FLLIOTT v “N.Z, WORKER”

Grey River Argus, 5 December 1924, Page 6

FLLIOTT v “N.Z, WORKER”

Claim for £lOO (Reprinted from 4 ‘The N.Z. Worker.’ ) The History of the Case. Mr Myers, continuing, said: — In the House of Representatives on July Sth, arising out. of an incident in the Address-in-Reply debate, Mr Holland had referred to Mr Howard Elliott as “a nwn who did not hesitate to attack the King on his throne in language which, it used by ‘‘the New Zealand Worker’’ or the 44 Grey River River Argus ” would land the 1 editor in the dock.’’ On July 14, Mr Howard Elliott wrote to the Wellington papers challenging Mr Holland to go before a committee of three and substantiate his statement and fur tiler challenging Mr Holland to “step out of his place in the House where he is protected by all the privilege:' designed for honest men, and prove his truthfulness.” etc. Mr Holland accepted the challenge, intimating that lie purposed repeating and amplifying in jjnbße meeting, ami without invoking Parliamentary privilege, his statements in the House. This he did, basing his statements on two articles which had appeared in “The Sentinel ’’ and also on the plaintiff’s general record. The Attack on the King. Mr My?rs then proceeded to ((note from an article published in “The Sentinel” of June I. 1923, written by Howard Elliott, and headed 44 The King’s Visit to the Vatican—A Blunder and a Discourtesy.” and a second article in the same paper of September 1. 1923, entitled: 4 4 The King’s Visit to the Vatican—By Baron Porcelli—A Letter to the Rev. Howard Elliott.” In Mr Howard Elliott’s own article it was declared that the King’s visit to the Vatican 44 resurrects the ghastly period of history when the Stuarts —Romanists and deceivers—occupied the Throne of England.” The 4 4 Romanists” and the * 4 Labour Extremists” were said to be working together to destroy the Em pire, and there were offensive references to the King, and a further state inent that they (meaning the Protestants) were prepared to sacrifice “even the occupant of the Throne” to gain their own ends. ‘‘This Wicked Reign.” Counsel read the whole of Baron Porc.dli’s letter to Mr Howard Elliott, which opened with a reference to “this wicked reign” (i.e., King George’s reign) “which is bringing down the indignation of God.” and whirl) further alleged that thv present

King made a corrupt bargain with Mr Asquith in order to secure a change in the Coronation Oath which would make it possible for a secret Papist to take it—the inference being that His Majesty i> a secret Papist. In this letter it was also charged that the King was “generally behaving like a Stuart.” There were also charges against the King of having md an evil example by attending concerts on Sunday, and race meetings ami by ap pointing Papists about the Court. The King was further charged with exchanging telegrams with the Man of Sin. anil with openly and defiantly making royal visits to tin* Son of Perdition. Asquith, Lloyd George, Bonar Law and Baldwin were all described ns low-born Premiers, toadies and tuft-hunters, who were afraid to beard the King in his den. and were content to “play his game.” Mr Watson protested that all this was irrelevant. “This is Baron Parcclli’s letter, not Mr Elliott’s,” he said. I lo* Magistrate asked was it not a reasonable inference that Mr El J io*t published the letter. When a man re ceived a letter written in that strain, am] published it, it would seem that he agreed with the views expressed in the letter. • Seditious and Disloyal. ’ ’ Mr Myers remarked that, they all received letters they did not always 'pj r.'.o of, but they did not publish them with such avidity as in this a . . Those two letters were miinly P*" I->sis of Mr Holland’s speech and the statements they contained were seditious a'nd disloyal. Who, reading such a letter could come to any other conclusion? Baron Porcelli’s letter was written to the plaintiff, and could never have become public if he bad not published it. Every word that Mr Holland had used was justifiable and fair comment. In his ' peech there were not only statements by of comment, but the facts on which the statements were based ~r e fully presented, and about the l-H-ts there could be no dispute. Mr Howard Elliott did write the let Ur published over his own name in 1923. and he did publish the letter received by him from Baron Porcelli. “If those two letters do not breathe disloyalty and sedition ” said Mr Myers “then I don’t know what sedition and disloyalty can possibly be.” The Question of Honesty. Exception was taken to Mr Holland’s declaration that Mr Howard Elliott was the last man who was entitled to impugn any other man’s honesty; but they had to remember that Mr Holland made his speech in public in response to :v challenge of Mr Howard Elliott, who in his let ter to the press had implied that Mr Holland was not courageous and that

he was dishonest. “There are many of I us,” said counsel, who strongly disagree with Mr Holland’s politics, but none of us would hint that, he lacked cither honesty or courage.’’ As would i»e shown, when Mr Holland made reference to Mr Howard Elliott’s honesty, he had in mind the general conduct of the plaintiff and particularly Lis conduct when he vilely slandered a dead wo us ar and was in consequence described as ‘‘the reverend slanderer” by the present Air Justice Frazer. ami also his conduct in connection with the charges made by him against the Post Office officials at Auckland. Surely such a man was «iot entitled to impugn the honesty of any other man? The Letters Fabricated. The plaintiff, who had fabricated scandalous letters for the purp<\-c of sectarian propaganda, who by that means 'aid a trap for the portal --er vants, was surely the last nan to talk disparagingly of any other man. The '.Stipendiary Magistrate. Mr Bishop, who had been appointed a Royal Commissioner to inquire into the charges laid by Mr Howard Elliott against the Auckland Post Office said, with reference to the letters which the plaintiff himself admitted having fabricated. and the signatures to which be confessed were bogus, and the ad“I am fain to believe that there are few ministers of religion who would have thought of concocting su’-h abominable and disgusting accusations against members of the Chistian Church as are contained in three of the letters, unless he was so saturated with sectarian bitterness that he lost all sense of propriety.’’ Counsel declared that the man wllo was capable of such conduct had r.eithej character nor reputation to lose. The luncheon adjournment took ■ Luc at this stage. MR HOLLAND IN THE WITNESS BOX. Henry Edmund Holland in reply t(f Mr Myers, stated that he was :: member of the New Zealand Parliament and leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party. On July Bth. in the ■•nurse of his Address-in-Reply speech, iie made passing reference to Mr Howard Elliott, and subsequently there appeared in the Wellington papers a letter bearing the signature of Howard Elliott. challenging him to come out and repeat in public what he had snid in the House. He

wrote to the papers accepting lhe challenge and accordingly on July 20, he (witness) delivered in the Empress Theatre tin* speech on which the pre -ent action was based. Prior to his speeches in the House and the theatre, Lt had seen the article in the “Sentinel” entitled “The King's Visit •<> the Vatican.” The Auckland P.O. Report. When he said that Mr Howard EL ■iott was the last person in the world who should impugn the honesty of any other man. he was referring to that portion of the plaintiffs IcDcr in which his (Mr Holland’s) honesty was in: p'igned, and he had in mind the report ol the Royal Commissioner (the late Mr Bishop, S.M.), who in 1917 inquired into Mr Howard Elliott’s charges against the Auckland postal officials. My Myers tendered as evidence the >“port referred to. Mr Page: How do you propose to put that in? Mi- Myers: It is a public document, and it goes to prove that vile and unfounded accusations were made Lv Mr Elliott against certain persons It proves that the statement that Mr Elliott -was the last person entitled to impugn the honesty of another was justified. Mr Watson objected that the document was irrelevant and that its ad mission would be costrary to legal practice. In reply to Mr Myers, Mr Hollan I said he had seen the report, and had also read the Htinsard report of the debate on the motion that the doeu meat be printed. In 1917 be was edi lor of “The Maoriland Worker.” and regularly received Hansard and the various papers presented to the House The Raport Admitted. Mr Page ruled the report a omissible as evidence, because if it were proved that defendant had acted as he had done on beliefs obtained by reading

the reports it might have a bearing on the question of damages. Mr Myers also tendered Ilmsard, No. 23, 1917, containing the debate on the motion to table a nd . print MiBishop’s report. Mr Watson strongly objected. On what ground, he asked, did Mr Myers want to put this in? On the ground of the knowledge of the defendant.? Mr Myers: 1 hat is the ground. Mr Watson: Well, where are v.e to stop. If this is admitted, then every newspaper report of any kind is admisWe all know that in Hansard there is t,, b e found so , ~j- t)lc mO: ., unmitigated twaddle that could be printed. ~,s well as some of the sanest utterances. Surely Hansard cannot be quoted on the grounds for a man’s believing a thing f 0 be true. Mr Page: As the report was of a Royal Commission of Tnqui-y. and was discussed on the floor „f 1!,,.. House, I "ill admit the Hansard report as evidence. Tt may not be slrielly :,d--miss.bl, Gn )e ., p] grounds, bu' if the defendant acted on it, it ~.l y j,. iVp hearing on the question of damages. What The Report Contnir.ocL Mr Bishop’s report wn, accordingly

put iu by Mr Myers. .it set forth that the Commission bud been appointed to inquire into charges publicly made by Mr Howard Elliott to the effect that circular notices posted at. ?>.uckland in July, 1917, relative to a projected I'.l’.A. meeting were correctly or improperly suppressed or u<itained by officers of the J’ostul Department; that in August, .1917, correspondence addressed io Post Office Box 912, Auckland, had been corruptly or improperly suppressed or detain cd by the officers of the Postal 1 )e--partment; and, further, that in .he interests of the Roman (.'atbolic Chuicli. :i military censorship had been established over the ('orrespoudeace of the persons using Box 912. The Charges Wholly Unproved. Mr Bishou sat eight days, and examined G"> witnesses, including the then Solicitor-General (th? late Sir John Salmoud), Mr Morris (Secretary of the Postal Department) Mr Williamson (Chief Postmaster at Auckland), and a number of other Postal Officials. Ihe charges were ftrund to be wholly unpr<»\ ed. The censorship over Box 912 had been recommended by the Solicitor-General, whose grounds were, 4 4 that matter connected with this box was distinctly mischievous in tendency, and was likely to very seriously interfere with the proper conduct of the war anJ that therefore rhe Pot Office should not be allowed to be made the medium for its circulation to the public.” ‘ ‘ Rome ’ s Hideous Guilt. ’ ’ One of the items of literature going through Box 912 at this time (and which influenced the Solicitor-General in recommending its censorship) was a leaflet entiflsd “Rome's Hideous Guilt in the European Carnage.” This leaflet contained, inter alia the following:— 4 4 Germany is being made the scapegoat to hide an equally guilty party Rome. Austria is the chief of Rome’s representatives. The Papacy has two great objects at the present time, viz., the restoration of the temporal power of the Pope and the destruction of protestantism. ’ ’ This was stated by Mr Howard Elliott. in the course of his evidence before the Commission, to consist of a reprint from the “Churchman’s Gazette,” edited by Mr John Kensit the 'British anti-Ritualist, The same leaflet contained the al ligation that ;l was Rome who was stirring the boiling cauldron of Europe, and the suggestion that for the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand the 4 4 cunning hand of Rome” was responsible. Howard Elliott’s Fabrications'. During the course of the Inquiry. Mr Howard Elliott admitted that h( had fabricated a series of letters (vxith false addresses and bogus sig natures) in which serious allegations of immorality w-r. made agaiimf priests and nuns. One unfounded

charge made in these letters was that a cert,-i;:) priest had been expelled fiom a military camp for «lrunkenness, ;,,, d for having a woman in his tent. Another was that at an Au-kland con \<'ut, there was “’a linn? pit into which (bodies could be placed and disposed of without fear of detection.” A thirl charge was .••gainst a nun in another Auckland convent, and there was another letter containing charges of ini morality against a nun who met her death accidentally by drowning at Tallin a runui. “Abominab.c and Disgusting Accusations.” The Royn! Commissioner’s viewpoi/C was expressed in these words:-— “To my mind it is most d<‘p.'o’-.ib!e that at this particular when our L;#.p:rc is at deadly grips with a.t unscrupulous enemy, and our soldiers are doing their noble part t<. uphold ■•nr interests irrespective of creed or ‘•‘luntry. a unmade—for it is nothing else-—should be entered upon to attack a church, the members of which be deeply pained at, and who will certainly resent the language that is being hurled at them by such men ns Mr Elliott.” Mr Bishop then went on to refer to the contents of the fabricated tel tors am! said that after having pcru>ed them he had refused to permit them io be read in public. He proceed cd to say: — ‘‘Mr Elliott admitted that those letters were fabricated by himself, and that the names and addresses were bogus, but that they were addressed to the Committee of Vigilance at Box 912. J am fain to believe that there

aie few ministers of religion who would have thought of concocting such abominable and disgusting accusations against members of a Christian Church as are contained in three of the letters— unless he was so saturated with sectarian Ijitterncss that he lost all sense of propriety. ’ ’ What Hansard Repotted, On September 13. 1917, Sir Joseph Ward (I’o.-.t master ».<(. iie’:* I in the National Gov eri’incnt) presented Mi- Bishop's report to the House of Representatives, and moved that it be printed. An attack was immediately launched by Messrs W. Nosworthy ai.d •L S. Dickson, whose speeches were in favou- of Air Howard Elliott’s side 4 4 Ropreheiisible Methods. ’ ’ I two of fj;e fabricated 9 tiers wore . it'c-. ; (> th' 1 House by Mr Herdman ■ A ttorm'y-Genorai), but when lie c#- | lived to r.-'id third, members shouted 44 Enough! Enough! Do not rea<! them.” M I i»| holly declared that ■ t “made one ashamed to be a Protes-

tant ” and the Speaker intervened to prohibit any further reading of the letters. Mr Herdman then proceeded to say that he himself was a Protestant, -am! that the Solicitor-General and the Chief Military Censor Colonel Gibbon, were also Protestants. Ho declared that “no more ill-advised, no more reckless, and no more illjudged attack upon the administration of any Department of' the Government was ever made in the history of this country.” He described the statement that Box 912 had been censored in thi' interests of the Roman Catholic Church as ‘‘a reckless statement, a statement absolutely without foundation ’’ Mr Herdman further said of Mr Howard FJliott that “some of the methods, it had been shown he adopted were reprehensible,” and finally expressed this opinion:— “1 can hardly conceive it possible that a gentleman who professes to be a minister of the Christian religion could in the sanctity of his private house sit down and concoct scandalous letters of the description I have just read.” “A Corrupted and Filthy Mind.” Mr Hornsby (then member for Wairarapa) referred t« the fabricated letters as 44 an outrage upon common de coney. ’’ He said that when he received the printed matter—Rome’s Hideous Guilt’’—he felt it to be his duty to send it on to the Attorney-General, to whom ho wrote: “Herewith I enclose a vile thing sent to me from Auckland, and 1 do hope that under the War Regulations, you will prohibit the passage of such things through the Post Ofiice, and, if possible, punish the purveyors of such wretched libels. I am a Protestant (a descendant of the Huguenots) but it is to me a shocking and disgraceful thing that such insults should be levelled al the Catholic men and women of this country, especially seeing that thousands of Catholic men have gone io light for us. Small wondei (if these publications are permitted) if Catholic men were to resent, as they have a right to do, the shocking libel upon their religion. 1 hope you will be able to punish these purveyors of evil.” The reply to this action was the following intimation from Box 912 Auckland, signed “The Committee of Aigilance.’’: We are compiling a lisi of pro-Romanist politicians for use at the nex« election, and shall be. glad to include you in that list.” Ivelernng to the letters. Mi- Hornsby said: No man could have penned such statements as are contained in

those letters unless his mind were a corrupted and filthy one. . . Does any man dare to say such things as arc spoken ol in these vile and contemptible and brutal letters have any foundation in tact? '1 lie whole thing is of the most reprelumsiblc character, and I do not believe that anv pureminded maj] or woman in this countiy, be he or she as strictly I’rotestanl as possible, would for a moment acquiesce in such filth as we have had to listen to to day, penned by this man who is going roui/d the country Irving to set men at each other's throats.” Disgusting Accusations. ’ ’ Mr J. McCombs M.l’., said: ‘‘As I listened to the loathsome recital of some ol the fabrications that the Rev. Elliott was responsible for I agreed with the men-ber for Christchurch North that it made one fool ashamed to be a Protestant I do believe that no more disgusting accusations have ever been levelled against any church or against any individuals than the disgusting accusations that the Rev. Elliott has levelled at the Catholic l Church in connection with this matter.’ “ Filthy and Blackguardly Action.” Air J,. M. (sift. M.P.. declared:— “The whole thing is too loathsome to dwell upon with any satisfaction. . • • . I hope, sir. for the credit of our common Protestantism, that when the people of this country are made aware of this man’s filthy and blackguardly action in connection with these letters—there is no language that is at all decent that one can use that is strong enough to express one’s opinion of a man who adopts such tactics as these—no minister of any < hurch will soil himself by contact or having any truck whatever with him.” The Clements Case. After the Magistrate had decided, to admit both the report of the Royal Commission and the Hansard report of the debate thereon Mi- Holland’s evidence was proceeded with. He said his references to Mr Howard Elliott’s honesty were also based on the strictures made on Mr Elliott by the present Mr Justice Frazer when Stipendiary Magistrate, arising out of the prosecution of a returned soldier who had administered a public whipping to the plaintiff, who had reflected on his dead sister. The Magistrate had referred to the plaintiff as 44 the reverend slanderer. ” ’There was a direct attack upon the Labour Party in the article in the “Sentinel,” as well as upon the Roman Catholic Church. For a number of years. Elliott had been making similar attacks on the Labour Party and the Catholic Church, and had associated tl*. two bodies. r l ho report of witness’s speech in “The Worker” was substantially correct. The speech was 'made from very comprehensive notes. ]( was quite true that he made the statements forming the. ground of plaintiff’s claim. The report witness gave to 44 The Worker” was practically the reproduction of his notes. He certainly used the expressions set out in the

statement of claim, and took full re- | sponsibility for what appeared in I 4 4 The Worker.” • ‘‘Mene Mene Tekel, Upharsin.” ! hi pieparing his speech he had made voluminous notes, and he b:'.J iollov.cd those notes in his speech more closely than the average speaker followed his notes. Quite a large portion of the address consisted of reading from his notes, pndoublmlly. he had made at the meeting those statements which were published. After deliver ing his speech he had furnished the notes to Mr Withy, a. Parliamentary reporter, who wt. 3 present and had to report the proceedings without a table. Mr Withy would bo able to say whether there was any substantial difference between the speech ns delivered and as reported in ‘The New Zealand Worker. ” Witness said he had given “The Worker” some of th-.’ actual notes, and after Mr M ithy returned the notes witness wrote the report for “The Worker.” The notes were prepared with headings, which were sometimes spoken in the course of his speech. The document produced was the actual report which he gave to 4 4 The AVorker. ” The whole was in his handwriting’. The manuscript was put in by Mr Myers. A copy of tlie “Sentinel” dated September 1, 1924. in which the plaintiff, replying to Air Holland’s speech, made an attack upon the Church of Rome, joining it with the. Labour Party, was tendered as evidence. In this paper the plaintiff was reported as having declared that “the tragic words, ‘Afene, Meno, Tekel, T'phar sin,’ ” might be written on the walls of Buckingham Palace. Mr Watson objected to the paper being put in. but it was admitted. Air Holland further stated that the report of his speech now before the Court was exactly as it was when sent to 44 The Worker.” The words, reading “the culminating point of his sedi tionary wildness” were used in the speech, but not included in the notes. He had insorte! them when he real the ]>rori.fs. AFr ATyers: How long have those attacks by the plaintiff, associating the Catholic <’hurch and the T.abour PaHy, been going on? Mr Holland: For years. Mr Myers: And yoe. regard them as seditious? Mr Holland: I do.