Seditious Literature.

Hokitika Guardian, 27 April 1921, Page 1

Seditious Literature.

SIR FRANCIS BELL STATES THE POSITION. WELLINGTON, April 24. Mr H. Holland, M.P., wrote to Sir F. D. Bell, Attorney-general, drawing attention to the sentence of three months’ imprisonment passed on a member of the AVellington Socialist Party for having allegedly sold copies of the Communist programme and other pamphlets. Mr Holland, whilo not necessarily endorsing tlie views of the writers regarding tactics, holds that the hook contains a most valuable presentation of the case for constructive industrialism. While urging the reloaso of tlie imprisoned man, Mr Holland says that scores of returned soldiers in possession of banned hooks do not hesitate to circulate the same, and claim that they fought for mental as well as political freedom. He says that they know that there can be neither political or industrial freedom unless there is the most unrestricted liberty in every department of human thought. Along with working men generally, these soldier constitunts of his, he alleges, strongly resent “repressive legislation and administration which makes criminals of men whose only offence is that they seek to know how men of other lands are thinking.” Ho asks how these men stand with regard to the law, and warns the Government against making the magistracy and the Police Court agencies of conditions as hateful as anything Prussia or Russia j ever knew in the t'erroristie days of their liberty-destroying Imperialism—force sustained and foundntioned on blood and iron absolutism. Tt is not well, he says, that New Zealand should follow an example so pregnant with danger. Sir Francis Bell, while agreeing with Air Holland regarding rights and liberty. points out that the pamphlets advocated in the plainest manner bloodshed and violence as the method by which their propaganda was to he carried into effect. Air Holland’s words can only mean that it is not criminal to advocate murder as a method of attaining social or political conditions or constitutional change. That is the issue between the Government of a civilised country and offenders of a elass for whom pardon is asked. He points out that in a country where universal suffrage prevails any party can obtain power by constitutional methods. After reference to the Crimes and War Regulations Continuance Acts, Sir Francis Roll says: “Tt is neither unlawful nor seditious to advocate the wildest form of Socialism or Communism. What is unlawful and seditious is to advocate murder and violence as the legitimate methods for the attainment of political ends. Tf vonr contentions were carried to their logical conclusions it would he legitimate for any section of the community to drill and arm with the avowed object of slaughtering the majority who could not be otherwise coerced. You must therefore take my answer to he that the Government of New Zealand does not interfere and does not propose to interfere with liberty of speech, or action, hut that it does intend to prevent, and will use all its powers to prevent, violence and lawlessness, and that its officers will, in accordance with tlie duty imposed upon them hy law, endeavour to bring to justice persons who refuse to comply with that condition- and that the Governmen will not establish, the practice of exercising the prerogative of pardon in favour of such persons when convicted. Your contention that mere possession of literature of this kind is an offence is perhaps technically correct, hut that is not the offepce seriously contemplated hy law. Circulation of such documents or the possession of a number of. such documents, obviously for the purpose of oirenlntioTi, is in itself nlmn y n deliberate advocacy of murder. nnrt therefore criminal and punishable.