SEDITION CASES.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16207, 9 May 1918, Page 7

SEDITION CASES.

HUNTER RECEIVES IIiREE MONTHS. FLOOD AND LANGLEY SIX MONTH'S.

There was an aitermath in the .Magistrate's Court yesterday to tho public meeting held in the Opera Houso last Sunday wec .k, under tho auspices of the Second Division League. Three wellknown Labour men, Hiram Hunt c r, John Flood, and Ernest Edward Lungjcv were charged betoro -Mr T. A. ii. bailey, S.M., with publishing u seditious utterance. It was complained that Flood prepared nnd read at Hie meeting « , motion to bo proposed m tuo worus J joliow»na: —"luav tins meeting or i,'ni isicuUi cii is oi tliat no beconu .Division man snuuiu leave ior camp uiun tuo uuiaanub oi i„b rietonu division League are couu;ueu "i' tl,u uad umu ue|flaUllCj uiut an election bu lieiu. liinueuiuuiiv' ; aiso, mat piopuaeu me luotioa, and Hunter socouaeu 11. Laiig-ey was iurmcr charged with inaiiiug " tetiiuous utterance Uy piouosiiig at tne meeting a motion m tlie ioilortiug words: —"mat until tuo ueluajius ox tne Second Ui vision. men are acceued to no becoflu Division man leavo ior camp." " Mr s. G. Unymund, Iv.C., appeared lor the Crown, jir \> • J. ilunter ior Hunter, -\lr iiunt for i'iood, and uur (jassiny for Laugley. LAXGLE V'S CASE.

Langley was tho first accused called. Tho second cnaigo agaiust him. was taken iiifct. no pleaued not guilty. ji r Raymond, tutor quoting uio W'ar Jtegulations, referred to tiio meeting iieiU 011 tne oveiiniji in question, aim mentioned what had occurred as already published. It was submitted that, tno resolution was within tne terms of tho War Itoguiauons, viz., a seditious utterance, being a direct incitement to members oi his -Majesty's forces to break the law. Additional weight was lent, tc -icfisod's utterance because of the responsible position ho held in Labour circles, ho being president of tho Lyttelton Watorsido Workers' Union, furthermore, it was made at a crisis in tho Empire's history, and was mado on the eve of tho departuro for camp of Second Division men, who would be likely to listen to his arguments. It might bo suggested that tne Mayor had acted wrongly in putting the amendment to tho meeting, bijt that was entirely irrolevunr. Whether 110 should havo put it to tho meeting or not was quite beside tho question. Whether he had mado an error of judgment, or whether there had been want of appreciation by him of what tho amendment intended was entirely beside tho question. The two questions to be docided by tho Court were:—r(l) Were these words in fact uttered? (2) Had they the. seditious tendency alleged? If they were answered in tho affirmative by the Court, it was claimed by the Crown that it had established its case. Andrew Burns, reporter, produced a report of the meeting, taken by him in longhand and shorthand. .• Edward W. Heald, Warrant Officer, New Zealand Defence I>epartment, permanent staff, stated that out of ob Second Division men ordered to leave with tho 41st Reinforcements draft on - Monday, April 29th, 11 had failed to report. Eight had reported on April 30th and May Ist, two were arrested on May 4th. and ono had yet to bo ocb counted for. Detective E. Eado gave evidence as l to the mooting in the Onera Houso. To Mr Oassidy: Tho phrase; "before going into camp" was a common one used that evening. The Mayor asked Langley to write his amendment, and then another member of the audience rose a nd said,' "Will Mr Langley accept what X have written?" and without Langley saying anything the paper was handed up to the people on tho platform. ' There was apparently some alteration made to it on tho platform, and then it was handed to the Mayor, who road it out. This closed the case for the prosecution. ■ , Mr Cassidy submitted that there was no ovidenco to justify ft oonviction. It was a strange thing that tHe chairman and tho man who handed tip the amondment had not been called, and so put the matter in its proper light. He did not consider there was a case for Langley.to answer. The "Court held that there ■was.

COUNSEL'S CONTENTION. Mr Cassidy said there had never been a charge so unique, so peculiar as this. Langley stood charged with sedition formulated at a meeting of citizens of Christchurch, at which were present the Mayor, members of Parliament, and leading members of the community. It was undoubtedly a unique charge, an amazing charge, which did not justify a conviction. Tho whole of the surrounding circumstances

wero a denial that any sedition was meant or intended.'. He submitted that the charge -was very unfairly

made. It was quite apparent that the - / amendment -was tacked on to the original resolution, and formed part of it. . He asked his Worship to consider the resolution and amendment as one. He submitted that if the intention of the meeting had been carried out it would have assisted the Military Service Act. There was no intention to prevent men leaving for camj>. The aim and object of those present at the meeting were to assist in bringing to a head the Second Division business. It was undoubted that Langley intended in his amendment to convey the intention and expression of the opinion of the meeting. .This meeting was held in the presence of the Mayor and other People. Assisted by those round about aim, Langley made his amendment, and not one word of warning was uttered, the only expression of opinion being by Mr M. Gresson, who considered it was impracticable. The whole idea was that before Second Division men went into camp their grievances or troubles should be removed. That was the intention; the expressions might nave been clumsy, not what a lawyer would have written, but that was the / paramount intention of the whole of the people, and handed in and passed m that spirit, and that spirit only. He asked his Worship to adopt the interpretation that the mooting wished the Government to deal with the matter j at once, and it was dealt with, for the -(* Government increased some of the altowanccs. Would the Crown contend that the 1600 people present at the meeting were guilty of seditious utternnc<*s • Such a contention was nl>- . f?™- 'Hie Mayor, who was noted for jjto Patriotism, would certainly have Worked the motion if it had appeared to him to be poditious. ACCUSED'S EVIDENCE. Accused gave evidence. Ho said he I J»d not the slightest intention of speak- i when he went into the hall. Wlien wio Mayor was about to put the motion (Langley) did not thmk it covered *IH» case, and he - asked the Mayor j r Mr Gresson would accept an audition to it. What he suggested was «vat the Government should not expect Division men to go into camp until their demands had been granted. *~ r Gresson .asked him to put-his amendment in ns n subsequent motion, «? ■»? °® erc d no objection to it. After ine Mayor asked him to put his amendment in writing, a member of the audi--25®, he had something written m?* h 0 thought would meet the case. i~f was read out after certain alterapons had beep made. The Mayor

called for a seconder and there appeared to be responses from dozens of places. He (Langley) did not speak again. To Mr Raymond: The member of tho audience who ro.so with the piece of paper was Mr Flood, secretary of the Union accused was president of. His objection to Mr 0 reason'a resolution was that it was not strong enough, and he was anxious for the Government to move. He was a member of Class Bof tho Second Division. He assumed that Cabinet had granted an extra allowance of sixpence per day to children because of his resolution. He knew Mr Grosson would net tack tho amendment on to his motion.

Mr Raymond : I :i>k what riyht had you in counselling Second Division mc*n not to go into eamn until their demands were granted ?

Accuscd: I was not addressing the •Sorond Division men, but tho Government.

Mr Raymond: I put it to yon that the inevitable .tendency of your remarks would be to incite Second Division men not to leave Christchurch.

Accused: That was not in rov thoughts. Counsel for defendant contended the whole of the surrounding circumstances were a denial that anv sedition was meant or intended. A CONVICTION. His Worship thought there was very little doubt that the utterance, the subt' K> charge, interfered with his -Majesty's forces, it being a direct incitement to tho >Socond Division men not to leave for camn. Langley said that was not his intention, but a number of Second Division men called up were leaving ior camr> the next day, and these men worn incited. His Worship thought, therefore that tho charge had been proved and the offence committed. Sentence was postponed. FLOOD'S CASE. Flood's case was the next called. Accuse;) i)loaded not guilty. Evidence was given by Andrew Burns, reporter. Cross-examined by Sir Hunt, witness said apparently accused's addition to Langicy's motion was tho demand for tho lidding of an election. Detective Eado said Flood asked Langley if he would accept what ho (i'Jood) had written out. Langley apparently made no comment, and then tho paper was handed up. xo Mr Hunt: Some alteration was made m it on tho stage, and then tho Mayor read it out. He believed that the Mayor read "before leaving Acw Zealand," and the crowd shouted out, 'No, leave for camp."

MAYOR A WITNESS. Henry Holland, Mayor of Christemirch, said he presided at the meeting. He remembered a resolution being moved by Mr Langley, and an alteration by .Mr Flood. Ho did not think tho document produced was tiio original one, becauso h 0 could road tho " no ' n l £ mr 1 t l 1? oa . sil y. but he had great difficulty in deciphering the ono at tho Opera Houso. When Dr. I hacker was reading tho motion out ho r n?i 1 7 e k-' ; c ; ini P" an <l the nooplo called out:,' No, leave for camp." Witness said he did not grasp the significance of tho motion at tho time or ho hig neTer e pufc h the meot-

Mr Hunt: It did not at tho moment strike him as seditious Mr Hunt: And it did not strike these people either.

"SMALL-FRY PROSECUTED."

Mr Hunt said accused was not an anti-militarist, and had fulfilled all Jus military obligations. Ho hart originally put in the words that "no Second Division man should leave Now Zealand," but after Langley moved his motion lie crossed out tho words "New Zealand" and put in "leave camp." It showed that before the meeting there was no intent in accused's mind. The intent was a direction to the Government that thoy should call up no man for camp until the Second Division League's requests wero granted. Mr Hunt wont sa y in all these sedition cases which came before his Worship it was the small fry that had been prosecuted. Let Ins Worship read the statements mado at tho meeting by Dr. Thackej-, Al P., by tho Mayor, by Mr McCombs, M.P. 1 h«»n lot him read the remarks of "those small-fry" at the end. Mr Gresson approved Mr Langley's motion. Why was he not prosecuted ? Why was not Mr McCombs prosecuted? Wny was not Mr Holland prosecuted? He (Mr Hunt) asked for fair play. The Magistrate said the case was very much j the same as tho previous one, and a conviction must be entered. Sentence was postponed. HUNTER'S CASE. Hunter's case was tho last called. Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr Raymond said the facts wero substantially the same as in tho last cases, except thtit Hunter seconded Flood's amendment, saying that tho original motion did not go far enough. Evidence was given by Andrew Burns, reporter.

To Mr W. J. Hunter: Accused was the first person he saw- seconding the amendment, accused being on the platform. There may have been other seconders. He did not remember the Mayor putting the amendment to tho meeting as moved by Langley and seconded by Flood. He did not remember what the Mayor said at this stage, he did not attach sufficient importance to it

"Apparently the papers don't think •what the Mayor says is important, and apparently the Crown Law authorities think the same, and the Mayor is accordingly not prosecuted," commented counsel.

Detectivo Eade said the amendment was seconded by Hunter, who said he was prepared to accept either Flood's or Langley's amendments. He then spoke upon the necessity for a general election, and said the country's leaders should not leave until they granted a general election. Henrj Holland, Mayor of Christchurch, said Hunter seconded the amendment.

Mr W. J. Hunter: Is it not a fact that several people did riso to second the amendment?

Witness: Several people did rise, I do not know what for.

Further cross-examined, witness denied that he called out: "Who seconds the amendment?" He did not put the motion as moved by Langley and secorded by Flood. The people were electrified, and he wished to close the meeting as quickly as possible, because of his fear that there might be trouble. ACCUSED'S VERSION. Mr Hunter said accused was -14 years of age and a member of Class 0 of the Second Division. On account of his ago there was not much likelihood of his going to camp, consequently he had no causo for wishing to prevent Second Division men going into camp. ' He was not a member f-t the Second Division, but attended +ho meeting as a city councillor and a public man. According to accused, the Mayor invited a seconder to the motion. Accused did not desire to take advantage of anv technicality through other people seconding the motion, but as his counsel he (Mr W. J. Hunter) desired to point out all the circumstances dealing with the case. . No ono was more patriotic than Mr Gresson. Yet if they read the transcript of his speech they would see his speech was ten thousand times stronger than accused's. Why did not the Crown prosecute Mr Gresson? Because they knew it would be an absurdity. Why did not the Crown prosecute the Mayor? Because they knew this would be an absurdity. Accused had simply seconded the motion in reply to the Mayor, believing that there was no seditious intent in it. What was in accused's mind in seconding the resolution was the clause at the end of it relating to a general election. Hunter i had no intention of committing sedi- : tion. There had been no seditious intent on the port of the Mayor, of Mr , Gresson, or or accused. The motion was addressed to the Government; itj

was not intended to he addressed to Second Division men at all. He submitted that the passing of the resolution had nothing to do with the scene in the King Edward Barracks the following day. He suggested rath'jr that it was due to the efforts of tile people whose letters appeared in _ a

newspaper on the Saturday morning before. Accused was not an anti-mili-tarist : he possessed a good and clean record. HUNTER GIVES EVIDENCE. Accused said he was not at the meeting held on the Saturday night prior to the Or«ra House meeting. The speakers worked the meeting up to such a pitch of excitement owing to the Government's broken pledge that the meeting demanded that the pledge should be performed. There was not the slightest hint from anyone in the audience that there was anything cf a rcditious nature in the resolution. He understood the sense of the motion was: '"That the Government be asked not to call upon any Second Division men to enter eamp until this matter has been settled."

Counsel -" Did' you intend this to be an incitement to the men not to go into camp?

Accused: Not in the slightest. I don't think that was in the mind of anyone present. In reply to further Questions, .iccused said lie had considered that the Government would respond to the representations made by the meeting by granting the Second Division League's demands and so allow these men to go away leaving their wives happy tnd contented. He had intended to second ths amended amendment referring to the general election. The referonce to the general election met his * iou s bettor. The flavor, he understood, called for a seconder for the resolution. Before witness could second it. it was seconded in quite a, number of places. Ho made that clear in Ins soeeeh by saying that lie had been prepared to second the amendment, but he had not done so. While he was on his fppt lie made a few remarks in connexion with the vie,vs he held.

Mr \\. J. Hunter: Would you not 'J? ve expected a warning from the iuayor if this motion had been scditious?

Accused: Certainly. Would you expect when a motion was put by the Mayor that von could safely second it? —Certainly; j thought I. was quite within my constitutional rights. If the Mayor or Mr Gresson had given any hint that the motion v. as seditious I would not have 'seconded it.

It you had wished to prevent these men going to camp would you have acted m that way?— Certainly not; anyone with experience of an industrial organisation would hardlv K et up on a public platform and nut 'it that wav. To Mr Raymond: While he'had been prepared to second Langley's amendment, Flood's suited him better. He would probably, however,, have suggested to Langley that ho amond his resolution in the direction taken by Flood.

Mr Raymond: In what way does that resolution of Mr Gresson's not go far enough?

Accused: It did not meet my views because in view of the demands ro allowances we wanted an election also. Mr Raymond: Yon were prepared to support Mr Langley's motion as an addition to Mr Gresson's ?

Accused': The meaning I. attached to it was this: "And that the Government be requested not to take any Second Division man until his wife and children are provided for.'' A THIRD CONVICTION. His Worship said this case only differed from the other eases in the fact that Hunter seconded tho amendment. He did not propose it, hut the effect was the same. Continuing, Mr Bailey said ho did not agree that this was tho lawful means of righting a wrong. Mr Gresson's motion provided tho lawful means. He considered that the Mayor was ill-advised to have put the motion to tho meeting, but owing to the existing? ©xcitemont ho did not realise its effect, i At nublic meetings and in crowds people expressed views and did things which they would novcr dream of doing at other times. Defendant would be convicted. iMr Raymond said the accused were all responsible representatives of working men. THE SENTENCES. In imposing sentence tho Magistrate said- the interpretation of sodition covered a wide field, much wider than tho ordinary statute interpretation. It covered anything in auy way tending to interfere with the action of the Government in conducting tho war., It w;as unfortunate, too. that this particular meeting happened at a time of very great trouble, during a crisis in the war. Anything tending to interfere with the Government at this time had to be deprecated. The only man who had dono any speaking at tho meeting was Langley, who had emphasised Ks motion by a short speech. Flood cortainly intended to move some motion that men should not go into camp until tho requirements of the Second Division League had been carried out. Langley must have had something of the same intent in his mind. In regard to Hunter the position was certainly different. The resolution was proposed, and he was for the main part in accordance with the views expressed by it that there should be a general election, and to accepted the other part too. The following sentences of imprisonment were imposed: — Langley ... 6 months Flood ... 6 months Hunter ... 3 months The other charge against Langley was withdrawn. AIR GRESSON IN EXPLANATION. TO THK EDITOR OF "THE PRESS." Sir, —I am reported in to-day's sedition proceedings as having stated at tho Opera Houso on Sunday night "that 1 might be in sympathy with Mr Langley's amendment," and "that J approved of Mr Langley's amendment." Tnis is incorrect. What I stated was "that I was in sympathy with the spirit of Mr Langley's amendment, but that it was quite impracticably and would place the men leaving for camp on Monday night in an unfair position," and at least one paper reports mo correctly as to this. I still "am in sympathy with the spirit of the amend- | ment to this extent—that I' consider it the duty of the Government to provide an adequate scale of proper allowances by Act of Parliament beforo Second 3>i vision soldiers 20 into camp, so that they can know for certain how their wives and families will be provided for in their absence. Second Division reservists rightly or wrongly consider that the Government gave a pledge that before tho Second Division went into camp the House should be given an opportunity to revise the existing scale, and that pledge has not been redeemed. Nevertheless, no matter what jflay be the misdeeds of the Government, the existing law must be obeyed (and this was what I meant when I told Mr Langley that his amendment was impracticable), and no word fell from me to support or justify any action contrary to the law. This is shown by tho* fact that I jefuscd to accept Mr Langley's amendment, and the fact that within twenty minutes of the close of the meeting a letter notifying my resignation as chairman of the Christ church Second Division League was in the hands of the editors of both the morning papers.—Yours, etc.,

MAURICE J. GRESSON Chris tchurch, May Bth.