CHARGE OF SEDITION

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 30, 30 October 1918, Page 6

CHARGE OF SEDITION

WORDS CONTAINED IN AN ADVERTISEMENT ECHO OF "GREEN RAY" TROUBLE Yesterday afternoon, in the Magistrate's Court, uelore Air. If. V. piaza', S.M., David liritiin and John Charles Troy were charged that oil September 7, 11/16, tliev <lid cause to be published in "New Zealand Truth" a seditious utterance in the words: "We presume you are now aware that both above-named irishmen have, been sentenced to eleven months' hard labour tor publishing articles dea'ang with Ireland," which, under the' War Hegulations, were considered seditious. One of the articles complained of was written in commemoration of the memory of the dead, and' referred to that "gallant band of heroes" who gave their lives during Easter week, 1916, or in connection therewith. There were. in all three charges. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for the Crown, and Sir John Pimtlay, Iv.C., with him Mr.'J. B. Dolan, of Napier, for the two defendants. Sir John Findlay, with a view to shortening the proceedings, admitted the puolication of the words complained of by the two defendants. Mr. Macassey, in opening, said that in July of this year two men. O'liyan and Ciiinmins, were prosecuted in Dunedin for breach of the War Hegulations in respect of an article in the "Green Hay," and were convicted for a seditious utterance entitled "Memory .of . the Dead." This had reference to the Dublin rebellion in Easter, 1016, when 201) men were killed, and the memory referred to the 17 men who were executed as rebels. Each of the accused was sentenced to 11 months' imprisonment. The advertisement which was the subject of the charge appeared in "Truth" on September 7. Mr. Macassey then read the advertisement; and, continuing, said it might be contended for the deionce that the advertisement was an appeal for funds lor the maintenance of the wife and children of Cummins while he was in gaol, but lie submitted that it went further, for it referred to the article in the "'Ureen Ray," and applauded it. Whatever .the rights or wrongs of the Irish question might be, the men of Ireland, both Catholic and Protestant, had the same rights and privileges as anybody else, and those carried with them corresponding duties of citizenship. M.r. Macawey then referred to the clauses of the Act. The words had a, tendency to excite dissatisfactibn, lawlessness, and disloyalty against His Majesty and the Government of the United Kingdom. It was common knowledge that there had been a rebellion in Ireland.

Sir John Findlay objected to the statement.

Mr. Mncassey: It was common knowledge. The Magistrate: I know it is common knowledge, but I don't know that I can accept that as evidence. ' Mr. Maeassey: I am not able to prove, further than that it is common knowledge. The article in the "Green Ray" referred clearly to what happened in Ireland. The outstanding feature of the case was that these men knew that the two men had been convicted in Dunedin, and they applauded the article in the "Green Bay." If the words tended to excite disloyalty they were seditious. Frederick James Dawson, publisher of "New Zealand Truth," produced- the original advertisement as received at the office. Certain portions of the advertisement were deleted by him.

To Sir John Findlay witness said he received a letter with respect to the raising of funds on behalf of the wife and children of Cummins, who had been sentenced in connection with the article in the "Green Pay." Ho was asked to open a subscription list, and to announce the subscriptions in "Truth." He was asked by several people to do so, and nioltey was actually sent by some correspondents. He himself was not. in sympathy with the men convicted, and he did not care to commit the paper, but finally lie told Grifiiu that an appeal could be made in the advertising columns of "Truth," and the advertisement complained of was inserted. The advertisement was* signed by Griffin and Troy, but he did not ' know who actually brought it to the office. Later, Griffin came to the office, and witness then told him that certain portions of the copy had been deleted. Griffin then said they did not wish to do anything against the law. Oil reading t,he amended advertisement, Griffin said the original had been submitted to Mr. P. J. O'lfegan, who had also deleted the words which witness had erased. The advertisement did not appear to him to be seditious either in its original form or when amended.

Detective-Sergeant Eawle gave formal evidence as to interviewing the accusedy

, This closed the cas& for the prosecution.

Sir John Findlay, for the defendants, said that both men were married, and each had three children, and loth had unblemished records. Neither of them had ever been charged with attempting to create social disturbances. It mattered little how the advertisement was worded 60 long as the Court was satisfied that the motive was honest, and the expression, though ill-advised, could not therefore be termed seditious. The advertisement .was a genuine appeal for funds for the maintenance of-the wife mid children of Cummins. It was true that the heading of the advertisement appealed for funds for the maintenance of tho family and partly to pay the costs of the defence oi Cummins and O'Byan. Continuing,'Sir-John Fincllay said that his first point was that this was a genuine appeal to provide, money for the maintenance of tho family, and that was the whole purpose of the advertisement, and not to create dissatisfaction or alter public opinion. With respect to •. the words "that gallant band ot heroes," they were a more .paraphrase of what appeared in tho "Green Ray." It was no offence to publish in a newspaper that Smith or Jones was convict/d for saying certain things. The advertisement did 110 more than explain why the two men were punished. Before persons would subscribe to such an appeal they, would naturally want to know why the men were punished, and what they had done, and so not unreasonably the advertisement made clear their olfence. It was no.' right to say that the advertisement gave approval to tho words for u'iiich Cummins and O'ltyan were punished. Sir John b'indlay then referred to men of tho past, such as Robert Emmet and George Washington, who were classcd as rebels in tlioir day, hut whose great courage aiid steadfastness to their ideals undoubtedly entitled them to be regarded as among tho world's heroes. He emoted articles in ilie "Contemporary Review," the "English Review, and a speech made by Mr. Asquith in the House of Commons, in which ho stated that the Irish insurgents fought bravely and conducted their fight with humanity, and Sir John findlay asked what was the difference between a'Prime Minister and a newspaper. He considered that it was manifestly absurd to suggest that an advertisement in a New Zealand paper with a local circulation only could tend to incite dissatisfaction or disloyalty in the United Kingdom. Liberty of speecli and liberty of action should not be restricted one point beyond tho demands of public safety. There was always a danger of war regulations becoming a weapon of intolerance. The Dublin rising was not n Catholic rising, for many Protestants took part in it. Mr. Macassey, in reply, dealt with the legal aspect of the matter, and said tho words used had the tendency to incite disloyalty and disaffection, and for that reason they were a breach of tho War Regulation, lie did not wish to suggest that the sectarian question entered into his mind at all. It was a simplo question, What was tho tendency of tho words used in tho advertisement?

Tlio Magistrate, after referring (o the Irish revolt at Buster, 1910, as at present known, said that although the rebels might have been actuated by the highest motives and dutv to their country, and a desire to nee the old ideal of an independent Ireland, they lacked a sense of persjicctivo mid failed to see that they might have been fighting in a greater fight, not merely for the freedom of Ireland, but also for. the liberty of tho smaller nations of tho world, with tho result that they were judged to bo

traitors. The evidence of Dawson# coupled with the reading of the.advertise meat, satisfied him that the object of ttaj advertisement was to appeal for funds for the wife and children of cummins. Jle could not accept the explanation put forward by Sir John Findlay that the words "that gallant band of heroes, * etc., were merely -a paraphrase of tlia article in the "Green lia.v," and that tho authors of the advertisement did not applaud the rebels and hold them tip to public admiration as heroes, and he was of opinion that that was where sedition came in. He hoped the Irish question would not bscome a burning question ill New Zealand, i'or it would cause a great deal of trouble, as it had done elsewnere. He said whet her the words complained of wore used intentionally or not, tho tendency was seditious,. and for that reason lie was bound to ewer a conviction, but he did not intend to impose a heavy penalty, for he was hound to taka into consideration the motive, and further that the defendants had taken legal ■utvice and submitted the advertisement to the censorship of Jlr. Dawson, and had expressed to him that they did not wish lo do anvthing against the law. Each defendant was convicted and fined .£5 and costs.

Sir John Findlay said he wished to state chat .Mr. I'. J. O'l'.egan had been hurriedly consulted, and had not had time to get a considered opinion.