FOUND SEDITIOUS

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 124, 21 November 1929, Page 10

FOUND SEDITIOUS

COMMUNIST BOOKS

MAGISTRATE'S COMMENTS

FOUR FINES OF £50

Making the fullest allowance for the traditional freedom of speech and writing allowed in British countries on subjects of this sort, it seems to me abundantly clear that the books quoted advocate violence and express a seditious intention, and the defendants must therefore be 'convicted of the charge laid against them.

With these remarks, Mr. E. Page, S.M., concluded a* written judgment in the Magistrate's Court this morning on the case in which four men—Richard Griffen, Arthur Pinch Marshall, Gordon Edward Munro, and William Murphy—were each charged with having in his possession for sale or distribution certain books or pamphlets advocating violence or expressing a seditious intention, contrary to the War Regulations Continuance Act, 1920. Each of the defendants was fined £50, in default three months 'imprisonment.

The evidence showed, said Mr. Page, that a Communist organisation exists in Wellington, witii offices in Vivian street, where it prints a paper called "The Red Worker." In a room in Courtenay place it held classes where lectures were given and Communist literature was read and discussed. On its shelves in these buildings the organisation had a library of books, a large number of which dealt with such subjects as Communism, industrial troubles, class antr.'jonisms, anarchy, and revolution. It had also on its shelves for sale and distribution various books and pamphlets relating to Communism, including those concerned in'tho charges against the defendants, viz., "Communism and Industrial Peace,'-' "A Defence of Communism," "Mond Moonshine," "Communist Message to the 1.W.W.," and "The World's Trade Union Movement."

The defendant Marshall was editor of "The Red Worker," Munro was literary secretary of the organisation, Grift'en was leader of the movement and lessee of the Vivian street premises, and Murphy was ex-literary secretary, and each was an active officer of the Communist organisation.

"SEDITIOUS INTENTION."

"Upon the facts it seems to me clear," continued Mr. Page, "that the defendants (none:of whom went into the witness box) were each parties"to the possession for sale and distribution of the literature set out in the informations, and the substantial question is whether such literature advocates violence or expresses a seditious intention. The definition of 'sedition' or 'seditious intention' previously contained in the War Regulations has been repealed, and the Court must look for a definition to the Crimes Act, 1908 . . . Section 118 of. that Act defines a 'seditious intention' as being, inter alia, an intention:—

" (h) To incite His Majesty's subjects to attempt to procure, other than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter affecting the constitution, laws, or Government of the United Kingdom, or of New Zealand, or ... "(cl) To promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of His Majesty's subjects. "The books and pamphlets in question urge throughout the overthrow, by revolutionary violence, of what is called the 'capitalistic system,' under which heading is included the whole existing social structure, the State and the Legislature. The books deprecate any method of attempting the amelioration of the condition of the working classes by political activity, or by constitutional reforms, or by negotiation with employers.

Mr. Page then quoted some extracts from the books and pamphlets which the defendants were charged with having in their possession.

PERNICIOUS TEACHINGS.

On the question of penalty, Mr. H. H. Cornish, who appeared for two of the defendants, said that this was the first time a judicial expression had been made that the books had a seditious intention. He thought it was a proper observation to make, and that it should guide the Court in fixing a penalty. Mr. 11. J. V. James, who appeared for Munro, submitted that his client's position was different from that of the other defendants, and he asked that Munro be dealt with leniently. In fining eacli of the defendants £50. Mr. Page said that he thought the teachings carried out by the organisation were pernicious, and that the literature was also pernicious. A substantial penalty would have to be imposed.

The case, which was heard on 25th October, was conducted by the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. P. S. K. Macassey).