ALLEGED SEDITIOUS PUBLICATION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 1578, 18 July 1916, Page 3

ALLEGED SEDITIOUS PUBLICATION.

CHARGE AGAINST A NEWS-

PAPER

At the Palmerston Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, before Mr J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., two charges of alleged seditious publication were preferred against P. C. Freeth, editor of the Manawatu Daily Times. The charges were as follow: —(1) On the 27th May, 191(5, at Palmerston, did publish in the Manawatu Daily Times, a newspaper circulating in the said town, matter which indicate disloyalty in respect to the present war, to wit, a letter under the signature of “Shirker”; (2), on the 27th May, 191(1, at Palmerston North, did publish in the Manawatu Daily Times matter likely to interfere with the recruiting of his Majesty’s Forces, in a letter under the signature of “Shirker.”

Defendatn pleaded not guilty. Mr Meredith appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Cooper for defendant.

Mr Meredith said he would proceed with the second charge first, and asked permission to make an amendment to the charge, by adding the words, “Contrary to regulation 4 of the War Regulations Act.” This was agreed to.

Mr Meredith said he wanted to disavow any suggestion on the paid of the editor or of the management of the paper of disloyal sentiment. On the contrary, the editor had dealt trenchantly and fearlessly with questions arising out of the war, and had always maintained a strong patriotic attitude. The letter published under the name of “Shirker,” however, contained sentiments which practically verged on rank sedition. In a subsequent issue, Mr I'Tooth had criticised and disavowed the letter, hut the fact of its publication Avas considered prejudicial at the present time. The letter forming the subject of the charge was then read, and its publication admitted. Mr Cooper said that the publication of such letters was done so tha t they could be “slated” editorially. Continuing, Mr Cooper said there Avas nothing in the letter that could be construed into anything that was prejudicial to recruiting, and opposing counsel could not name anything in the letter that Avonld prevent recruiting’. He asked his Worship to look at the matter from a broad point of vioAV, and he Avonld say that the effect of . the letter Avonld not turn one man away from lighting for his country. This sort of letter appealed to a certain class avlio would never enlist, and Avere a negligible quantity. There was nothing to indicate disloyalty in the letter. It was insulting, no doubt, to the legislators and men Avith capital.

His Worship said that this reference might raise the thought in some minds that these rich men should part with their wealth before other men should enlist.

Mr Cooper said he would submit later issues of the paper, showing the attitude on the present crisis, and also his editorial comment on “Shirker’s” letter, which showed at once his broad-minded and patriotic attitude. There should not he d conviction because the publication of the letter and defendant's reply served to show up the sentiments and thoughts of these irresponsible writers. Counsel further stated that the publication of the letter had not interfered with recruiting, as was shown in Palmerston when the last Reinforcement was called up. It was over the strength, and the same experience had taken place in other centres.

Pierce Charles Freeth, managing editor of the Manawatu Daily Times, said he had received innumerable letters from time to time on the present situation, and he selected some for publication just to show the sentiments of this section of the community. He had selected two, one of which was “Shirker’s,’’for publication, and had dealt with them editorially a few days later, and had entirely disagreed with the sentiments they contained. Mr Meredith: Have you any objection to giving the name of the contributor"!?

Witness; 1 object to giving the name of the anonymous writer. Mr Meredith: If that is the case, and the publisher is not responsible, it is a difficult matter to get the responsible party. Mr Meredith said a liberal interpretation of the Act should he allowed considering the circumstances which called the Act into being. It was the national wish to emerge successfully from the war, and anything that was going to act in the opposite direction could not ho tolerated. Counsel said it had been suggested that “Shirker’s” letter was not likely to interfere with recruiting, but lie asked would “Shirker” have been allowed to address a public meeting and use the words he did in his letter"/ Counsel said “No,” and he read portions of the letter, which he claimed suggested that men should not light for “the wool kings and monied classes,” and there was the further suggestion that anybody who enlisted was dancing to the piping of the yoliticians. Counsel contended that if letter was calculated to prejudice recruiting it was Shirker s.” its contention was that anyone who fought for his countiy tv as a dolt and idiot. The signature alone was signiliicuut. There was no suggestion of disloyalty on the part of the defendant, but m allowing publication of such letters as Shirker s ’ he was introducing the writer to a much larger assemblage than they would get in any other way. In such times as this, editors had great responsibilities, and they should be

careful not, to allow their papers to be abused in this way. As Mr Freeth refused to give the writer’s name, and the publisher was not responsible, who was the responsible party? Counsel contended that the editor was responsible. He should not allow a poisonous letter to appear on one side of the paper and publish the antidote in the shape of a leading article on the other page. The publication of the lei tor had been a distinct breach of the Regulations.

Mr Cooper replied, and said that Mr Freith, in publishing the letter, was acting with the best intentions. Mr Freeth, in publishing the letter, were unquestionable, and his idea of giving publicity to “Shirkers” letter was simply to show up the thoughts of those irresponsible people, and deal with them through the editorial columns.

His AYorship said he would take time to consider the matter, and would reserve judgment. —Standard.