AUSTRALIAN DISSENSIONS

Greymouth Evening Star, 21 January 1932, Page 5

AUSTRALIAN DISSENSIONS

“INSULTING MR. LANG” BRISK EXCHANGES IN COURT [BY CABLE —PRESS ASSN. —COPYBIGHT.] SYDNEY, January 20. Colonel Campbell, the New Guard Leader, was again before the Court today on the charge of using insulting words in a public address. A crowd of people fought for admission to the Court, but only a small percentage of them succeeded in gaining entry. Mr Lamb, K.C., counsel appearing for Campbell, asked the Magistrate for a further adjournment, he declaring that there was not sufficient time to prepare a defence that would be worthy of such an occasion. He added that a vital principle was involved. It was the right of free speech, the right of every citizen to criticise the acts of a public man. He continued: We are entitled to show that the Premier of this State has disgraced his position in every way, has lowered its dignity, and injured its credit. He has worked to bring about a Communistic State, and, above all, has defaulted. Everybody knows but you. As Magistrate, you do not know it. ■ The Magistrate, Mr Laidlaw: Assuming that your statements are true, how would you be entitled to go into evidence to substantiate matters of that kind?

Counsel: Most decidedly. I would have that right. A public man has defaulted, and he holds his position by false pretences. That being his character, we have every right to criticise him, just as numberless others are doing. Even Mr Lyons, the Prime Minister, has described Mr Lang as an incubus. We have likened him to his own farmyard bull. It may be an insult to the bull, but I do not think It is an insult to Mr Lang. Counsel, continuing, pointed out that he also intended to submit that the summons was bad, because it did not specifically state who had been insulted. He contended that the person who had been insulted must be present at the time that the words complained of were used. Mr Laidlaw replied that it did not seem necessary to prove to whom the remarks were insulting. Mr Lamb: If Mr Lang had been insulted then let him come forward so that he could be cross-examined. No offence had been committed unless someone had been insulted. Who was that someone?

Mr Lamb continued to argue that every word uttered of Mr Lang was justified. He said that indeed, far worse things were being said about him by others and (Lamb) he desired to bring evidence to this effect. The Magistrate refused the application for a further adjournment.

Counsel for the prosecution, said that the police took this action for good reasons, which he was not disclosing. There was such a thing as the prevention of disorder wen arrogant persons set themselves up in positions to which they had no right or title. The hearing of evidence was then commenced. The police shorthand writer, Sergeant Alexander Lendrum, detailed Campbell’s speech, made at the Lane Cove Picture Theatre on January 11, in which he made many of the references, such as have already been cabled, to Mr Lang. The witness described these utterances as insulting. In the course of his cross-examina-tion, Sergeant Lendrum said that he had not attempted to verify Campbell’s statement that the Premier, Mr Lang, was “a scoundrel.” Witness also stated that he was not concerned as to whether Mr Lang was a defaulter or had broken his pledges, or had appointed scoundrels or criminals to the Public Service. The Magistrate here suggested that the cross-examiner, Mr Lamb, be more careful regarding the words he used about the Premier of the State. Mr Lamb: I shall be very careful, if I cannot prove my words. I submit that “scoundrel” is a very mild word in this case. The Crown counsel here interposed: These cowardly attacks on the Premier should not be tolerated in a British Court of Law!

After there had been other similar exchanges the hearing was adjourned.

PORT ADELAIDE DISPUTE. STATE GOVT’S ACTIONADELAIDE, January 20. Regulations, under the Public Safety Presentation Act and having the effect of barring the employment of volunteer labour on the waterfront at Port Adelaide, were approved by the State Executive Council to-day, and they will be gazetted this afternoon. The regulations restore the preference to the unionists, and all the other privileges the unionists enjoyed under the Scullin Government, which restoration is directly in conflict with the recent action of the Lyons Government.

Other regulations approved to-day give wide powers to the police with regard to seditious publications, picketing, and the possession of unlawful w’eapons. “STATE OF EMERGENCY.” (Received January 21, 10.30 a.m.) ADELAIDE, January 21. A proclamation was issued by the Governor, declaring that a state of emergency exists. This is for the Port Adelaide area only. Premier Hill stated: “We are not defying the Commonwealth. We are merely warning it. The Act gives the State Government power to proclaim that a state of emergency exists in any area, and to make regulation for that area.” The regulations are expected to be challenged by the Federal Government. A meeting of the Cabinet was held at Melbourne, but it was decided to await further information before taking action. Interviewed, the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) said that while no decision was reached by Cabinet, the South Australian Government’s action is regarded as unconstitutional. In spite of the action by the Adelaide branch of the Seamen’s Union, in calling out the crews of the vessels owned by the Adelaide Steamship Company, the three ships left Port Adelaide, with volunteer crew's.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.

SYDNEY, January 20. Commenting on the South Australian Government’s action, in the Sydney “Sun,” to-day, the editor-in-chief, Mr Delamore McKay, described it as being of the “gravest constitutional importance, insofar as that it transcends any action by any State Government in contravention of the Federal, authority since the formation of the Commonwealth.” He says: “While the South Australian coup can be challenged constitutionally, it is fraught w'ith much , graver potentialities, because it involves the livelihood and the lives of a large number of people. A direct and serious defiance of the Commonwealth Sovereignty has been attempted. It remains to be seen whether the Federal Government will take up the challenge.”