SIR FRANCIS BELL'S REPLY

Evening Post, Volume CI, Issue 96, 23 April 1921, Page 9

SIR FRANCIS BELL'S REPLY

MURDER AND VIOLENCE FOR-

BIDDEN,

"H. E. Holland,-Esq.,-M.P., Weetport. "Dear Sir,—l did not immediately reply to your letter 'of the 16th instant, because I desired to give careful consideration to your suggestions and requests, and to th« points upon which you invite an indication of the view and intention, of the Government.

"With regard to the drama, 'Damaged Goods,' you must be aware that tha question of dramatic representation relating to such subjects is one upon whioh very diverse opinions are held 1. Personally, I should not be disposedl to interfere with the discretion of the Censor on a point of the kind; but I think I ought to adti that, in. my view, a decision to prohibit the representation of the drama would be wise. I have no official information on the subject.' "With regard to the sentence imposed on the foreigner who distributed copies of certain documents, I entirely agree with your insistence 'that there, pan be no full intellectual progress unleps we are permitted to read (and thus to know) every viewpoint.' And I do not contest your conclusion that the pamphlet entitled, "The Communist Programme,' contains 'a valuable presentation of the case for constructive 1 industnabsm. 1 lam not as-competent as yourself to express an opinion on that point. But surely you must see that neither of those contentions of yours has any bearing upon the question whether the person charged committed a flagrant offence agaanst the law of New Zealand fcach of the documents which the offender was proved to have distributed advocated in the plainest manner bloodshed and violence as the method by which its propaganda were to be carried into effect. It is greatly to be regretted that m your temperately-worded tetter you should have avoided the real and precise issue deliberately raised by those on whose behalf the offender distributed the pamphlets. I do not suggest that you are one of those who instigated and approved the distribution and circulation of literature advocating sneh methods. But your words can only mean that it i.3 not criminal to advocate murder as a method of attaining social or political conditions or constitutional change.

That is the issue between the Government of a civilised country and offenders of the class for whom you ask that the prerogative of pardon should be exercised.

"In a country where universal suffrage prevails, no section of the community can contend, with any show of reason that it is unable to attain power by peaceful and constitutional means, if and when a majority of the people can be persuaded to, hold tie views which, that section advocates. But in. a free country no minority can justly claim to hold, power over a majority. Pray do not meet this with the usual futile argument, that so long as more than two parties exist, power may beheld by a party which has not a full majority over the other two combined. The argument is good platform stuff, but appeals no more, to your reason than to mine. If yo^r cause and opinions pi-evail with a majority of the people of New Zealand, than, you know as .well as I do that your party can. attain power at any General Election. And-,, again, if parsons holding views far more extreme tha-n your own can persuade the majority of the people of New Zealand that what they advocate is right, those extremists will attain and hold power. Therefore, plainly it is not only unnecessary, but criminal and' wicked', to advocate the attainment of power, or alteration of the constitution, by Woodshed and violence. You are as fully aware as I am that the possession of universal suffrage by a people is a guarantee that power shall be held by persons who represent the political views of the majority. "You must pardon, me for" saying, that you are not 311 st, either to the Government or to yourself, in presenting a contention that liberty of speech and freedom of advocacy of any form of constitutional, or even of revolutionary, change has been in any manner curtailed in this Dominion since the war ended. The restrictions imposed during the war were rendered necessary by the circumstances of the war itself. You know that overy such restriction has been cancolled by legislation introduced! by the Government, with the single exception expressed in The Police Offences Amendment Act of 1919, and' in The Wnr Regulations Continuance Act of 1920, that advocacy of violence or lawlessness is prohibited. So long as men refrain, in print or language from inciting to violence or lawlessness, they are absolutely free to hold and express any opinions, and to advocate any change, however revolutionary, in the constitution or in the- form of government. Tha continued War Regulations prohibit the expression of seditious intention, which may possibly have misled you and others, into -the belief that advocacy of communism or socialism, or of a republic, is prohibited. You will find, however, that by section 118 of The Crimes Act it is provided that 'no one- shall be demed to have a seditious intention only because- .he intends in good faith to incite His Majesty's subjects to> attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter affecting the constitution, laws, or government of the United Kingdom or of New. Zealand; or. to point out in order to'their removal 1, matters producing or haying a tendency to produce feelings of hatred and illwiil between different classes of His Majesty's: subjects.' In other words, it is neither unlawful nor seditious to a«ivo. cate the wildiest form of socialism or communism. Wliat is unlawful and seditious is to advocate murdier and violence as legitimate methods for attainment of political ends. If your contentions i were carried to their logical conclusions, it would he legitimate for any section of the community to drill and arm, with the avowed object of slaughtering the majority who could not bis otherwise coerced. /

' "You must, therefore, tafee my answer to be that the Government of T^Tcw Zealand ,does not., now interfere, and' does not propose to interfere, with, liberty of speech or action; but that it does intend to prevent, and will uae all its powers to prevent, violence anld lawlessness ; and that its officers will, in accordance with the duty imposed' upon them by law, endeavour to bring to justice persons who refuse to comply with, that condition, and that the Government will not establish a practice of exercising the prerogative of pardon in favour of such persons when convipted. "Your contention that the mere possession of literature of the kind' is. an offence is perhaps . technically correct,, but that is not the offence seriously con-) tompLated by the law; circulation of such documents, or the possession of a number of such documents, obviously for the purpose of circulation, is in iteelf plainly deliberate advocacy of muitier, and therefore criminal and punishable. "Your statement that literature of the' nature in question is allowed free circulation in the United Kingdom and in the Commonwealth, I am not concerned! either to admit or dispute. With. ,regard to the Common-wealth, there is mutual respect and goodwill between the Governments of Australia and New Zealand, but neither is guidied in its legislation or procedwe by the preosdent of the other. In the United King-dom advocacy of violence is treated rather as matter for contempt than for repression, trecause of the existence of regular armed forces of the Crown to protect the majority of the people against unlawful violence from a minority. Here in New Zealand we are, fortunately, able to rely upon a very small police force to maiatain. order, because that force has the support of the law-abiding people of, the Dominion. But peace, order, and good) government require that violence to attain political ends shall be as unlawful as it is to secure private advantage, and that there shall be no distmctjo?* between that class of crime and any other crime._ The law of England has from time immemorial treated a person who incites to any crime as equally guilty with the criminal who effects the crime.

"May I suggest that if you think fit to publish your own letter to me, you should publish with it this reply. Your letter very clearly expresses your views, and this reply, which I assure you is intended to be without personal offence to yourself, is the answer of the Government to your contentions.

"Yours faithfully, "(Sitmed.) IT. H.-D. BELL." "22nd April, 1921.