HOME POLITICS

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 7 October 1924, Page 7

HOME POLITICS

EXTRA EDITION.

MOTIONS OF CENSURE. GOVERNMENT WILL OPPOSE BOTH. BY CABLE—PRESS ASSOCIATION—COPYRIGHT.. LONDON, October 6.' Received October 12.45 p.m. Mil Spoor, chief whip, after to-day’s Cabinet meeting, made a statement to the effect that the Government was determined to oppose both the Unionists’ closure (?censure) motion in the Campbell case and the Liberal amendment thereto. Mr Spocr added: “Our view is that there is no essential difference between them.”—Au.<p-N.Z. Cable Assn. THE CAMPBELL CASE. The following is the London Times’ report of the Campbell case:— John Ross Campbell, 29, editor of the Workers’ Weekly, appeared on August 13 before Mr Leycester upon a charge under the Incitement to Mutiny Act, 1797, of having “feloniously, maliciously . and advisedly endeavoured to seduce divers persons unknown, then serving in his Majesty's Navy, Army, and Air Force, from their allegiance to his. Majesty—namely, such persons as should thereafter receive and read a certain printed, publication called the Workers’ Weekly, of July 25, contain-' ing an article entitled ‘The Army and Industrial Disputes—An Open Letter to the Fighting Forces.’” The defendant was arrested the previous week at the offices of the Communist Party of Great Britain in King Street, Covent Garden. When the case was called on Mr Travers Humphreys, who, with Mr C. R. V. Wallace, appeared, for the Director of Public Prosecutions said: “My instructions to-day from the Director of Public Prosecutions are to offer no evidence uoon this charge, and to ask you to discharge the defendant.” Mr Leycester (to the defendant). — There is no evidence before me, and the only thing I can do, therefore, is to discharge you. You can go from here a free man. Mr ‘Fuller asked for an oirder for the return of the books and documents seized bv the police at the time of the arrest. He said that they comprised a whole heap of papers , which had nothing to clo with this case. Chief Inspector Parker said that there would be no objection to the whole of the property being returned. NO CESSATION OF PROPAGANDA. The following statement has been issued f.rom the offices of the Workers’ Weekly by Mr Albert Inknin, of the Political Bureau of the ‘Communist Party, relating to the withdrawal of the prosecution against the editor of that newspaper:— “In view of the statement made by the counsel for the prosecution in the case against the editor of the Workers’, Weekly, the Political Bureau of the Communist Party desires to maTce it clear that no effort was made by Comrade Campbell to provide a defence such as that outlined by the prosecution as a reason for withdrawing the charge. Campbell’s defence was justification, and be, "with the assistance of other comrades, was fully concerned in arranging evidence to make this good Arrangements had been made to ask for an adjournment in order that Mr MacDonald, the Prime Minister*, Mr Henderson, Mr Clynes, and several others who .had been closely associated with the Second International would be subpoenaed as witnesses for the defence. It was also intended that prominent trade union officials, such as Messrs Bramley, Cramp, and Tillett, who.are associated with the Amsterdam International, should be called. All of these Labour Party and trade uniou officials have been identified with resolutions opposing the use of soldiers in industrial, disputes or with resolutions demanding that war be fought by every means. “We wish to state that the withdrawal of the charge was made on the sole responsibility of the Labour Government under severe pressure from such well-knpwn Labour members of Parliament as George Lansbury (who volunteered to give evidence for Campbell’s defence of justification), James Maxton. A. A. Purcell. John Scurr, and many others. “The Communist Party claims that the withdrawal of the charge is a victory for the workers, but at the same time one that will arouse the vicious hostility of the reactionary elements within and without the Labour movement. It is necessary, therefore, that all those who support our attitiide on war and on the use of soldiers in industrial disputes should be ever watchful and ever ready to take *action against any attacks that may be made in the future.”