ANTI-CONSCRIPTION.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 July 1916, Page 5

ANTI-CONSCRIPTION.

ALLEGED SEDITIOUS LETTER. ACCUSED BEFORE THE COURT. By Telegraph—Press Association. I'almerston North, last Xight. T. Robinson, secretary of the Flaxmillq Employees Union, \ias charged on tin: information of the police with, on June 12, 1916, at Palmerston North, expressing seditious intention by delivering to a person unknown a certain lettenin the words following:— I "Manawatu Flaxmills Employees Union, Britannia Buildings, June 12, 1916. Dear Comrades.—At a sipeeial mass meeting of the above Union, held on) Saturday last, July 10, 191 ft, for the purpose of discussing conscription, the following resolution was unanimously carried: "That this meeting pledges itself by signature attached to the form provided, that it will immediately go on strike the moment the Conscription Act is put into operation to enforce any man against his wish or conscience to join the forces, and that all flaxmills cut to give a similar undertaking.tottun be circularised, calling upon members not present to give a similar undertaking. Further, this meeting resolves to act upon other suggestions that may be considered necessary to obstruct the Act." Acting under instructions from the above meeting, J. Thorn, or myself, will visit your place of employment on Monday, July 19, for the purpose of getting signatures to oho above pledge. Kindly notify the workers of your district. (Signed), P. T. Robinson, Secretary. Mr. Meredith appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Cooper for defendant who pleaded "not guilty." Detective-Sergeant Quirke said he showed Robinson tiie circular, which was alleged to have been sent round the flax mills for signatures. Robinson admitted his signature at the bottom of the circular. Witness then said: "At the meeting held at Foxton, at which you and Gavin Stone, were present, the same resolution was put to the meeting, which was asked %o affirm it." Defendant replied: "That's not true." Prosecuting counsel said the prosecution was based on Clause 3 of the War Regulations Act. Mr. Cooper submitted that the prosecution had failed. Detective-Sergeant Quirke did not have the letter delivered to him, and it was not proved that the letter was delivered to anybody, so that it had not been published. Mr. Meredith submitted that the mere intention of writing was sufficient, as it was not always possible to prove publication. The Magistrate said there was no evidence that Robinson published the circular.

Mr. Cooper said defendant was a paid servant of the Union. It wa9 not suggested in the evidence that he visited any place with the idea of getting signatures to the objection. Robinson might object to the sentiments, and the putting of the signatures to such a resolution was not sedition. The strik" suggested was a mere show of objection to compulsion. Mr. Meredith, in reply, said a strike would entail a monetary loss to the (laxmillers. It was a threat that ivould cause industrial chaos, and if Parliament was liable to be threatened in this way members of Parliament would have to take into consideration the threats of one part of the community, The Magistrate reserved, his gecisio% ,