BEWARE OF YOUR CORRESPONDENCE

Evening Star, Issue 16050, 29 February 1916, Page 1

BEWARE OF YOUR CORRESPONDENCE

, Many people can learn a useful lesson from a- case heard at Bow street, London, in which Percy Keene, of independent means, was charged, under the Defence of the Realm Act, with collecting and communicating information concerning tho defence of London calculated to be directly or indirectly useful to the enemy. Air Knight, prosecuting, said that defeib dant was a member of tbe Reserve, and latterly had been engaged in recruiting and registration work in the district of Edgeware, where ho lived. In the course of those duties he came into touch with various sources of information. He had a friend who was an. interned naval officer in a neutral country, to whom lie wrote on November 4. That letter was tne subject of the charge, and the Magistrate would see that it contained a lot of details with regard to war material. Die letter was handed to Air Hopkins, the Alagistrate, who read the passage indicated by counsel. “ You will agree,” Mr suggested, “ that the information is of a most important character and would be of great use to the enemy if it cable into his hands. The letter was addressed to an interned prisoner, and there was a real danger of such a letter getting into the possession of the enemy. That is the view of the War Office.” Defendant had been going about to tho places mentioned getting facts. It could not be too widely known that it was an offence, and a serious offence, for persons to go about collecting information. It was forbidden. If the letter had crossed to the other side it would have been of serious consequence to us. The Alagistrate: It did not go. Air Knight: It came into the hands of tho authorities. I do not think it ever arrived: it was kept in England. When seen by the police, defendant said he did not think that he had done any wrong; he had merely written to “buck'” his friend up. The authorities were quite satisfied that defendant had no intention of doing anything wrong. Major Ferguson, of the War Office, said that he had read tlie letter, and some of the details regarding war material and the defences of London were correct, but not all of them.—Defendant said that his efforts had been directed during the progress of the war to giving voluntary assistance to the military in connection with military matters which had proved of value, and for which he had been thanked. There was no question of his loyalty, and it never struck him lor a moment that in writing the Jotter he was doing anything in the slightest degree wrong. Air Pierron explained that defendant's home was near the flying grounds at Hendon, and he knew several of the flying men, among whom was the lieutenant to whom the letter was written. The lieutenant had an accident falling with his machine into the water early in the year, and was picked up by a neutral cruiser and interned. He was interned in a fort, not a concentration camp where a certain number of our flying men were, in fact, interned, because they declined to give their word that they would not attempt to escape. The lieutenant did attempt to escape from the fort,. and he sent particulars of bis- adventure to defendant. Tho attempt, unfortunately, did not quite succeed, and the lieutenant felt very much the position he was in, and got* into a very despondent state. Defendant gent the letter under the belief that letters were not opened by anybody except the person to whom they were addressed. He saw now, however, that it was unwise, although he thought it was impossible for the letter to get into enemy hands. Mr Pierron called witnesses who bore testimony to defendant's undoubted loyalty to this country. Air Hopkins said that there was not a scintilla of suspicion that defendant bad done anything in tho nature of spying. “You are here,” added the Alagistrate, “to answer for nothing but an indiscretion. A loyal Englishman, a useful soldier, a good worker, you have only to answer for the way in tvhich you have used knowledge which your work has gained for you.” Ho could not help thinking that it was a grave indiscretion, but if ho felt obliged to send defendant to prison he would no doubt think that he had been scurvily treated for bis services, but defendant must see that it was an indiscretion which cried for a penalty and as a warning to other people. “Lam glad I feel able to pass nothing but a pecuniary penalty, but, after all, it is a large one. The penalty is £100.”