SEDITIOUS UTTERANCES.

Taranaki Daily News, 24 May 1917, Page 5

SEDITIOUS UTTERANCES.

WEBB BEFORE THE COURT. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Christchurch, Last Night. The hearing of the charges P C. Webb, lt-P., for making seditious utterances at Greymouth on April 10, was proceeded with to-day. Mr. Ray-; mond, K.C., prosecuted Sir John Findlay defended accused.

Mr. Raymond, in opening the case, said that if there was a soditious utterance, having a seditious tendency, then no matter what the motives of defendant might be those motives could not he taken into account. Ho was now regarding the, matter entirely from the point of view of the Bafety <tt the Statb and that of society. The utterance of n well-intentioned man might be more} fatal to the pulflic than the Utterance' of an cvil-intentioned man, because the opinions of the former would' carry weight, while the opinions of the latter would not. He would not go into thfy question of motives, but would submit that thby were perfectly irrelevant. Whatever the rights of the miners might, be, it was a'question, not. of the riots' of any individual, but of duty to loyally observe the laws qf'the country, and promote the interests of country in relation to its military and eeonofhic. resources. This was cleaWy indicated hv the special legislation which had been passed by the Legislature under the War Regulations Act.

Constable McMahon, wlio took sliortliand notes of part of Walk's speech, said he had a certificate for 'i&O word» per minute. I Sir <T. Findlay's cross examination was in ths direction of establishing that MeMabon's notes could not be aefwt«J' l an •a reliable report of the whole utterances. In opening for the defence, Sir J. Findlay said that, according to t(ic flrown's definition'of the War Regulations tftgy were absolutely unqualified. Under such a definition a shrftg of the shoulders was sufficient to have a man tiied for sedition. If, in the privacy of 'his own home, he expressed certain opinions, he was liable to arrest, and to ba haled before the court on a charge ot< sedition. Under (regulation 4 of the War Regulations Act, 1914, any utterance written or spoken in public or private against the Government of /Zealand made the author liable to be se(|t to -gaol for twelve months. That 1 vrns not the case under the Crimes Ani, or the Common Law of England or iff New Zealand to-day. Unless the court interpreted these regulations in a different light from that auggestfeu by the Grown, no man or woman in this country who criticised the Government was* Safe Sir John contended that under 3uch a construction the remarks made iby G. Fenwick and De#n Fitehett in EBmediri'/the other day, •whereby they criticised the Government, would raider these gentlemen liable to twelve months' •imprisonment. Was New Zealand to he tongue-tied and left at the mercy of officialdom? He contended that the case against Webb had broken down, as MoMahon admitted that he had loft oiit' anl altered words of Webb'-s speech.

The case was adiourned till 10 a.m. to-morrow.