UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10608, 5 June 1920, Page 8

UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION

"SYSTEMATIC PERSECUTION" ALLEGED. WOULD HE HAVE ACCEPTED APOLOGY <• * Sir John Findlay, opening his crossexamination, asked the plaintiff: Did you eee the letter Messrs Brandon, Hislop and Brandon wrote to the "New Zealand Times." dated August Sth, 1919. Witness: Not before it was sen*. Counsel: Have you seen it since? Witness: Yes. You know that the letter contains this, addressing the general manager, "You must bo aware that our, client has been subjected to systematic pereocution by anonymous and other correspondents and in other' commuicationa in the newspapers," and that you sourtod full inquiry into your life and actions P Witness: I know it now. That statement is true, then ?—I think so. That you have been subjected to sy»tematic persecution by anonymous writers of letters to newspapers?— Yes. It is commonly known that your name figured conspicuously in the newspapers in connection with the discus-

sion as to the professorship at Victoria College?—Yes. • And you are aware that almost violent protests -were made against your, continuing in the Chair of Moaexa Langauges?—Yes. Axe you aware that the Alien Enemy Teachers 5 Act of 1915 was chiefly directed against yourself?—l have been told so. Have you noli read the debate in. Parliament ? —No. Do you know that in course of tha debate in Parliament members spoke against the Government for permitting you to occupy that chair? —I did not read the debate. Sir John Findlay: I see. L-ETTBH ONLY ONE OF A SERIES. Wo come, therefore, to this admis. sion, added counsel, that this letter of which you complained was only one of a series of letters which were systematically, in the words of your solicitors letter, persecuting you? Witness: May 1 explain an what sense I agreed when I said "Yes" to your 'question? While 1 agreed, I did noc write that sentence, or see it before the letter was sent. You asked mo whether I held it to be true,' and I said "Yes," and I hold it to be true on the ground that to my knowledge several of the persons who attacked me anonymously were persons who had a private grudge against myself. Counsel: You admit that you vera being attacked frequently in the papers by anonymous correspondents!' Witness: I admit freely that that was the case. He had no objection, he added, to those who did so On grounds of principle. "SYSTEMATIC PERSECUTION" DEFINED. Counsel: What do you mean hf "systematic persecution"? Witness: Letters written by persona with personal grievances against myself, under the cloak of anonymity—but certainly not on grounds of na< tionality—and not adhering strictly to the truth. Were the letters which showed "systematic persecution" mostly untrue?. --I think so—mostly untrue. And these untrue statements amounted to a systematic persecution?—l think you might almost call them that.. And that continued from not long after the war until not very long ago? —No; I should say that it continued from shortly after the sinking of the Lusitania until the passing of the ■Alien Enemy Teachers' Act. What period would that bep—Some, months. May, June, July—three or f our months. " Mr Skerrett slightly underestimated, did he not, when he said that thi \ot ceased to be in operation at tho end of the war?—lt has been contin ued permanently*. Mt Skerrett: It was repealed tt tnako it permanent. Sir John Findlay: That last Ar 1 was passed as recently as this lettc' was written, and there was then a* agitation against your being appointed to the Victoria College staff P Mr .Skerrett: He could not be. Sir John Findlay: Tt was suggest*** He then reseated the question, t.

which the witness replied, "Yes." Sir John Findlay: And there were meetingß and letters to the newspapers and all sorts of violent language used?—Yes; and, so long- as the statements were true, I could not object. Counsel: But, according to the statement in this letter, you had been subjected to systematic persecution; yet this is the only action you liavo taken ?—Yes.

"MAINLY TO GET INTO THIS BOX."

Counsel: Is this an action brought mainly to get money, or to give you an opportunity of entering the wit-ness-box to 101 l the jury what you luuo told them to-day?—From my point of view, mainly to get into this oox.

Counsel: Not to extort money from the defondant?

"Witness: In my original communication between niy solicitor and myself .

Counsel: You can't go into that.

Witness: May I say that few people have lost more heavily in pocket than I have myself.

Sir John Findlay: It is not my object to say anything to hurt your feelings.

ffour solicitor's letter, added counsel, roads: "An opportunity for such inquiry will be given when our client fe placed in the witness-box." Does not that express your point of view? i Witness: A man who has been attacked by anonymous liars is delighted to have an opportunity of finding ivhat really cab bo said against hhn. Sir John .Findlay said that it appeared that the witness-box was not the only thing tho plaintiff had in mind, because the letter, which was rather skilfully written, if ho might compliment his learned friend Mr Hislop : ' It was not written by me. Sir John Findlay, continuing, said that plaintiff's solicitors said that they were only writing the letter from a eense of obligation, and that their client w»u» not prepared to accept a bare apology and withdrawal. Mr Skerrett: The next sentence explains that. WOULD OR WOULD NOT ACCEPT APOLOGY?' Sir John Findlay: Very well, I will read it tull'y. This he did, adding: |'l take it, therefore, that if the 'New Zealand Times' had ever withdrawn the statement and made apology you would have accepted it? Witness: I certainly should. Counsel: But your lawyer saye you would not. He road again the phrase, "Would not be prepared to accept a bare apology and withdrawal." Mr Skerrnti. "A bans apology."' Sir John Findlay: We are told that if ih» "New Zealand Times" published an apology regretting that this had been done, apologising in regard to it as a mistake—we are told that it would not have been accepted? Witness: I had not seen the letter. -.

Sir John Findlay: But you are responsible for what your lawyera do. Witness: I accept that. Sir John Findlay: Here is a letter stating that you will not accept a bare withdrawal and apology, and reserve all your • legal rights againet us. Witness: Yes. May I say it is hardly fair to make me responsible for the legal wording of my solicitor. Sir John Findlay: But this is the point: My learned friend has characterised our reply as making matters worse instead of better.

Witness: That they do. But if your clients did, so——. • , Sir John Findlay: I am entitled to understand that your solicitor'* letter expresses your view. Witness: Oh, yes. "NO PERSONAL ANIMOSITY."

Sir John Findlay: Then (reading the managing editor's letter), it was in view of that that wo wrote you this letter. Now, tha't letter was 'written, you will observe, in answer to one which had declared that no baro> apology or withdrawal would be sufficient; and that, even if an apology and withdrawal was given, you still relied upon all your legal rights. Very wetl, now, do you really suggest, Professor von Zedlitz, that the "Now "Zealand Times" itself had any porsonal animosity against you? Witness: I don't suppose so for a moment.

Sir John Findlay: No: I havo read in the "Now Zealand Times," as you havo read, frequent commendations of your work, and I think you will admit that, so far an your personal character is concerned, the "New Zealand Times" has never at any time reflected upon you?—No; I think not.

Sir John Findlay: And I am here to admit that statements on which Mr Skerrett eays you'ba6o your claim aro incorrect, and got into our columns by inadvertence, and that we are prepared to eay so. "BITTERLY DISAPPOINTED.*'

Witness: You are not exactly asking mo a question. You are asking my opinion. I may say I got thia letter, and was bitterly disappointed that.it was impossible for me to accept it as an apology, because 1 looked upon it as an inniilt—a letter which. I had asked for by way of an expression of regret for a wrong unintentionally done, yet which contains paragraphs like thin, that though the authorities did not actually intern Professor von Zcdlitz, they • kept him under surveillance. That is an insinuation that there was some cause," tome wrong I had done. Well, was it not a fact that- every interned German was under surveillance?—Yes; but t had not a' moment's objection to being treated liko everyone else, if it is being said that everyono of German extraction should be treated with ouery precaution andi (severity for precautionary purposes. But I do object to it being stated that any unintentional wrong committed by mc, or regulations broken by mc, made it necessary for mo to be a person treated with special severity. ,

Sir John Findlay: As Mr Skerrett Hftid a moment ago, they aro as nu'morouts as tho sands of the sea. You faid you did not knowingly commit any breach. Anybody looking at these regulations (indicating a file) might say the same.

Witness: Anybody reading that letter would naturally take it as pointing to some substantial wrong T had done. Sir John Findlay: I will put it to the jury. .

WIFE BECAME A GERMAN SUBJECT.

You woro married, lie continued, lotig before the warp—Twelve years. And you wore married before tho war. You knew that, on marriago, your wife became a German subject? —No, I cannot say I did. At tho time* of niy marriago 1 ceased to be a German subject. I was excluded. • T,u you moan to say that if you returned to Germany you would not have been subieefc to German law?—T mean to say that if T was a. Gorman subject— •

But you are now a, German sub-

jectl—That may bo in the eye of Now Zealand law. but you can't make mo a German subject in the «ye of German law. You married as a German subject and made your wife a German subject. You were here twelve yeais, receiving pay from Not- Zealand, making New Zealand your home. -Why didn"'t vou naturalise? "BARRIER AGAINST TEMPTATION." AVitness: I did not naturalise because I. am a, man naturally tempted to take an interest in politics, and I am not sure that it is right for a man in my position to enter political life in Now Zealand. And, in any case. I felt that my duty lay in the discharge of tho work for which I had been brought out at the expense ot the people of this country, and I valued my non-naturalisation mainly as a barrier against my natural temptation and inclination to enter political lile.

Do you seriously ask the jury to'' believe that if naturalised you could not resist the temptation to encoi politics?—l might havo found it difficult.

Sir John Findlay: You have given nn answer which I shall be bound to characterise later. You have said that wits the only reason.—Not tho only reason. I think thero may havo been at the back of my mind a reason of snobbery, that in Germany the family of which I b.jar the name i» well known, and .{hat so long as f k:ould conceive of myself or describe myself as a German I could describe myself as belonging to a more or less distinguished family; and that in Frig, land, or as an Englishman, I was nothing at flll. I don't say thai it weighed with mo much, but at the back of my mind that may havo .veighed with me. In other words, at the back of your jiiind you were pioud of belonging to an eminent German family?—l believe that is tho shameful truth.

Were there no property reasons?— No.

You have given us two reasons. Were there any others?—l don't think so. Did it not occur to yon that, as yon were resident in this muntry, drawing your maintenance from it a_nd enjoying its freedom and protection that allegiance to the British Crown should have ovorweighed any idea of your German family?—l am not quite sure that I understand what you mean.

I put it to you that on becoming naturalised you becamo under obligations of allegiance to tho country in which you are naturalised? —Well, I took that upon myself by taking tho oath .of allegiance. When? —When I served as a volunteer on two occasions in Wellington. Sir John Findlay: For that time. Mr Skerrett: For all time. Tho oath of allegiane is for all time. Sir John Findlay: For that occasion.

Mr Skearetifc: It is not for that occasion. Thait is not fair. Sir John Findlay: I take it that, as a professor of languages and a German, you kept yourself as well acquainted as most of us as to the relations of European nations. You had as good, if not better, opportunity than most of us Oif knowing the relations in which, they stood?—l don't know how I can answer, except in this way, that my views and opinions were those of other New' Zealaiiders at the outbreak of war.

Were you not aware on the outbreak of the war. that Britain must come into it?—No. "THE MOST AWFUL THOUGHT."

Do you seriously tell us that you were not aware —did not feel that in that great war Britain must come to the assistance of France? —But, Sir John, every man looks at it from hw own point of view. The most awful thought .thajfc could happen to me was that the war should come between Britain and Germany; and for two .or three days I went about swearing to myself that <this was not going to happen. ■ , ■ Did you not share the view of practically every New Zealander, when this war was declared by .Germany against France—■—

Mr Skerrett: Against Russia. Sir J. Findlay: Against Russia., in tho firah place. Did you not know that Russia being an ally of France, it must •become a war with Britain? Do you moan to tell the jury that yoti did not know that Britain must come, inito this ghastly conflict? —I tell you what was in my mind, and that was that Germany would make every concession demanded by Britain; and, 'tihat for one thing, they would nofc enter Belgium because that meant war with Britain.

Sir John Findlay: I will test you by something written down. Did you not write on December 3rd, 1914 — When war was declared you conceived it your duty to go back to Germany and assist her?

The witness objected to the question in that farm. THE WRITTEN WORD.

Six John Findlay then :ead from the published "Kepont of tho Victoria University College Council concerning the case of Prolessor von Zedlitss/'_ a letter from Sir Francis Bell, thou Minister for Internal 'Affairs, asking the professor to states his position and to give a written assurance that Iw would not communicate, directly or indirectly, with any enemy nation; also the following reply by Professor von Zcdbte: "When war was declared, _ I conceived it my duty to go to Germany and volunteer for somo non-comba-tailt work. The German Consul hero showed mo tho material impossibility of doing that. Besides, I havo long ceaecd to-be a German subject, and the German authorities would probably have refused mo admittance us an alien enemy. '•'An elementary sense of decency should prevent me from abusing tho generous protection and hospitality ol this country. All my colleagues, the chairman, and other membeiw of tho College Council, and many otherw have gone out of their way to show mo kindness and .sympathy. I E lvo you the assurance you require willingly, both as' to tho future and tho past, and I enclose a statement couched in the wordfi of your letter to inc. I presume' it is not intended to include speaking to students who aro German about" their work, or to my children's nursery governess, who is a German. "As regardfi the position, winch 1 owe entirely to you, the governorship of tho institute terminates in a year's timo, anyhow, so' that I thought it would he unnecessary and indiscreet to resign now. Tho translation of foreign correspondence for your department can terminate without formality when it wants to to bo. "Finally, though I am grateful to you for your letter, and for many other things, please understand that I do not welcome anything in the nature of preferential treatment. I have done nothing which is in any Wav objectionublo, from the point of view of a patriotic Briton. Hut I would prefer' confinement on Somes Island or cteewhore to being treated differently to other New Zcnluudor» ol German origin, 7

Witnese admitted having written [tho letter, and also admitted having written in a statement made when the Alien Enemy Teachers Bill was before Parliament—" When Germany declared war upon France, and Russia, I had the gravest doubte of what 1 ought to do, and for a moment conceived it as my duty (in entire opposition to my intercuts or inclination) to go to Germany. When, a few days later, Great Britain entered into the war, I clejrly realised that the bare claims of birthplace and paternal ancestry could not possibly cre'atc for mo a duty to act in any way. that might conflict with the interests of the' country of my adoption, to which I am'bound by every tie of habit, association, and gratitude. That wan in tho first days of August, 1914." A FOOL'S PARADISE. When Germany was at war with Franco, asked Sir John Findlay, do vou suggest that you did not know that Great Britain must come inito that conflict?—l am perfectly clear that, however foolish I may havo been, I lived in that fool's paradise for some time. You aro going to take refuge in a fool's paradise?—Well, it was so. You are going ' to tell ns that, knowing Germany better than most of us, knowing Europe better than most of us, you" did not know that Britain must come in? —I do.

Sir J6hn Findlay put it to the jury that when the witness recognised his duty of goin-j baok to Germany, ho recognised that he might have to fight England. Witness: Good heavens! If you could put yourself in my position!. It was explained, he added, in the sentences that followed.

Replying to further questions, the witness said that he had no means of knowing whether members of the pro. minent German family to which he belonged were fighting in the war. Till the question was put to him, he bad not heard that a nephew,, or other relative of his, was Governor of a city or area in Belgium during the war. He had no knowledge whatever of what part any of his relatives took in the war. He had heard that _ th« war was carried on by Germany in a most revolting fashion, as characterised bv Mr Skerrett, but " had not read the newspapers for the first year or two after the (war. Having read them ,now, he quite agreed that after the conduct of Germany in the war. no nerson could be proud of his being a. German, or of his German familv. no matter how high He rank. He denied that he wag made an exception of by the Government, except) in the sense that he was made the subjerrt of an Act of Parliament because his employers would not dismiss him. He had written to Sir Francis Bell that ho did not wish to be made an exception *of.

Sir John Findlay: Therefore yon cannot object to the "Times" consistently and persistently demanding tint yon should not be made an exception of?—That was quite right so far as my opinion £oes. He had heard rumours that signalling waa conducted from his house at Lower Hutt, and knew that such rumours gab into the papers. He did not read the newspapers- then because he to avoid letters having reference to himself. He received one year's ealary, .£7OO, on severing his connection with the College Council. That waa the usual thing. When the letter complained of appeared' attempts wera/ made to oust him from a tempor/ry appointment as a teacher. At 1 o'clock the cross-examination Was concluded, nnd the court adjourned until 3.30, counsel on- both sides intimating that no further witnesses would ho called.