PUNISHMENT FOR SEDITION.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 May 1919, Page 7

PUNISHMENT FOR SEDITION.

DISCUSSED BY FARMERS' CONFERENCE.

J At Friday's session of the provincial conference of the Taranaki Farmers' 'Union, the question of the punishment of persons found guilty of sedition was discusssed at some length. The matter was introduced by means of a remit sent forward by the Ngaere branch of the union. Mr, Orr moved the remit which was as follows: That the law be so amended as to provide that, in addition to the present penalties, a further penalty of disfranchisement, up to a period of ten (10) years, may be imposed for the crimes of sedition or forcible resistance of the law or forcible interference with anyone in the carrying out of any work, occupation or action permitted by law. In speaking to the motion he urged that the principal aim was to prevent men who had been lawbreakers from becoming law-makers. Mr. Maxwell seconded the motion, and referred to the liberality of the constitution under which we lived, and thought that if there were those who were not content to abide by the laws of the country and sought by force or unconstitutional means to override those laws they should be deprived of the franchise for at least the period suggested by the motion.

The chairman said that the motion had been submitted for legal opinion, and it had ' been pointed out that its scope was somewhat wide and that an amendment was desirable. On his suggestion the remit was made to read

"that in addition to the penalties at present provided for," etc Mr. Owen said it was important to understand exactly what was meant by sedition. Personally he thought any man who persistently went about Btirring up strife was a seditions person. There were a good number of such men in the Dominion and unless they were dealt with there would be serious trouble in New Zealand. Mr. Voullaire said his branch wa9 of opinion that the latter portion of the motion was too far-reaching. If it applied to anyone using "forcible resistance to the law" it would touch a great many people who had no seditious intentions whatever. He thought those words should be deleted, and moved in that direction.

Mr. Astbury opposed both the motion and the amendment on the ground that they did away with what he regarded aa the safety valve of the British constitution—the right of free speech. If such a resolution went out the Fanners' Union would he stamped as one of the most conservative bodies in the community. Any law that commanded silence would be productive of more intrigue than anything else. It should be remembered that many of the greatest reformers had been men who, to carry their reforms, had been obliged to resist the law. Regarding the men in Parliament who had been convicted of sedition, he pointed out that those men had been sent there by a majority of the electors in their district, and if the motion was carried in condemning the disfranchising, them they would be doing the same to the people who sent them to Parliament. Mr. Voullaire's amendment was carried. Mr. Silver considered the matter outside the scope of the Union, who should confine themselves to matters relating to farmers' interests. He moved that the original motion be held over for an indefinite period. The chairman ruled that the m&tetr was a direct negative and could not be admitted.

Mr. Lambie said he felt something should be done to deal with those who would prevent honest men from earning a living. He reminded those present of the strike at the Wellington wharves, which the farmers had to break. He claimed that as, Britishers they should be free to work at what they liked, and for whom they liked and where they liked. When men went the length of holding up the business of the country it was time to do something to put them in their place. Mr. Mills said he did not think the matter was one altogether outside the scope of the union's consideration. While they were primarily interested in matters relating to farming they were also interested in matters that affected the welfare of the community. He did not think the motion aimed at interfering with the freedom of speech, but with actions inciting men to break the law, Matters were not the same now as in the days when reforms could only be brought about by the adoption of violence. The motion was declared carried on the voices, but Mr. Astbury called for a division, which, when taken, confirmed the first vote, there being only two against the motion.