CHARGE OF SEDITION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 1655, 28 December 1916, Page 3

CHARGE OF SEDITION.

CASE AGAINST THORN

The case against James Thorn, the Labour organiser and .journalist connected with the Maoriland Worker, who was arrested in 'Wellington on a charge of seditious utterances in a speech in Auckland on December 1(1(1:, was concluded at the Alagist rale's Court, Auckland, before Mr E. C. Cullen, S.M., lasi week. The Hon. J. A. Tole prosecuted for the Crown. Accused was not represented by counsel, and entered a. plea of not guilty. .Mr Tole, in outlining the ease against accused, said the latter was a prominent labour agitator —and he (the speaker) used the term “agitator" in no offensive sense 1 , hut as meaning an agitator upon the public platform on public questions —and took a leading part against conscription, attacking the Military Service Act. He had delivered an address at Palmerston, it was alleged, on similar lines. Simultaneously addresses were delivered throoughout New Zealand by colleagues, one at Christchurch by Semple, who had been disposed of. (Laughter). Accused was fully aware of the War Regulations, as was shown by the fact that when commencing his address he said he would “have to he miraculously careful if lie did not commit a breach of the regulations.’’ Counsel (‘(intended, therefore, that defendant deliberately went on to incite.

Const aide Smilher gave evidence regarding the address delivered by accused at the Globe Theatre. Accused made a number of statements against conscription, and said it was practically impossible, for a man to speak on (he public platform without infringing the Jaw. Great stress was laid on the soldiers’ vote in the trenches on the question of conscription in Australia. The audience consisted of some 300 or 400. Constable Duel also gave evidence. ' Accused said lie did not propose to give evidence, hut would like to make a statement. Air fatten stated a speech on the lines of that containing the charges could not he permitted. Accused must either deny the charges or argue, if he wished, that they did not come within the scope of the War licgnlat ions. Accused: “Can I give a reason for making the statements'?'’ Air Cullen: “I bardlv think vim

Accused made a fairly lengthy statement, contending that his opposition to conscription had not been generated by the passing of 1 lie Military Service Act, ns he had addressed meetings on the same ques--1 ion prior to the outbreak of war. Allusion was also made !o (he fact that speeches on similar lines had been made by prominent politicians in Australia.

Mr Tole: “In Australia the qitestion was referred to the people,'and (he fad of doing so carried with it, the right to discuss the question. Mr Cullen : "Dulling it hrielly, the law in Australia is not the same as the law in New Zealand.” In giving judgment, the magistrate said he had no difficulty in convicting defendant, who admitted the correctness of tlx* remarks attriuhled to him. The question ot penalty .however, was of serious importance. He would have to take into consideration not only the fact that the commission of (he ofteneo was deliberate, hut a,lso the I act that defendant’s speech contained a number of breaches of many clauses of the regulations, and breaches likely to have serious results. He fell it iiis duly to sentence accused to twelve months' imprisonment.