The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is in corporated the West Coast Times. THURSDAY, OCT. 16th, 1921. WHY LABOR FELL.

Hokitika Guardian, 16 October 1924, Page 2

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is in corporated the West Coast Times. THURSDAY, OCT. 16th, 1921. WHY LABOR FELL.

Tiik Campbell case, which formed the subject of the Liberal motion of noconfidence in the Labour Government in the Imperial Parliament, lias been the theme of ardent discussion for five or six weeks in London. John Ross Campbell, editor of the “Workers’ Weekly,” described on its title page as “the official organ of the Communist Party in Great Britain,” was arrested on the charge of having “feloniously, maliciously and advisedly endeavoured to seduce divers persons unknown then serving in his Majesty's Navy, Army, and Air Force, from their allegiance of his Majesty.” Campliell appeared to answer the charge and was remanded, and when the ease was again called counsel for the prosecution announced that no evidence would

he tendered against the accused. “It has been represented,” lie said, “that the object or intention of the article in question was not to endeavour to seduce men in the fighting forces from tneir duty and allegiance, or to induce them to disobey lawful orders, hut thati it was comment upon armed military force being used by the State for the suppression of industrial disputes.” The official bureau of the Communist Party, however, promptly repudiated this defnece, declaring that “Comrado Campbell’s” defence would have been

one of justification and that it had been his intention to subpoena the Prime -Minister and various members of tho Cabinet who bad been closely associated with the Second International. The article complained of was an exhortation to soldiers to turn their weapons "against their oppressors.” and some nt it may lie quoted to indicate its character:

“Soldiers, sailors, airmen, flesh of our flesh, and bone of our bone, tho Communist Party calls upon you to begin tile task of not only organising passive resistance when war is declared or when an industrial dispute involves you, but to definitely and categorically id it he known that neither in tic (lass war nor a military war will you turn your guns on your fellow-workers, but instead will lino tip with your fel-low-workers in an attack upon the exploiters and capitalists and will use your arms on the side of your own class. Form committees in even - barracks, aerodrome, and ship. Let this lie the nucleus of an organisation that will prepare the whole of the soldiers, sailors, and airmen not merely to refuse to go to war, or to refuse to shoot strikers during industrial conflicts, hut will make it , possible for the workers, peasants and soldiers, sailors and airmen In go forward in a common attack upon the capitalists and smash capitalism for ever and institute the reign of the whole working class.” The article, probably, was of no great consequence' and the withdrawal of the prosecution might, have attracted little attention. But the Communist Party was anxious not to miss the opportunity for an advertisement, and after repudiating the oxnlanat ion offered in • curt it went on to declare that the prosecution was withdrawn b.v the Government on its own lespon.sibility as a result of “severe pressure” from Labour members of Parliament. It was quite open to the Government, if it realised that the importance of the article was being unduly magnified and that the damage resulting from publicity would he greater than the damage clone by the article itself, 40 withdraw the prosecution, but the position wtts altered when the friends of the defendant made the specific allegation that the withdrawal was the result of political party pressure. If tho Government had made a frank explanation the episode might still have closed without serious consequences, hut' its rcmsal to meet the Communist charge left it under the implication that it had deliberately interfered with the course of justice. Possibly any one of half-a-dozen other subjects might have served as the reason for the separation of Liberals and Labour, but the Liberals assuredly had ample j list i Ilea Lion for taking the division on so flagrant a departure from the principles of British justice.