LEGAL ARGUMENT.

Auckland Star, Volume LXXI, Issue 145, 20 June 1940, Page 18

LEGAL ARGUMENT.

WHAT IS SUBVERSION? TWO MEN FOR TRIAL. (By Telegraph.—Frees Association.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. The question of what constitutes subversion, as opposed to political criticism, was argued Detween counsel and the Crown Prosecutor, before Mr. Goulding, S.M., after evidence had been heard in a case in which Peter Wilfred George McAra was charged with making a subversive statement at a meeting at the Trades' Hall, on May 19. Counsel, Mr. Rollings, submitted that references to the paet actions and declarations of present political leaders was fair criticism, which could not be construed as subversive. It was contended for the Crown that whatever might have been said in the past by the present leaders of the Government they were to-day in charge of New Zealand's war effort and their former words, in the form of quotations, might be construed as subversive statements when put forward again as a quotation, obviously with the purpose of expressing the opinion of the speaker himself. "Reference has been . made," said the prosecutor,, "to the effect. The speech was a political one and was attacking the present leaders politically. That, I submit, may be a very subtle form of subversion." Referring to a reference to conscription made by the speaker, the magistrate remarked that conscription was not in force in this country at the time, and any strong criticism of conscription, or intended conscription, was permissible. Defendant, who pleaded not guilty, was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was allowed. Douglas Murdoch Martin, similarly cliarged, was qpso committed for trial.