CHARGES OF SEDITION

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 197, 9 May 1918, Page 6

CHARGES OF SEDITION

THE MEETING AT CHRISTCHURCH CONVICTION RECORDED IN EACH CASE By Telegraph—Press Association. . Christchurch, May 8. The charges of sedition preferred against E. £'. Langley, J, Flood, and H. Hunter in connection with the amendment carried at the Opera House meeting o§ Second Division reservists on April 28, wore heard this afternoon nt tho Magistrate's Court, before Mr. Bailey, S.M. Interest in the proceedings, apart from their bearing on Second Division affairs, wns deepened by the fact that all of the men are prominent in Labour movements. The consequence , was that tha court was crowded. ■v Charges Against the Accused. John Flood, a waterside worker, wae charged that he did publish a seditious utterance at a public meeting held in Christchurch, by preparing and reading a resolution /to be proposed in tho words following: "That this meeting of Christohurch citizens is of the opinion that no Second. Division man should leave for camp until the demands of the Second Division. League arc encoded by the Government, and also demands that' an election be held immediately," which utterance was seditious in that.publication thereof had ft tendency to interfere with tho discipline of His Majesty's forces, aud to excita opposition to the enforcement of the lawe in force for the timo being in New Zealand relative to coraptilsory military service during the present ■■war, and to interfere with' tho effective administration of those laws, contrary to clause 1 of the regulations made on Docember 1, li) 16. under the War Regulations Act, 1911. . Ernest Edward. Langlcy wns charged with proposing the resolution, and Hiram Hunter was charged with seoowUnjr it. Langloy was further charged that ho did publish a seditious utterance at a public meeting lisld in Christchurca by proposing a resolution in the following words: "That until the demands of Iha Second Division ne.*:! arc acceded no Second Division man ieavc for camp." > Case for the, Crown. In opening the case for the Crown, Mr. Itnymoml, K.C., referred to the meeting of Second Division reservists at which tin; motion was moved, and remarked that the meetiug in itself was quite constitutional, and so far as was known was well conducted. The motion which M. J. Gresson had moved was within perfectly constitutional limits. Counsel outlined the circumstances uutiet which Langley's i.mendraent was moved. It was' submitted that the resolution moved by Langloy aud passed by tlio meeting was a leditious utterance, and had a tendency to incite Second Division men, who were called up for service, aud who were leaving on tho following night, to break tho law. A natural consequence would have been the refusal of tho becond Division moil to go into camp the next ui-'ht, and n conflict of authority. . Lang. ' lev had the confidence of members ot tho Waterside Workers' Union, and no doubt ot other people connected with me Labour movement, aud would then-lore be atcacned to Ins words tn.it wounl not bo given to the vapojinngs ot irresponsiblo persons. Mr. Raymond also remarked that m cases oi suditum | n was liupuriaut to reiueuioer what was the stafv) of tho country at tuo tune. There Had been a call lor exira men, and tnu iirst lot ot Second Division men, were to go, into camp. There was also : tun agitation for allowances for: iiio w.vi-s and chilua'ii oi soldiers, n \ might be suggested that tne Mayor, who : w.ia ai iuu tiuur at me meeting, should : not havo put tiie amoimwcnt. inaj was noc relevant. VVliether we Mayor nau j in im an i-rror ol judgment or not, it ■ was submitted, was iiinie irrelevant 'Hie two qucsuuus to bo answered were: I'U'st- . ly were the words unereu as aliened i , ; 1,,,' d, SBMiimiy, had they a seditious urn-, ueucy! 1 it nas summued tuut it these questions were answoreu in me aihrinauve we Crown's) case was proved.

The Case Against Ung.ey. Air Ciio'biui', who appeared lor,Langley, time tnwe was «u evuto.oi in jiisaiy couvicnori. li wad a Strang i thing cual tne c.ha.rman and Ue liuiii who naiitlwl up tne amendment had not been caiied, and so put me matter in its piupur ligiit. Tim Mayor, who was i noted ior his patriotism, wouul certainly have biocktil tnc motion it it haa apneaiwl to Dim to be seditious. _ Lanuley "ave evidence, lie said no was not addressing fcecund Division men. He was- assailing the Uovemin.nt. Air. Raymond (Crown .'.'l-oseciuor): I put it to you (Laugicy) that tho inevitable tendency ol your remarks would 1j B to incite Second Division men not to leave Christchuich. Accused: That was not in my thoughts. His Worship 'said there was. little doubt that the sentence which was the subject of tho charge interlcred with His Majesty's Forces, it being a direct incitement to Second Division nun not to leave fihristchurcli for camp, ihe charge had been proved.

Flood Charged. During the hewing of the charge against l'"loud, Mr. Holland, Mayor of Christehureh, said he did i-ot grasp the significance of the motion at tkf time or he would never have put it to tho meeting. It did not at the momeut strike him as seditious. • Mr. Hunt, for accused, said Flood was ! not an anti-militarist, und had fulfilled all his military obligations. Flood's intent was a direction to, the Government that tho)" should call up no man to camp until the Second Division League's requests were granted. Counsel complained that in sill these seditious cases which came before His Worship it was (he small fry that hat) been' pro-si'r'i-x!. Why won; nut the Mayor (Mr. Holland), Mr. M'Combs, M.P., and Air. Gresson also prosecuted. The Magistrate snid a conviction must be entered. Hunter's' Caso. In Hiram Hunter's caso, Mr.-Hunter, who appeared for him, said accused was not a member of the Second Division, but he attended the meeting as a city councillor and a public man. Accused had simply noonded the motion, in reply to the Mayor, believing there was no seditious intent in it. Accused was not an anti-militarist, and possessed a good and clean record. There had been no seditious intent on the part of the Mayor or Air. Gresson or of the accused. Accused gevo evidence tlml ho did not in the slightest intend the motion to bo nn incitement to the men not to go into ciiinp. Had the Mayor or Air. Gresson »ivon liim «ny hhii Owf Ihe motion whs seditious, he would not have seconded it. Had ho wished to prevent I hose men goini; into i-ninp he woiiid not have acted in the way' ho did.

His Worship convicted Itimler, and fiiiid he considered the Mayor was illadvised to hive put the motion to Ih'.' meeting, but owinir to the existing excitement lie did mil r.'iiii?p its effect. In imposing senium tin , M:"jUr:ite said it was unfortuuato thai ihi 1 ; particular meeting happened at a time of very great trouble and during a crisis in tho war. Any thing tending to intcrfi-vew'i'i t.hft Government at this time had to 1m deprecated. He imposed the following tonus of imprisonment:—Lnngley and Flood, eaoh six months; Hunter, tliwb months.