IMPROPER PUBLICATION ?

Evening Star, Issue 16409, 27 April 1917, Page 4

IMPROPER PUBLICATION ?

‘STAR’ AND DR BEDFORD CHARGED. INTERESTING DEFENCE. WHY DID CENSOR PASS SAME INFORMATION? CQLONEL GIBBON TO BE HEARD. ’ Mr J, B. Bartholomew, 6.XL, sat at the Police Court this morning. The * Evening Star ’ Company, Ltd., were charged that on the 10th March, 1917, they published in the ‘ Evening Star ’ newspaper certain information with respect to the movements of the naval and military forces of His Majesty, contrary to the regulations made on the 22nd February, 1915, under the War Regulations Act, 1914, and its •amendments. The company were further charged _ that, without the written consent of a military authority, they published certain statements as to .the -employment of the Willochra, engaged in a voyage the course of which lies partially to the north of the Equator. Harry Dodgson Bedford was charged with communicating the information to tho Evening Star. 1 It was mutually agreed to take' all the cases together, and the defendants pleaded not gup-ty. Mr W. C. MacGregor, K.C., appearing for the Crown, handed His Worship a copv of the Star ’ of 10th March, containing the article complained of, headed ‘ A Perilous Voyage,’ and then went on to show iiow and when the regulations relied on were made. Mr MacGregor, proceeded tc deal with the article itself. The first thing that struck one was the headlines • ‘ A Perilous Voyage ‘ A New Zealand Transport Iwice Driven to Port-Escort of If Destroyers—British Port Under Blockade. 1 these headlines were of a sensational nature. The article purported to be the report of an interview with Dr Bedford concerning a voyage of the Willochra; and ha thought it was suggested that this article was a preliminary to a series that were to describe Dr Bedford’s trip. The headnoU of riie article ran thus: “ The Minister ol Defence has been advised that the Reinforcement has reached its destination m safety. That was put forward as tin olncial way of stating the result of a vovage of a vessel carrying troops, and ther Dr Bedford went on to say that this vovage of the Willochra, of which he war speaking, v/as not a nominal troopship pas* sage. Tt was clear, first, that the artich was descriptive of the voyage of a troopship, and, secondly, that the description v/as of a voyage Home, which was clearh north of the Equator. In the article w( were told that “the wireless jarred” and “the ship was ordered to put into port.' that dealt with the movements of this pan ticular ship, and the remarks about certain vessels lying in that port for 10 days and so on gave information as to the movements of the naval and military forties. All this was conveying interesting and valuable information as to the movements of the transport and the actual forces o\ the Crown. Tho article went on to tell of the Willochra going to sea, and arriving at another port, and receiving a gun, and as to there being 60,000 troops in a certain port, this conveying precise and valuable information as to the military forces. This was followed by -references to naval matters—a battleship sailing and being replaced by a French cruiser, and so°on—and then there came a description of the released transports proceeding “on a truly astonishing wake for the bewilderment of any lurking periscope.” Next there was something about the method of dodging submarines—interesting reading for the Germans. Then Dr Bedford told how the troopships were escorted, and he went on to tell how the port of destination had been blockaded for several-weeks, and ho mentioned that the Corinthic had been lying there for three weeks. That concluded the narrative part of the article, and it proceeded to give commendation of the ship’s officers under the strain on their nerves. The article ns a. whole was a contrast to what Dr Bedford and the * newspaper called the curt official message usual in such cases. Dr Bedford said that, as a matter ol fact, ho had nothing to do -with the headnote or the headlines. The first paragraph of the article, referring to “the curt official message,” was nob the result of what he said in tho interview. The interviewredly started at the second paragraph, and from that on it was a paraphrase of what he said and some quotations of hit actual utterances.

His Worship; You supplied the materia and they did the dressing. Dr Bedford : Yes, that is so. I did nc know what was written till I saw it il the newspaper. His Worship; I understand that Dr Bedford wishes it made dear that it was net an article contributed by him, and that ho is not responsible for the headlines. Hr MacGregor: I frankly accept his statement; but the complaint is that h© communicated the information, and if ho had not done so the dressing could nob have been supplied—there would have been nothing to dress. Learned counsel went on to remark that it was difficult to understand how Dr Bedford could have given this precise information if he had before him the Minister's form of the official statement that such and such reinforcements had reached their -destination in safety. Tn the article the pressman told pretty well everything that the authorities have been so anxious to keep a mystery. It wao perfectly plain that both the regulations relied on had boon broken. When the report oL the interview appeared the military authority—Colonel Gibbon —■ wrote to the editor of the ‘ Star’ asking to ho informed why the article was printed before submitting it to him. To that the editor replied that no was not aware that matter Gn the shape of an interview came within the scope of the regulations. Ho (Mr MacGregor) could not understand that statement.' The editor went on in his reply; “Though I acknowledge freely that the reference to the nnmbor of troops said to bo stationed at such unnamed port was an infringement of its spirit. For that offence,, if such it be, X make apology; but, however sharp one pair of eyes may bo, it is sometimes impossible to detect every pitfall. . . . On rending over again our report I see that troops are specifically mentioned in strength. This should have been altered to ‘ a considerable number of troops ' ; but in respect to the name of the Willochra appearing the sub-editor certainly counselled me, and I told. him I thought it could go in, as I understood that her voyage as a transport had ended, and al her name had appeared in telegrams from Wellington." The editor then went on to state that he was submitting to Colonel Gibbon without prejudice the whole of the proofs of Dr Bedford’s series ol articles. It was not suggested, Mr MacGregor proceeded to say, that the breaking of the regulations was intentional. What was suggested was that it came about through some extraordinary trip or blunder. Thero was no suggestion that the ‘ Star ’ or any other newspaper intentionally infringed the regulations, and so far as the ‘ Star * was concerned they themselves said it was a case ol Jupiter nodding. As to the suggestion in Mr Cohen’s letter that the voyage of the Willochra had ended, and that the censorship therefore did not apply, that was clearly erroneous. The vessel certainly had arrived in port, but she was permanently engaged as a transport, and th» object of the regulation was clearly U prohibit publication of not only information which would be a source of danger to her on one particular voyage, but generally. A groat part of the inform a tion in that interview would be of enormous value to the Germans—the infprmation as to armaments, and movements, and as to the precautions taken by the Admiralty. Dr Bedford was in the troopship as representing the Y.M.C.A., and it was cxtiaordinary that he should have disclosed what he did without at any rate inquiring whether he was infringing the censorship. He (Mr MacGregor) Quite understood a newspaper, in the rush of the daily work, accepting the article, but it was difficult to understand Dr Bedford giving such information.-- The prosecutions up north were, so far as one could see, for technical breaches of the regulations.

Phis was not a technical breach. He was instructed'that the,authorities looked upon it as a serious breach, in view of the dangers to which British ships were expossd. l>r Sedford said lie proposed to make a statement! concerning this matter in the course of whicli ho would allege certain faces which, if not admitted, evidence could be given concerning them. He would say, however, at tho outset that he had always desired to assist the Defence Department by observing the \yar regulations, and if any offence had been committed it had been committed unwittingly. As his first point he would maintain that tho regulation of February, 1917, had no application at all to information given concerning a voyage that had ended. This regulation read: “No person shall, without the consent of the military authority, publish, or cause or permit 'to be published any statement or communication as to lire movements, etc., of any ship engaged or about to .be engaged in any voyage,” etc. A voyage must mean "a run from one port to another, and could not bo taken to continue from tho time a vessel commenced transport work to the time its transport work ended. The ordinary meaning of the word must be taken. Their the word; “engaged” was used, and ho would point out that the ship was not engaged upon, any voyage when the information was given. The voyage was ended, ftnd tno information did, hot concern :v voyage in which the ship was engaged. If the regulation had been intended to anply to past voyages it would have read “ has been engaged is engaged, or is about to bo engaged. Ho maintained that the clear reading of the regulation was that information must not be given concerning a voyage that was proceeding, or a future voyage It was quite evident that to give information about a voyage that was past aid not give information as to a voyage to come, for troopships did not follow the same route. Their route was constantly changing. He was charged with ** causing to bo published,” but he submitted that_ he did' not cause anything to be published. Tho interview was sought, and tho information given, of which the ‘ Star ’ made such use as it deemed fit. His Worship: If you did not “cause” you “ permitted ” it. . Dr Bedford said that might be so, butin any case the point ha stressed was that the regulation did not apply to information concerning a voyage that was ended With regard to the regulation bx 1915, in which the word “communicate” was used, if this word was to be interpreted in its literal sense- the regulation was violated every day by the Ministers of tho Crown, by every editor, by every returned soldier, by every mother, and by everyone, in [act, pvho knew anything “about the movements of ships. If*” communicate” was to be taken to mean the mere speaking to another of the movements of a troopship, the regulation was violated by .everybody! But that could not bo its meaning. In tho second place, he submitted that this regulation—so far as it related to the information given by him in the interview, had been practically in abeyance until a month or two ago. The newspapers stated that more or less regularly" information like that he had given (ships arriving and their destinations) had been given by Ministers to the Press, and published in the Press up to the recent outbreak of special submarine activity, when the regulation was more rigorously enforced. He had not known about this enforcement. His Worship: Don’t you think you are rather modest? I "don’t think information of this kind ever- appeared in the papers before.

Dr Bedford ; “ It is more ample. But information of the kind has been given.” He proceeded to narrate how, going over on the troopship, they were informed thai. they could post letters at ports of call, and these would be sent on, after being held back for a week or two, until the ship had departed. Regularly such letters were posted, containing the name of the troopship, tl'-e names of ports, etc,, and the only special point was that the letters were held until the ship had departed. This clearly gave the impression that the danger was past as soon as the ship had got right away. The furnishing of information in letters was just as dangerous as its publication in a newspaper, for letters could bo intercepted, and many of them were posted without being placed in envelopes. All this clearly showed considerable laxity on the part of the authorities in enforcing this regulation. He urged the same defence as to liability under this regulation that he raised in the case of the first regulation—that the regulation referred, to the movements of ships in the present, or their future movements. He raised the further point that regulation did refer to past movements of ships, it referred only to information given for publication. Mr MacGregor had said the interview was a preliminary to the publication of a series of articles. It was nothing of the kind. Ho had not sought the interview', and the position was that he went into the office at the request of the ‘ Star,’ talked freely, gave information, and relied on the ‘ Star ’ to publish only what was in accordance with the War Regulations, It was argued that, being a barrister, he should have been acquainted with the regulations, but the newspapers made a special feature of getling knowledge of the regulations, were in :onstant touch with the department, and it was’ a. tacit understanding that when a nan granted an interview the newspaper vould see .that things were cut out that jhonld not be published. He said a number of things which he did not intend to go in the paper, and it was certainly a fact that ho relied on the paper to publish only such information as was warranted by the War Regulations. And as a matter'of practice ho was justified in such reliance. He had not communicated information for the purpose of the publication,of what was contrary to the regulations. He admitted that he had not read the regulations, and had _ not known them. He had given a large amount of information, relying on the ‘Star’ to publish just what it was right to publish. He contended that if ' the regulation meant to “ communicate ■ for publication ” he was not liable. • Dr Bedford proceeded to read from his ; nwn articles (which followed the inter- 1 view, and which were all submitted to i the censor), extracts showing that in them ‘ he had given similar information to that J which was the subject of the present ! charges. He read out bits conveying news I of the ruimber of ships in. a certain port, I the position of ships, the number of troop? ; in the port at that time, the presence of 1 cruisers, and another matter which was • not in the interview, nrd which we do not i state here, since Dr Bedford related its: significance. All these articles, counsel l proceeded, were forwarded to the censor ; who cut out what he thought should hoi cut out, but left in information of the same i kind as that in the interview, only more | amplified and containing more detailed I movements of the chips' ' j His Worship asked Mr MacGregor if this j was admitted. H so, it put a different' complexion on the case. \ Mr MacGregor said ho could not admit! it; hnt even if it were a fact that ?imi-1 lar information was passed, he supposed the position was that once the information Rad been disclosed in the interview the-mischief was done. Dr Bedford said that was an impossible argument. One thing in his articles was more than anything that appeared in the interview, but it was passed. If it was wrong to publish the information in the interview, then the more it was published the more likely did it become feat the enemy would get hold of it. He maintained that every point in the interview enumerated by Mr MacGregor as being improper had been made by similar statements, in the subsequent * articles, which articles had been passed by the Chief Censor. Ho maintained that the points he had made were valid and sufficient to acquit him. In any case, the hreadh, was purely technical. To show this he narrated how, immediately on arrival, he had heen everywhere approached for interviews, and had everywhere, justifiably, he thought, left the responsibility on the Press with respect to the War Regulations. His articles were deliberate but the interviews were statements made in answer to questions, and lie had not seen the “ proof ” of any single interview. Dr Bedford called and examined two witnesses. Mark Cohen, editor of the ‘Star,’ said that he remembered Dr Bedford submitting

to him certain articles with reference to the 18th Reinforcements. He followed 1 the course he invariably adopted with such articles: he sent clean proofs to Colonel Uibbon and asked for an earlv reply. Not getting a reply in time, the "first'of those articles was held over. The articles as .they appeared were passed by Colonel (ribbon. He had no reason to believe that the censorship of those articles was perfunctory. When an interview was given it was the rule to send a proof to the auV" 01 p hut in this case there was'no time. As the sub-editor consulted him as to publishing the steamer’s name, he accepted responsibility for the publishing of the interview - He took it that the two. steamers named had terminated their voyages and were no longer transports, and therefore the regulations did not cover them. Besides the name of the Willochra had seni from Wellington. The Defence Department did not give interpretations of tmo regulations; it told the papers peremptorily what they must not do, not what they may do. As to the headlines of this interview, the Censor had previously passed one which he (the witness)' would not have passed. If he got back a proof Lolonel Gibbon and saw something in it i-hat was obviously improper he would cut it out. As, a fact he had done so. Ihe Censor s objections were never questioned. Ho did not send up a proof of the interview because he understood that the information was from a civilian, and as such was not prohibited. . Hr -MacGregor: Would vou treat any nilormation that way? i Hdness : We use our common sense, Air xMacGregor. Continuing, Air Cohen said that four papers published both the interview and tno articles, so there were four editors who accepted the interview as all right The other papers did not publish the interview on the .game evening. lo Dr Bedford ; The interview did not appear m the ‘ Star ’ on, the day of the interview, but on the following dav Air MacGregor: Then the suggestion of. huny goes by the board. Witness added that tho interview was not syndicated in the sense that the a ™cles were, as to time. F. S. Goyen, reporter, examined bv Dr -Viorel, said that he took the interview on the ,9th oi March, and it was published on the 10th. Ho was referring to the principal part of the interview. A smaller part ot the interview was published on the Prulay-the day that he saw Dr Bedford. -lii-0 headlines and the text on th-c top of tne, article were witness’s own, and he wrote the first paragraph as an introduction.

Io Mr MacGregor: The facts stated ; "' c^ e a-" given, though not exactly in Dr j Bedford’s own words in every, case". Othc’ - facts were given, too—things that wore not published. For instance, -Dr Bedford mentioned _ to him names of places and Oilier particulars, which, of course, could . not he published. Witness did not simgesty that Dr Bedford should see a proof. If, in locking through an interview, he saw anything that he thomrht the author’s attention should have been drawn to, he would send a proof ; but, ns a. matter of fact, ho did not see this one till after 2 o’clock in_ the _ afternoon, and he did not red anything in it. Aluch stronger stuff had been given lots of times. The interview was a little different from an- ordinary interview, in that Dr Bedford was to publish a series of articles, and naturally would be keeping something back. Ordinarily, when a man was being interviewed, he let out everything that was in his mind. Dr Bedford said he was willing to submit to examination in the box,'if there was anything further to come cnt. Air AfacGregor replied that he willinfdv accepted Dr Bedford’s statements as they were. J His AA orship said that eo much had been said about the censorship of Colonel Gibbon that the Court should have his version ot the matter in regard to the passim* of certain articles. It was, of course, for”the Court to give a _ decisive opinion, but it would be interesting to know the view the authorities took in such a matter. He nropcsed to adjourn the case for a we»ic in order to produce a statement from Colonel Cribbon. Air AlacGregqr , asked if the Court would liive to hear him on the point as to the regulation of the sth February, 1917, and as to the _ defence of the voyage havinv been terminated. ° i His Worship intimated that he would nke to hear Air MacGregor. Learned counsel thereupon submitted tliat the meaning of the Regulation was clear. It was not merely in reference to the danger ot tho ship whilst she was on a- particular voyage, but as to the shin generally. Dr Bedford seemed" to think that the Regulation was exhausted when the ship was safe back in harbor, i But tha„ wxas not so. So long as information concerning her might be a source of danger to her at any time on anv future voyage re was necessary to observe the prohibition. On that point the Willochra was permanently employed as a transport, and this publication clearly gave not onlv her movements, but also the measures she (W to + T 1 * w a T[’ , He I‘efen'cd 1 ‘ efen 'cd the touio to two English decisions on the point. Air MacGregor added that ho was instructed that the authorities considered i it a serious case, and that he should ask ior a substantial penalty. w<S 5 matter ‘(vas then adjourned for a ;