LANG UNDER FIRE

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 99, 21 January 1932, Page 9

LANG UNDER FIRE

Colonel Campbell Charged WORDS IN A SPEECH Counsel Flays Government “LET HIM COME FORWARD 1 By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright. (Rec. January 20, 8 p.m.) Sydney, January 20. Colonel Eric Campbell, the New Guard leader, again appeared before tiie court on a charge of using insulting words during a speech in which he criticised the Lang Government, A vast crowd fought for admission, but only a small percentage succeeded. Mr. E. S. Lamb, K.C., the counsel appearing for Campbell, asked for a further adjournment, declaring that there had been insufficient time since January 15, the date of Campbell’s previous appearance, to prepare a defence worthy of such an occasion. He added that the vital principle involved was the right of free speech for every citizen to criticise the acts of a public man. “We are entitled to show that The Premier of this State has disgraced his position, has lowered its dignity, and has injured its credit,” said Mr. Lamb. “He has worked to bring about a Communistic state, and, above all, he lias defaulted. Everybody knows this, nut , you as a magistrate do not know it” Right to Give Evidence. The Chief Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr.. Laidlaw: Assuming.that your statements are true, how would you be entitled to go into evidence to substantiate matters of that kind? Counsel: Most decidedly I would have that right. A public man has defaulted and holds his position by false pretences. That being his character, we have every right to criticise him, just as numberless others are doing. “Even Mr. J. A. Lyons, the Prime Minister, has described Mr. Lang as an incubus,” continued Mr. Lamb. “We have likened him to his own farmyard bull. It may be an insult to the bull, but I do’not think It is an insult to Mr. Lang.” Who Had Been Insulted? Counsel pointed out that he also Intended to submit that the summons was bad because it did not specifically state who had been Insulted. He contended that the person insulted must be present at the time the words complained of were used. Mr. Laidlaw replied that it did not seem necessary to prove to whom the remarks were insulting. Mr. Lamb argued that if Mr. Lang had been insulted, then yet him coma forward so that he could be crossexamined. No offence had been committed unless someone had been insulted. Who was that someone? “Worse Things Being Said.” Mr. Lamb continued to argue that every word uttered about Mr. Lang was justified. Indeed, far worse things were being said about him by others, and he desired to bring evidence to this effect The Magistrate refused the application for an adjournment. Mr. Sheahan, appearing for the prosecution, said the police had taken action for good reasons which he did nor intend to disclose. He added that there was such a thi/ig as the prevention of disorder when tirrogant persons set themselves up ia positions to which they had no right or title. ’ The taking of evidence was then begun. Speech at Picture Theatre. A police shorthand writer, Sergeant Alexander Lendrum, detailing Campbell's speech at the Lane Cove Picture Theatre on January 11, described the utterances as insulting to Mr. Lang. During cross-examination, Sergeant Lendrum said he had not attempted to verify Campbell’s statement that the Premier was a scoundrel. He was also unconcerned as to whether Mr. Lang was a defaulter, had broken his pledges, or had appointed scoundrels and criminals to the Public Service. Use of Word “Scoundrel.” The magistrate suggested that Mr. Lamb should be more careful regarding the words he used about the Premier of the State. Mr. Lamb: I shall be very careful if I cannot prove my words. I submit that scoundrel is a very mild word in this case. Mr. Sheahan interposed: These cowardly attacks on the Premier should not be tolerated in a British Court of Law. After other similar exchanges the hearing was adjourned. VARIED WAGE SCALE Ridiculous, Contends Lyons Sydney, January 20. The Prime Minister, Mr. J. A. Lyons, at the conclusion of his visit to Sydney, in a speech said that the ridiculous discrepancies between wages and conditions in different States would not work. Wages varied from £3/3/- a week for 48 hours in South Australia to £4/2/6 a week for 44 hours in New South Wales. Mr. Lyons told a deputation that the Commonwealth’s financial position made impossible the restoration of invalid and old age pensions to their former ’evel.