THE LYONS CASE

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 132, 8 June 1925, Page 9

THE LYONS CASE

UNDESIRABLE IMMIGRANTS

PROTEST AGAINST EXCLUSION ACT,

-a. publio meeting held under tha auspices of the Labour Representation Committee was held in the Empress Theatre last night to urge the repeal.of the Undesirable Immigrants Exclusion Act, Mr. T. Brindle, president of the fcew Zealand Labour Party, occupied the chair. Thera.lYvajL.aii attendance of about 150 persoSSZr'—

Mr. W. T. Young,' secretary" of the Federated Seamen's Union, moved:— "That this meeting protests against that administration of the Undesirable Inumgrants Exclusion Act .by the AttorneyGeneral in the case of Noel Lyons, as no facts have been iuado publil- \vhich. give any grounds.for putting thia-mo<t tou. Ihis meeting, further 'evpre-es thatw xcl, UKlo\ Acfc is a negation of the moat elementary principlel bf libj&e dT °l, Slft ecl1 ' juiti c, and £ 2ig U H bo repealed " . bpeakmgm. support of the resolut'on,. wL Lw S SST d that wh«>-«» Manuka .^as held up Lyons was not a member ot the .crew. He had seen lh* literitended tf sei2ed ' tended that there was nothing in it that anyone could take exception^ to wa,-r aSSf Md V the« was-nothing, to wwrant the Attorney-General" issuin? "16 ordf v *<> Lyons to leave this conn try. Although he -(Mr. -Young) not agree ™th the principles ■ Lyons propounded in_ the. industrial fieil™ £itn the principles propounded" by the Commun^ts m the political field, he was there to support the principles 'of freedom. He maintained that literature was' ban ne d , vluoh should not' be, whilst literature which corrupted the -mind of youth was allowed; to come-in'" H^lmcl written a letter-to-the Piime'-Minister & mih e mif inq?. iry iDtO -reasons n^ht G.lover' Zealand Alliance , thnt 1 ' •? A econdin S the motion, said o7nWf£ he .? ower we« Justifiable duiing the war, it was 'never intended that it should apply to .the present time and to persons: coming' here- to attemiH to improve the industrial conditions- rf the workers. - -

OnS™" -l Broro. ley i „ &«fc« and Labour Urancil, contended that the legislation was panic legislation, and the pow°r - given to the Attorney-General was power which should not be placed in tne hands of one person. Jfh f" ■F^- er> M-P -' raSteiKd. some of the legislation passed during the war and some of the ; regulations framed under that legislation. The objective of the-Labour. Party was to bring about the-common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange— bringing that about by political means wt \u egl l constitutional methods. tw«t 9 fiF st rePresentativeof the I.W.W. preached their doctrines in this country he opposed them, and he opP°!^ t.hem- to-day. He believed the I.W.W. doctrines were the most stultifying and reactionary, ever introduced In reply to an interjection by a young man in the audience, Mr^Fraser said the person interrupting showed' By Ins intolerance exactly what he would . do if he had the power. If the interrupter were in the Attorney-General's place he would act exactly in the same way as the Attorney-General was doing (Applause.) The Labour Party opposed the theory that might was right. It opposed any loose talk about dictatorship It stood for constitutional methods; and before such methods could be put into operation there must be freedom of speech and absolute freedom. of/rthought.-; ■■;. .•^,» '- ". „::_*.'~_ A voice: "If you' believe in. freedom of discussion, why not give Lyons ■ a hearing? What about freedom of~ speech?" The Chairman: "It is not a" matter of freedom of speech. This meeting has been called to protest against - unjust laws." ■ '. Mr. P. Fra-ser said the' interjections only showed the elementary mind—the childish mind—of. the man who had interrupted. Continuing, he said tha Labour' Party opposed the legislation when it was - proposed. The only" Way to have the legislation repealed was to turn the Government out of office, and place a Labour Government in power. . .'...'. The motion was put to the. meeting and was carried without dissent. -

TO THS EDITOR.

Sir, —As. a trade unionist I shall be glad if you will allow rue sufficient space to voice a protest against/"tha action of the official Labour Party. in tho Lyons case. Mr. Holland appears jto bo greatly alarmed about British liberty being imperilled because a bearer of Communistic doctrine (presumably emanating from Russia) has been ordered by the Attorney-General to leave the country, as his presence is not desired ■ It appears to mo that .Mr. Holland's protest is quite in • keeping vifih that cablegram which was sent-to Russia expressing tho sympathy of the-X.Z. Labour Party in tho death of Lenin..,. Anyway, th»t> bo as it may, in spite'~~oi "ready-made" resolutions carried at | stop-work meetings, etc., I am-'-quite sure (hero are more of tho' ■.'workers against, Mr. Holland's action on .behalf of Lyons than there are for him. .As one who has followed the sea and travelled the world 1 can assure- you. Sir, that New Zealand stand's' second to none as a working man's coiintrv," and while there is undoubtedly still plenty of room for improvement it will not come from actions by such- men as Lyons or by the Leader of the Labour Party in defending. those. actions'.: If Mr. Holland claims to be such a' champion of British liberty and- the right of free speech/ I will suggest to him that ho sets to work straight away m educating that section of his followers who take such a delight'in denying the right of free speech.to.all'opponenis of tho Labour Party that such conduct is not. in accordance with British tra-i ditions.—l am, etc., . .' .". "".:"....."._ R n, , H, HARRIS. 6th Juns,