SIX MONTHS’ GAOL

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 160, 6 June 1940, Page 8

SIX MONTHS’ GAOL

SUBVERSIVE PROPAGANDA. CASE AT PAHIATUA. -A sentence of six months’ imprisonment was passed by Mr H. P. Lawry, B.My, in the Magistrate’s Court at Pahiatua, yesterday, on Harold Gordon Darbyshire, aged 39, married, a labourer, of Eketahuna, who was found guilty on a charge that oii'February 23. 1940, at Pahiatua, he published a subversive statement, a pamphlet entitled “The War and the Working Class, - ’ by selling a'copy of the pamphlet to Alexander Gordon Hogg. The information was laid under the Public Safety Emergency Regulations,' 1940. Mr N. H. Itawson conducted the case for the prosecution. Accused, who was not represented by counsel, pleaded not guilty. First outlining that the regulations stated that no person shall publish or attempt to publish p.ny •’ statement to cause disaffection to His Majesty, intended or likely to prejudice 1 the recruiting or training of His Majesty’s Forces, or intended or likely to interfere with the morale of the civil population or of His Majesty’s Forces, Mr Itawson related how a copy of the pamphlet was bought from accused by a constable. SALE TO CONSTABLE.

Constable A. G. Hogg gave evidence (hat there was some trouble between returned soldiers and Communists in Pahiatua and, following this, witness found accused selling literature. Witness at first denied that he was a Communist, but later said:/“I suppose I am.” Witness asked accused not to continue selling such literature and this'was observed as far as Pahiatua was concerned.

Constable A. McCowan gave evidence that on May 25, in company with Sergeant 11. Whiting and Constable A. Carlvon, he conducted a search of accused’6 home, and witness produced a large quantity of literature found there, also files of correspondence. Among the books was one marked “Finland —the Truth,” the “Soviet News,” copies of “The People’s Voice” of various dates, and one book marked “Not for sale to the public.” Witness said he had not read the books thoroughly, Put they were all of an inflammable nature, and what he had read were against war. Witness referred to several sheets of the correspondence, one of these being about a “Peace and anti-conscription conference,” and witness said other parts of this correspondence were evidently lessons sent out to new adherents to Communist "thought. Witness understood that there was a large quantity of other matter hidden in the garden, because accused had been expecting somebody to come to his house. 'lbis closed the case for the prosecution. ■ ACCUSED'S ATTITUDE. Asked whether he wished to give evidence on oath (in which case he could be cross-examined) or make a. statement from the floor of the Court, accused elected to take the latter course. Accused said if the pamphlet named in the charge were not true it would not interfere with the war effort, because the general public. would not believe it. This paiiiphlet had been published in “The People's Voice” in serial form and the publishers of “The People’s Voice” had not been prosecuted. The Magistrate: How do you suggest that the passages here (holding up the pamphlet) were not subversive? It is clearly suggested here to the people that they should take up this side against war. It is an urge to the people not to take part in the war. Is that not the intention? Accused said the literature taken from Iris house was for his own personal information.

At this stage a woman in the rear of the Court interjected and attempted to address th 6 Court, but the Alagis-t:-ate said he would not have the Court interrupted by somebody wbo was not a party to the proceedings. The woman was then called to the witness box by accused, and she’ gave her name as Mrs Elsie Freeman, of Wellington. Slie would not take the oath hut made an affirmation and said that the book marked “not for . the public” was a Left Book Club issue, this book' being printed not for issue to tho public but for members of the club only. The Magistrate: But we are not concerned with that particular hook. Proceeding, witness said the pamphlet “The War and the Working Class!’ was received in Wellington from Australia through the post. ' It was passed by the Customs Department and was sold in Wellington. There w r as no prosecution there'. Accused called as a witness his wife, who also refused to take the oath but made an affirmation, and she said that all accused’s mail had ' borne the mark of. the censor. Mr Rawson said his instructions had been to press for a heavy, penalty. It was a shock to find in a small rural area, that such a group did exist. SERIOUS VIEW TAKEN. In" giving liis decision the Alagistrate said the Emergency Regulations Act -of 1939 was very wide in its powers, and authorised tho making of regulations. These regulations made it an offence to pubnsn, or attempt to publish, any, subversive statement. “To publish” meant to communicate to a person or persons, in writing or orally. The statement published in the pamphlet was clearly a statement which was likely or intended to interfere with recruiting, intended or likely to cause disaffection in the State, or calculated to stir up the people, and to hinder the prosecution of the war. The rights or wrongs of the war did not come within the province of the Court. The Court had to decide whether, by publication of the pamphlet, accused had carried out an act likely to cause disaffection, to induce men not to offer their services for their, coiintrv. That had been clearly established; therefore he must hold that accused was guilty. Continuing, the Alagistrate said the penalty could range to a fine of £IOO or imprisonment for 12 months. This man had come nearly 10 miles from his home to the place where he sold the pamphlet. He was warned at the time not to continue publishing such statements, but the evidence disclosed that., while, he did not go again to ■Pahiatua with that object in view, lie 1 seemed to have carried on his activities in liis home tojvn. A lot of. tlie literature might well have been obtained for his own information and in that regard; as far as His Worship could see, no offence had been committed. H.e bad not been charged with having in his possession documents of a damaging nature. But the Bench could hot ignore Abe fact that the documents seized- included th® accounts for nulilieatiohs sucli as “The People’s Voice.” a paper which had since been suppressed entirelv. Not only did accused evidently continue the publication of this paper after tlie warnings, but. very shortly afterward, he increased his orders. This went to 'show that accused’s activities were continued, although not necessarily in the' same

town, and that efforts had been made to distribute other documents and bulletins. The publication of these other documents had not been established, but His Worship could say that accused had in his possession documents for dissemination; whether they were distributed or not lie could not say. At a time like this, the Magistrate continifed, when the war was being prosecuted with such difficulty and with such gravity, these statements could have only one influence on the public, a subversive influence. Our country was one of those which were a party to the declaration of war. and arguments of the sort advanced in the pamphlet could have only one result. The • object pf the Legislature was that they should be stopped. ' “I would not be doing my duty if I indicated, by the sentence, that the offence was a light one,” said the Magistrate. “It is not. Activity such as this is doing quite a lot of harm, right throughout the country. “Much has been made of the fact that this is the first prosecution on this particular pamphlet. All T can say is that the authorities have launched a prosecution. It may be that this prosecution will be a sufficient; warning, but it may be that they will launch prosecutions against everybody against whom they can bring sufficient evidence. 1 “Our liberty is at stake. If the war goes against England at the present time it will go against New Zealand, and • then wo will all be under the iron heel, no matter what our political views are.” Continuing, the Magistrate said he would make some reduction on account of the fact that the offence took place so soon after the regulations were made, but he could not make as much reduction as under other circumstances because of the fact that accused had continued in his activities. The sentence would be six- months’ imprisonment.