Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1932. INSULT AND INJURY

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 28, 3 February 1932, Page 6

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1932. INSULT AND INJURY

The prosecution of Colonel Eric Campbell, leader of the New Guard, for using insulting words in the course of a speech attacking the New South Wales Government, is a matter which, reflects little credit on any of the "parties concerned.' Colonel Campbell had obviously indulged in a violence of language ill calculated to help his _ cause. ' His counsel aggravated the offence by pietending to be able to prove it and by quotingdie worse things that "a certain newspaper" had.said.. On, the^other hand, the prosecution in thjb provisions of the Vagrancy Act were turning them to a use for which they were, obviously not intended, arid to which, their application was at least doubtful. In order to remove the doubt the police witnesses' were induced to display a sensitiveness which suggests that they are far too tender/for their job, and that they would be. less out of place in-a Gilbert,and Sullivan drama than in the "strenuous and turbulent life of a 'bigt Australian city. And in the judgment reported yesterday the Magistrate • crowns die farce by soleninly finding that the feelings of the police-were sufficiently hurt to make the section applicable and ( to justify a fine of £2. In terms very similar to those of our own Police Offences Act the Vagrancy Act of New South Wales declares that -whosoever-in any. public street, thoroughfare,^ or. place uses , any threating, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour with the intent to provoko a breach'of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned, shall on.conviction beforo a Justice be liable to a penalty not exceeding £,5. It was" under this section that Colonel Campbell was charged, and the expressions on which the prosecution particularly relied described the Premier of the State as "A^ nasty tyrant aird scoundrel," "a buffoon at the head of the affairs," ana "the hated old man of £he sea." We should'have supposed that with the single exception of "scoundrel" every word,,of this, whether true or not, was perfectly rational and justifiable criticism, and that even in the much milder atmosphere of this country there can have been very few General Elections at which the analogous provisions of the Police Offences Act'could not as reasonably have been invoked to shut the mouths of candidates and screen the Government of the day from criticism. What had seemed to us by far the most'dangerous thing in Colonel Campbell's speeches, as we remarked a day- or two before these proceedings were taken, was his statement that Mr. Lang'would not be allowed to open the Sydney* Harbour Bridge. It is true that in the context as cabled he laid a judicious emphasis on the' constitutional character of the New Guard's propaganda,' but as he did not indicate the means by which Mr. Lang could, be constitutionally dumped in the Harbour or otherwise disposed of according to law before the ceremony, his unqualified veto could only be interpreted as a threat. Yet, though- the section applies to threats as well as insults, the prosecution threw its strongest card away by charging the latter only. The point waf mentioned by the prosecuting counsel, but with a strange misapprehension of its force. We claim the words arc not only insulting but threatening, said Mr.

Sheahan. Campbell had said, "This man (meaning Mr. Lang) shall not open the Harbour Bridge." Any weakminded people hearing that; might take the law into their own. hands. The possible effect upon the weak-minded-was a relatively remote and subsidiary matter. The natural effect of this very strong-minded man's threat both upon his strong-minded sympathisers, whether in or out of his organisation, and upon strongminded opponents, was to induce them to take the law into their own hands. The prosecution would have had a strong case if they ,had based it on the threat. But counsel for the prosecution seemed to be a good hand at missing points. The next argument to the one we have quoted in the cabled report which we published on the 22nd January was this:— The contention; that Mr. Lang had made certain doubtful appointments to the \ Legislative Council was incorrect, as those were made by the Governor. Lawyers and Judges are often,professionally hound to be ignorant of things which are perfectly familiar to everybody else, but to suggest that the Governor of New South Wales is. such an-autocrat as to relieve Mr. Lang of all responsibility for some of the most disgraceful appointments ever made to the Legislative Council is just as silly inside a. Court of. Justice as outside of it. Mr. E. S. Lamb, K.C., seems to have made a better job of the defence. It was not playing the game to quote an unnamed newspaper's description of Mr. Lang as "a liar, a defaulter, and a person who should be behind bars"; and the subpoena to Mr. Lang and the attempt to prove the truth! of the worj "scoundrel" were doubtless mere bluff. But Mr. Lamb did full -justice to the humour of the case, and his handling of, the police witnesses was evidently very effective. The prosecution considered it necessary or desirable to prove that somebody had been insulted, and as neither Mr. Lang nor anybody else was available, they had to fall back upon the police. 'When in doubt, ask a p'liceman" is a time-honoured maxim. The only evidence- of insult in - the. case, wrote our Sydney correspondent in the letter published yesterday, has been given 'by police oflicers, including a sergeant and two constables. They boj,h-(sic) s'tated_that they had been' insulted by the manner in which Colonel Campbell had, attacked Mr. Lang. It'had hurt their feelings to see tho political head of the State abused by a speaker addressing a public meeting. No, they had no political feelings in the matter. It was as ordinary, loyal citizens that they were insulted. Not'as police officers. , Mr. Lamb's superlatives were surely less wide of the mark than those of counsel for the defence often are when he said that this evidence was ridiculous—the most ridiculous ever brought before a Court of Justice. It was ridiculous for a police sorgeant to say that he had been insulted. . . Ho did not think that a police officer had more delicate feelings than anybody else in the community. That the police have their'feelings is testified by no less eminent an authority than the police sergeant in "The Pirates of Penzance":— Our feelings we with difficulty smothor When constabulary duty's to bo done; Ah, take one consideration with another,, A policeman's lot, is not a happy .one. But though the lot of a New South Wales policeman who is called upon to testify on behalf of such a head of the Government as Mr. Lang is obviously a very unhappy one, sympathy must not blind us to the fact that it is a sheer impossibility that his spirit can have so dominated and permeated the force. as to make an insult to himself an insult to every member of it. Nor is it easy to believe that even unofficially and just "as ordinary loyal citizens" they felt lhat they had been insulted personally. 6 Even the Magistrate, in his tender consideration for their feelings, does not go that length. "The evidence," he says, "is sufficiently convincing to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt thpit the police officers were offended by the words used." The long and the short of it is that Mr. Lang was insulted, arid that the feelings "of some of his police were so hurt thereby as to make the insult an offence. The affronted dignity of the Premier and the injured feelings of the police may perhaps be regarded as assessed at £1 each. We congratulate the Magistrate upon the subtlety with which he has draped this singular conclusion and the New South Wales Government upon a windfall of £2 towards its £900,000 default in London.