ALLEGED SEDITION.

Greymouth Evening Star, 13 March 1917, Page 6

ALLEGED SEDITION.

CHARGE AGaTnST MAURICE FIIGERALD. CONCU'SION OF EVIDENCE. The healing of the evidence in the charged pivfetred against Maurice .lame; Fitzgerald, hotelkeeper, Ureyiikuuli. •'!' having, on February OUi Int. puhli.-died a statement which indicated hi; disloyalty in respect of the prevent war, was continued at Hie Magistrate's Court, Greymouth, yesterday afternoon before Mr. T. Hutchison, S.M., after this paper went to prc.s. (Part of the following evidence, however, appeared in hist niuht's town edition of the Star.)

Albert Meale said when lie entered the room living, accused. Houston, Wright. .Meal and witness were present. The room was used exclusively for selling liquor—a bar parlor. At about 0.40 his attention was attracted by loud talking. He went along and stood in the doorway. The fiist words he' heard was the accused questioning Houston about the badge. Accused said : "Why do you wear that badge on your arm." Houston replied because he had a right to. Houston asked accused why his conscience would not allow him to wear it, accused replying. "I would put the b *hing in my pocket and if asked about it would show it." Houston cot off the table, stood up, buttoned his coat and repeated the question. Houston knocked a glas, s out of accused's hands. and then struck accused. He took the provocation to Houston to be that accused took exception to him wearing the King's badi'c. As far as witness could see the accused was cool, as was everybody else hi the room. ,

To Mr Joyce: All of the personal "argument" witness heard was in reference to the badge.

The witness Wright desired to correct a statement he had made in the morning in regard to hi s having visited the room a second time. This concluded the evidence lor the prosecution. THE DEFENCE. Mr. Joyce s.nu uie inspector had endeuvoied to make out ni nis opening remarks uiui tne case was of a niusu .serious nature. Cancel, However, submitted, atter Hearing tne evidence, nis Worsmp would agree with him that there not be a more liopeiess and contradictory lot of statements. According to the w.tness Aie.Je, there was no intention ol the accused trying to force views or influence another. The witness Houston and accused had shaken hands and had agreed to, have an argument on Irish aftairs, and under tne circumstances there could be no sedition. The descriptions of the affair by the witnesses were opposed to one another. Counsel detailed the inconsistencies of the witnesses' evidence. No two witnesses had given evidence as to accused's pro-German utterances. He would call the accused, who would admit that he was offended at the retort about dropping coal on Mr. Webb's head, that an argument ensued, but would deny having made any disloyal statements. The accused. Maurice James Fitzgerald, hotelkeeper, residing at Greymouth, admitted being in a room in the Post Office,Hotel on the 9th February. Witness was introduced to those in the room by Mr. Meale. Witness made the statement that he had been to the State mines with Messrs Webb and Mr. and Mrs, McCombs. He produced a piece of coal that he had hewed himself, When he mentioned Mr McCombs Houston said: "That b- rotter." "Why did you nofc

pull a ton of coa] on his head ?" \\ it-j.e.-s: <.i;j, cU-'l to these s.aienieuts. I'n.! J .is'.) question was discussed. lie slm .k n.tints wiui Air. Houston ami tuey agreed Uwu luey would discuss .Irish alfairs. Witness, had objected 16 martial law in J rewind and lu.d stated that Shefhngton had been murdered in cold blood. Houston took exception to these remark < and said to witness "You might to be at the front." Witness did say "Why are you wearing that badge?" adding that he would put it in his picket and only show it wneri necessary. Houston said "Why wouldi.st you wear it?" and later witness said; "Oh get your head read. Houston then struck witness. He spoke no pro-German words nor did he say "I am a b anti-conscrip-tionist." As for the adjective bloody he was not, in the habit of usiinj the word.

To Inspector Criiickshnnk : He was annoyed about Houston stating that a toil of coal ought to have been dropped on Messrs Webb and McCombs' heads-a remark he (Houston) did not make m a jocular way. To His Worship: Witness said he did not think Houston meant or suggested murder in dropping the coal on heads, witness rather thought it was political aversion that prompted Houston's remark.

Continuing, in answer to Inspector Cruicksbank, the witness said lie knew of ino reason why the several witnesses .stated he had used the word "bloody." The only reason he could give was thai the information wan published in the Givyniouth Star, and had been given parrot-like. Witness denied having used the adjective under note, Inspector: Are you an anti-con-script ionistH Witness: 1 th'u't know what you mean. Inspector : You know perfectly well what I mean. Witness: ! hold the same opinion on .conscription as Mr. Ilyan, Prime Minister of Queensland, holds. Hi i Worship: Are you an anticonscriptionisi? Witness: I've been called a proGerman simply because T voice mv opinions. I do not believe in conscription of human life while wealth is not conscripted. Inspector : There is an anti-con-scription league here, is there not? Witness: I do not know of one. Inspector: Are you not a member? Witness: NoInspector: Have meetings not beeti held in the Lyceum Hnlll ~ Witness■: There have been meetings of the Repeal League, a perfectly legitimate body. His Worship: To repeal what? Witness: To repeal, the Military Service Act. The League was formed before the Military Service Act was enforced. Hi* Worship: You have enough intelligence, and if you are an anti-con-Bcriptionist you should gay go straight out. Witness: Well, if your Worship

puts it that way, I am an anti-con-scripuonist, Jiispecttji-: Was the Repeal League nor fanned after a puhlie meeting on Xovemher !)tli ! Witik-.s.s said lie had attended the meeting indicated, hut could not give the exact date of the formal inn of the League. He had attended no League meetings since the War Regulations came out. The Repeal League was now practionJlv extinct; it was so far as meetings are concerned, it was so far as meeting.-; were concerned, meeting In reply to further questions put hv the Inspector, witness sa.d lie knew of no conscriptioli repeal meetings while the Appeal Board was in Greyniouth. The fnspeolor: Was there not a meeting on February Ist. Witness said he did not remember it. He ditl not remember Air Arthur Fraser addressing such a meeting. The Inspector: Was there any Section 35 men or ballot men at the meeting?

Witness: Xo. 1 want to make the statement that I have never influenced any man against going to the front, and challenge contradiction. The Inspector: Von are in the Lust Division of the roll? Witness : I am enrolled. The Inspector: Have von volunteered:' Witness : No. Tl(e Inspector: You want someone else to do the fighting? Witness: Oh, no. What has that to do with the question? The Inspector: It has ;i lot to do with the question.

Ed. McDonnell, one of the two nidi who accompanied the accused to the hotel i-oonij detailed 'the incident about the piece of coal. Houston said to accused, ''Why didn't you put a toil of coal , n their head.'-:'" accused replying that Weld) and McCombs were decent fellows. Accused and Houston got a bit excited. Witness, thought. they had had a couple of drinks-, and, believing the two men to be a bit hotheaded, "got out of it." Thomas Shannahan, hotelkeeper, residing at Greyniouth, accompanied the last witness 1 and accused into the room, where there were four or live others. Witness said to accused, "Been out for the day, Maurice?" The latter tJaid, ''Yes; been out with Webb and McCoinbs.." Houston here interjected, "'Oh, that rotter." Accused went on to describe the working of the mines, and produced a piece of coal. Houston again interjected and said, "Why didn't you drop a ton of coal on both of them?'' (meaning the two M-P.'s). Accused and Houston appeared to be heated when witness left the room with the last witness. . To hi* Worship : The remark about dropping a ton of coal on their heads lie did not take to be jocular. He thought the remark an insult to Fitz-

gerald. To the Inspector: There was no nidation about Mr. Webb not attending the send-off to the troops while witness was in the room. To Mr. Joyce: Both men stood up. and matters looked ominous. His Worship (to witness): Ton would be surprised then to know that Houston and Fitzgerald afterwards slr.'ok hands and decided .to have a delate on the Irish question?

Witness: That did not occur while I was in the room. Man' Murphy, barmaid, on duty on the night of the 9th, remembered the

men being in the parlor. She visited the room on three occasions, took the men's orders, but heard no swear or offensive words:, or anything abo-ut Germans, or conscription. She heard a scuffle only from her position behind the bar. . .^jj To his Worship : She took to the room three lots of drinks, but from 'what, witness saw or heard there was no "argumeint.'' Dennis. O'Sullivan, grocer's assistant', while in an adjoining pallor, heard through open windows accused say that his mother and father were Irish that ''Skeftington was cold-bloodedly murdered by Captain Coltluirst," and

that his (accused's) ''conscience would not allow him to wear it" (presumably the badge). To the Inspector': He knew accused's voice but not that of the other mnn. Houston. He met the accused after the pictures and told him a couple of things he had heard. His Worship intimated *that he would take time to review the evidence and give his judgment in the ni.ruing. CONVICTED AND FINED. The MafiialriUi! (Mr T. Hutchison) delivered judgment this morning n« w». h chared with making reitoin statements which indicated cUS|„vaUy in aspect to the present war at Grevmoitth. nti February 9th las!. he infoVmation is bused upon No. h of the Additional War Regulations made bx Ordei-in-Council, dated July 19th, 1915 which, so far as relevant to the present proceedings, provides that: "No person IhM publish . . • any statement or matter which in irnv manner indicates dmlovaltv or disaffection in respect to the present war": and "publish in the Herniation has imputed to it the sense ot » m! ikiii" known either to individuals or the public .at large." The Reflations are mil .de under the authority of the War Re-

gnktions Art. 1914. Granted the comnotencv of the New Zealand Legislature to J.,,,,,., ' the War Regulations Act the le-rnlilv i.f the regulation in question hero ~jmii.,t !>.■ denied/V-cause tlie Amendment Ad of 1015. |v.issed in October of that year, validates all regulations theretoforo made. There are, therefore, two questions onu involved—(l) whether the defendant puulishocl the language set out in the inforituitioii: and (2),"if so. whether stich lam R «a-je is indicative of disloyalty.. As to t,he'"Wond question, it does not, to mV mind, admit of a doubt that the language is clcarlv and manifestly disloyal. Upon the question of fact whether the defendant made use of that language, the evidence, which T have carefully considered, satisfi<s me bevond anv doubt Hint the defendant did use the language. The tact is established bv the concurrent evidence ot (several witnesses, and is opposed only bv l|,e denial of the defendant, whose oath upon the matter I cannot believe. By the nnncipal Act of 1014 offences against the Regulations made thereunder are triable |,y n summarv conviction only, and the punishment/ is made imprisonment for nob exceeding twelve months or a fine not exceeding £.IOO. Since this is the only penal provision, it is obvious tjmt it covers offence-; of all degrees of gravity ; and the question the C.Bivt has to consider is lb" measure of punishment which the particular offence calls for. It was pressed „p ( „i me bv the prosecution that the present, was. "in hs nature, a very senona ♦jj'fenee which called for exemplary punishment, and allusion was made, as I understand. 1" certain sedition cases which in other'parts of the Dominion were visited bv the maximum punishment of impriAliment. All disloyal utterances are to he treated as serious, but I cannot hold that the present is comparable with tliojo sedition cases. There is. indeed, soareely

any point of similarity between them. In those cases the accused persons were men " having an official position, or having influence on certain sections of the comi munitv. and they were found to have of set purpose made public speeches calculated to incite people to disobev the established law of the land, and that, too, in " possibly a defiant manner. In this case a ' .man in the bar parlor of a hotel, with • about half a dozen others, in coarse and vituperative language utters sentiments " unquestionably, and righMv so. detestable : to loyal citizens: but with no apparent • intent and certainly with no expectation • ( f in any wiv nffecting or influencing those present. It is absurd to compare ' the vapourings of a taproom with the in--1 flammatory words of a public orator. The " defendant" is a publican'and the chairman of .some league having for its object the " repeal of the Military Service legislation, and to that extent, and no further, this ■ case differs from others which have been ' before this Court. The fact that 1 cannot find any point o* similarity between 1 thi s case and the sedition cases beforementioned disembarrasses the. present case • of an element which must have entered 1 into those others. The difficulty—and it 1 is a verv real one —which is involved in those cases ill which the alleged sedition 1 is to be found in public Nptft'cllCS tt | to draw the line where .legitimate criticism of our laws ends and incitement to disobey them begins-—i line not always easy to draw. The right of free speech is the 1 very breath of our civil liberty. It is the, proud and legitimate boast of the Briton i that our country is the land—'•Where, girt by friend or foes, i A man may speak the thine; he will."

That, fundamental principle of our Constitution was, I presume, before the minds of the Magistrates dealing with those other cases : but, happily, it has not had to form any preoccupation for me in dealing with the present case, From what. I have said, I think that this is not a case for imprisonment, but I do think that, looking.to the position of the defendant and the milliner in which lie gave expression to his sentiments, the case is. of its kind, a serious one. In fixing the penalty I bear in mind that a conviction may possibly involve other consequences for the defendant. The defendant is convicted and fined £2O and £lO 18s lid costs.