SEDITION CASES

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3040, 29 March 1917, Page 6

SEDITION CASES

HEARING OF THE APPEALS

ARGUMENT CONCLUDED

The bearing' of the appeals of Brindle, Eraser; Thorn, Cooke, and Semple, convicted in the Lower Court of sedition, was concluded in the Supreme Court yesterday. His Honoui the Chief Justice presided, and with him Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice Cooper, and Mr. Justice Chapman were associated. _ Mr. George Hutchison, of AVellington, appeared for the appellants, and Mr. J. W.'Salmond, K.C., for the respondents. Mr. Hutchison's argument had been heard on Tuesday. The Crown's Reply, Mr. Salmond, in reply, said that it was contended for the appellants that the 'Military Service Act was void, and that the legislative authority of the New Zealand Parliament did not extend to the sending of men over the seas. Even if these contentions were correct, and if all reference to the Act were cut out, the convictions would still be justified. The utterances offended not merely against the regulations relating to the Military Service Act, but against the military arrangements of the Government. The convictions did not therefore stand or fall according to the validity of the Military Service Act. In the regulations oft December 4 there was only one reference to the Act, and if that j were struck out there still remained I sufficient upon which to base a'con-I viction. It was not necessary that the j validity of the Act "should be decided j by the Court, hut as the question had | been raised it was convenient to have \ it settled. . With regard to the contention that the Act was bad, the respondents relied iipon Section 177 of the Imperial Army Act of 1881. Section 177 had been amended from time to time, and appeared in its amended form in the Manual of Military Law issued in 1914. K There was express authority in the section to pass an Act governing a force raised ,in and sens beyond the limits of the colony. It was a most express recognition by the Imperial Parliament that it was one of the functions of the colonies to conduct military perations beyond their territorial limits. Deference had been made almost exclusively to tho Military Service Act, but it was under the Expeditionary Forces Act, 1915, lhat the New Zealand Force was raised. After that pamo the Military Sorvice [Act, providing for the recruiting of j tho force by ballot. , BecMiits therefore came under the regulations governing the force, and were liable to the Imperial Army Act when abroad. • . ' Mr. Justice Cooper: The Military Service Act incorporated the Expedi- ! tionaiy Forces Act. _ ■ ■ I ■ Counsel, proceeding, said that although he had relied on the Sxmy.Act he did not wish it to be taken as ad--mitted that apart.from it the powers of the colony did not extend to. fighting in defence of the Empire. Chief Justice: It would be ridiculous to 'say that the Parliament of New Zealand was not entitled to defend its citizens and their property beyond tho three-mile limit. . \ ■ ■ It had been held by the Privy Council, continued Mr. Salmond, that the Government of. Canada was entitled, to expel aliens and hold them under imprisonment beyond the territorial limit, and that on the general principle that the Government was entitled to mako laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada. Counsel would therefore be prepared to say, apart from the Army Act, that for the peace, order, and good government of this country the Government was entitled to pass legislation for the defence of . New Zealand beyond the limits of New Zealand. To, the appellants' -contention against the validity of the regulations, made under the Act, Mr. Salmond applied the same argument as he piit forward in reply to the contentions against the validity, of the Act itself.. Counsel did not refer particularly : io tho text of tho appellants' speeches. Some, of the utterances_he characterised generally as unrestrained appeals to lawless passions and capable of justifying an indictment under -, tho Crimes Act for sedition in. the ordinary sense. In ono.of Semple's; speeches the fiery utterances were somewhat abated, but the speech was nevertheless considerably boypnd the mark. The appellants claimed and exercised such liberty of speech inthis time of national danger that they constituted a serious menaco to the peace, order, and good government of the country. The toleration of auy such utterances as theirs would be not only inconsistent ■ with tho public safety, but would show a disregard -of New Zealand's, responsibilities to the Empire as a whole. Mr. Hutchison mado a brief reply upon points of law. . Decision was reserved.' : ..