THE TREASON FELONY ACT.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 114, 25 April 1868, Page 4

THE TREASON FELONY ACT.

To the Editor of the Marlborough Express. Sir, — I rise from a consideration of the abovenamed Act, just passed by the New South Wales Parliament, and in my opinion it is as great a piece of absurdity as it has been my lot to meet with these many years, I propose as briefly as possible to make a few remarks thereon.

Section 2 “ Provides that persons, whether within or without the colony, who shall compass, imagine, &c., shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted, shall be liable to a sentence of hard labor on the roads or other public works of the colony for a period not less than seven years.”

Of course the Legislature of New South Wales has no authority, neither has the Supreme Court any jurisdiction, over offenders out of the colony, except in cases when the offence has been committed on the lpgh seas under the British flag. Section 9. “ If any person shall use any language disrespectful to her moat gracious Majesty, or shall factiously avow a determination to refuse to join in any loyal toast or demonstration in honor of her Majesty, or shall by word or deed express sympathy with the crime of any persons stated or suspected to be or to have been engaged in the com mission of or an attempt, to commit any felony under this Act, or shall express any approval of the conduct of any persons stated or suspected to be engaged in the commission of or in the attempt to commit any such felony, or shall hold out by word or deed, as worthy of praise, honor, or commendation, the conduct of any persons who may have been or may he condemned and punished for such conduct in due course of law, every such person shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour, and may therefore be apprehended by any constable or any other person without any warrant for such purpose, and, on conviction, sh ill be imprisoned with- or without hard labor for any period not exceeding two years.” The following questions arise :■ —“ What is a loyal toast or demonstration in honor of her Majesty ? Why should any one be compelled to drink toasts?’’ The enactment is simply absurd. What is the meaning of the words “ By word or deed express sympathy with the crime of any person stated or suspected to be or to have been engaged in the commission of or in the attempt to commit any felony under this Act ?”

It is quite plain that any one might get up a procession in George-street, Sydney, in honor of the parties executed at Manchester, or of the parties who are stated and suspected to have blown up the (Jlerkenweil House of Detention, or of even O’Farrell himself without infringing section 9. None of these parties have ever been even suspected of committing any lelony under this Act. The crimes with which they have been charged are either murder or attempts to murder, not any offence under this Act or even the Imperial Act "with the same title. It would be just as legal to get up a procession in honour of O'Farrel as to get up one in honour of those popular heroes, Claude Duval, Dick Turpin, or Jack Sheppard, so far as this New South Wales Act is concerned, and just ns foolish. As parties infringing this section may be apprehended by any constable or any other persons without any warrant, it follows that any person who has plenty of money to shout, as it is called in Sydney, might stop every person he met in George-street and compel him to drink the Queen’s health and give three cheers for her Majesty, the party refusing to comply being liable to the penalty of two year’s imprisonment, but no one could legally interfere with a procession in honour of O’Farrell.

But the acme of absurdity ;s reached in the wording of section 10. This section enacts, “ that any person who shall write, print, or publish words, &c., shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, punishable by three years imprisonment.” Mr. Martin explained to the House that this was aimed against the sale of newspapers containing seditious matter, or the republication in the colony of such matter. If Mr. Martin’s interpretations were correct, it would be necessary for every news agent to examine his coiiies of the Times, Daily Telegraph, &c., before issuing them to his customers in order to ascertain that they contained no speeches of members of the American Conoress or the Fenian leaders in the United states. Newspaper proprietors too would be liable to prosecutions for die republication of such speeches. The only possible way to prevent the colonial public from seeing such articles is to establish a censorship in the Post Office as in Russia. In that country newspapers passing through the post are examined, and if found to contain matter obnoxious to the Government, they are either suppressed or the obnoxious parts cut out before delivery. Hut the fact is that unless the seditious words in question were something personally disrespectful to Her Majesty,or had speeial reference to some offence committed in the colony, they would not come under the terms of section 10. There is an invaluable rule, that penal enactments are never to be extended beyond their express language. And consequently section 10 would not apply to a Sydney newspaper proprietor, who should republish a speech of one of the Fenian leaders in New York, however violently it might denounce the British Governments. The alterations and additions of Mr. Martin have converted the English Act into a farrago of absurdity. A man named Johnson has been committed for trial at Yass for saying I am a Fenian. What is a Fenian,? . Except the Magistrates at Yass have been themselves matriculated into'this secret society it does not appear liow the meaning of the word is to be ascertained, the Magistrate at the Central Police Court at Sydney has committed another man for three months for using the same expression. His Worship observed it showed sympathy with O’Farrell. Both persons were drunk. Was the Sydney Magistrate in O’FarrelFs confidence ? If he was not, it is impossible _for him to know whether O’Farrell was a Fenian or not, as the Supreme Court has failed to elicit anything as to his having any confederates, except credit is to be given to his own unsupported assertions. Yours, &c., April 17th, 1868. Broxus.