SUBVERSION CHARGE

Greymouth Evening Star, 29 June 1940, Page 6

SUBVERSION CHARGE

BY-ELECTION STATEMENTS. [PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] AUCKLAND, June 28. Summary charges under the Public Safety Emergency Regulations, of making subversive statements. . in speeches made at the time of the Auckland West by-election, were denied by two members of the Communist Party. Ron Hurd and Roy Stanley, in the Police Court, before Mr. F. H. Levien, S.M.

Evidence against Hurd referred to a meeting attended by 50 persons at Ponsonby on April 30. A copy of Hurd’s speech as taken by a shorthand writer, showed references to imperialist war, warmongering, and men going to kill or be killed in the interests of the ruling classes. Conducting his own defence, Hurd said that his statements were true, and he did not think anyone should be convicted for telling the truth. He spoke according to notes drawn up by the Communist candidate in the election, and intended to carry out the programme of the party. Pointing out that Hurd was already serving a sentence of six months’ imprisonment for a similar offence, the Magistrate said that the accused would be convicted without further penalty. The charge against Stanley referred to a meeting in Ponsonby on May 3, when the accused was the chairman and the principal speaker was the candidate, Clement Gordon Watson. Witnesses said that the hall was full. There were nearly 180 present. The-speech, a copy of which was produced, allegedly referred to the workers suffering as long as imperialist war continued, and to the Hon. P. Fraser as recruiting agent for British imperialists. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. V. R. Meredith, said that direct and indirect statements in the speech were definitely subversive. The tenor of the speech, whether political or otherwise, was that the war effort should be impeded or discouraged, and it was likely to destroy the morale of the community.

Mr. McCarthy, representing tlje accused, said that the regulations did not contemplate or aim at th£ type of remarks made by the accused in his election speech. They were aimed at far more serious things. There was a distinction between a speech and a pamphlet, in that the number likely to be affected by a speech was very limited. The Magistrate reserved his decision.