webb, JI.P., in which I dealt with what I conceived to be the true construction of the War Regulations now in force. X am reluctant to enter into any public discussion regarding the discharge of my professional obligations, hut the most unusual course taken by .the Hon. Mr. Herdman in endeavouring to make political capital of this case has forced me to state precisely where I stand. The Attorney-General ignores or misses the fact that the observations made by me

which he condemns were not an attack upon the War Regulations but an attack npon the construction which Mr. Rny- ■ niond, K.C. (acting for the Crown) insisted was the true construction of these regulations. He contended that it mattered not whether the words alleged to be seditious were true or not: whether the motive was good or not: whether the words were fair comment or not. None of these things, Mr. Raymond contended, ■was an excuse for words used publicly or privately, oral or written, which might tend to interfere with, for example, the Government's administration of our military forces. My contention in reply was that the regulations must be read with tome such qualifications for the protection of bona fide, reasonable, free speech as appeared in respect of seditious' utterances in our Crimes Act and in the Common Law of England; and I proceeded to .say that, if the Crown's construction was correct and these regulations were to bo interpreted literally, then such a despotic power would be placed in the hands of the Government as would bo beyond the dreams of an Oriental potentate. I contended—and would repeat the contention to-morrow—that when Parliament by the War Regulations Act delegated to the Executive the power to frame these regulations, it never contemplated that reasonable and legitimate adverse criticism of tho Government, including its maladministration, could be punished as a crime by the Government so criticised, and that the regulations, therefore, must he read in the light of this clear fact. I contended—and would repeat the contention to-morrow—that if tluse regulations were to T>o interpreted as the Crown insisted they should be interpreted, then in New Zealand to-day there would he a drastic and despotic restriction of reasonable free speech in the criticism of the Government that has no parallel in England, Canada, Australia, or perhaps even in Germany itself. I now .repeat that the observations condemned by the Attorney-General were used not as an attack upon the War Regulations, as I construed them, hut upon the interpretation which counsel for tho Crown had urged the Magistrate to place upon them. I regard it to he the first duty a barrister engaged in his profession in the defence of a man's liberty (for Mr. Webb was on trial for two alleged seditious utterances in respect of each of ■which he might havo been condemned to a year's imprisonment) to place clearly before the Court such construction of the law or regulations under w'hich the man is'being tried as may be reasonably and fairly presented in his defence, and fearlessly to maintain that defence, even though it should incur the displeasure of the Attorney-General himself, Tf a barrister engaged in the defence of a client situated as Mr. AVebb was allows the fear of such criticism as tho Attor-nev-General has levelled against, me to influence him, then he is violating the best traditions of his profession and pusillanimously failing in his duty to his client. How far the Attorney-General deems it consistent with his office as the official head of the legal profession to attack a fellow-barrister for making the best defence he can for a man who has entrusted the safeguarding of his liberty to him must be left to those who know the Hon. Mr. Herdman better than I do.

As to the spirit in which the "War Regulations are,being administered, perhaps tlie most enlightening illustration is the prosecution, which look nlace here the other day against The Dominion: newspaper, "N.Z. Times." and "Evening Post"—disclosing a state of affairs in which three newspapers were charged with a breach of the War Regulations for practically doing what. the military authorities suggested, and for making a vague referenco to information which the Minister of Defence .himself bad communicated for publication to an Auckland newspaper a week previously! This comment T am entitled to make in view of the Attorney-General's reference to part of my Christchurch speech as "fudge."

In this answer, I have confined myself to the professional aspect of my speech in defence of Air. Webb. In regard to the other matters contained in your representative's long interview with the .Hon. Mr. Hordman, I shall be free to deal with these from my place in the House of Representatives.—l am. etc.. J. G. FINDLAY. June 6.