THE WEBB CASE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXXII, Issue LXXII, 24 May 1917, Page 5

THE WEBB CASE.

PROCEEDINGS STILL UNFINISHED.

BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION. CHRISTCHURCH, May 23. The hearing of the charges against P. C. Webb, M.P., for making seditious utterances at Greymouth on April 19, was proceeded with to-day. Mr Raymond, K.C., prosecuted. Sir John Findlay defended accused. Mr Raymond, in opening the «ase, said that if there was a seditious utterance, having a seditious tendency, then : no matter what the motives oi defendant might be those motives could not be taken into account. He was now regarding the matter entirely from the point of view of the safety of the State and that of society. The utterance of a well-intentioned man might be more fatal to the public than the utterance of an evil-intentioned man, because the opinions of the former would carry weight, while the opinions of the latter would not. He would not go iuto the question of motives, but would submit that they were perfectly irrelevent. Whatever the rights of the miners might be, it was a question, not of the rights of any individual, but of their duty to loyally observe the laws of the country in relation to its military and economic resources. This was clearly indicated by the special legislation which had been passed by the Legislature under the War Regulations Act. Constable McMahon, who took shorthand notes "of part of Webb's speech, said he had a certificate for 120 words per minute. Sir J. Findlay's cross-examination was in the direction of establishing i that McMahon's notes could not be ac- ■ cepted as a reliable report of the whole jof Webb's utterances. j In opening for the defence, Sir J. Findlay said that, according to the i Crown's definition of the War RegulaI tions, they were absolutely unqualified. j Under such a definition a shrug of the shoulders was sufficient to have a man tried for sedition. If; in the privacy of his own home, he expressed certain opinions, he was liable to arrest, and to be hauled before the court on a charge of sedition. Under regulation i 4 of the War Regulations Act, 1914, | any utterance written or spoken in public or private against "the GovernI ment of New Zealand made the author I liable to be sent to gaol for twelve j months. That was not the case under I the Crimes Act or the Common Law j of England or in New Zealand to-day. j Unless the court interpreted these ; regulations in a different light from that suggested by the Crown, no man ! or woman in this country who criticised ' the Government was safe. Sir John ! Findlay contended that under such a i construction the remarks made by Mr IG. Fenwick and Dean Fitchett in Dunedin the other day, whereby they criticised the Government, would render these gentlemen liable to twelve months' imprisonment. Was New Zealand to be tongue-tied and left at the mercy of officialdom? He contended that the case against Webb had broken ! down, as McMahon admitted that he had left out and altered words of Webb's speech. The case was adjourned till 10 a.m. to-morrow.