ANTI-WAR PAMPHLET.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16121, 8 January 1916, Page 9

ANTI-WAR PAMPHLET.

DISTRIBUTOR FINED £5. I BREACH OF WAR REGULATIONS. [BT TELEGRAPH. OVTK CORRESPONDENT 3 Wellington', Friday. A middle-aged man, John Murrell, was charged at the Magistrate's Court this morning with committing a breach of the war regulations in that on or about October 25,1915, he publisheu matter likely to interfere with recruiting. Mr. D. S. A. Cooper, S.M., was on the Bench. Mr. Meredith, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Petherick for defendant'. Mr. Meredith said that the offence was a breach of Regulation 4 of the war regulations :—" No person shall publish any statement or matter likely to interfere with recruiting His Majesty's forces." Tha particular offence was the circulating by defendant of a pamphlet entitled "Christianity and the War," by Dr. Salter, and ' "The Churches and tJie War," by Leyton Richards. The pamphlet was printed by the Worker, and was obtainable from peace councils and freedom leagues ic the four centres. The whole text of the pamphlet was that the war was anti-Christian, and that no man with true religious views could take part in it, even for- hie own defence. The prosecution contended that this would influence people of deep religi- - ous feelings. ; Case for Defence. Mr. Petherick said Murrell came to New Zealand 21 years ago, and prospered in business till he found that commercial practice did not square with his Christian, principles. He accordingly made a living now by selling Bibies. He held it was not right to kill any man, even at the call of the State. The pamphlet was only a statement of Dr. Salter's opinion, and the defence submitted ' that it- was not likely to influence any man who did not already have conscientious objections. It was -published in New Zealand before the war regulations quoted came into operation. Defendant had merely circulated a £ew copies, and if the pamphlet was contrary to th« regulations the original publishers should have been prosecuted. Mr. Petherick fur- . ther submitted that men of military age * who went to war were not influenced by J such arguments as were contained in the • . pamphlet. They went for lore of adventure, and it was nonsense to r»v they en- " - listed for love "of the Empire. The Magistrate: I join issue with you w that point'. Mr. Petherick, for defendant, said that anyhow nine-tenths of the men went for motives apart from love of country. Morrell's own son had enlisted with his approval and Murrell had no desire whatever to deter young men from enlisting. He had handed the pamphlet only to men above military age who were interested in the religious views expressed. Respect for National Lav. Defendant, giving evidence on his own behalf, substantiated the statements as to his views. He had first seen the pamphlet about a year ago. When he was given to understand that in handing the pamphlet to other people he was breaking the law t i he at once communicated with the police * and Defence Department, and destroyed other copies he had left. He believed in S| respecting the national as well as the . -j Christian Jaw, and did not know he had been breaking it. He certainly did not -". hand the pamphlet to any man with the idea of preventing him from enlisting. "" v >)j On a statement by Mr. Petherick that'" if; defendant believed in the commandment > "Thou shalt not kill," the magistrate suggested that the commandment was "Thou shalt do no murder," which bore quite a different meaning. Warning to Future Offenders. The magistrate said this pamphlet certainly came within the scope of the law. Certain paragraphs would be likely to influence a man who was wavering. The whole thing must impress a man who has£l|j|g| deep religious feelincs- Thf motive of .''■_■" defendant did not affect the offence. Mr. Petherick suggested that as His Worship believed an offence had been mitted a nominal penalty would meet the ~ ease. Defendant had not offended know- ; in-xly, and would not offend again. A con- ; viction would be sufficient to cause ■'tins peace societies, who were law-abiding, to -.'• -J--? discontinue publication of the pamphlet. " " His Worship said? 1 that the maximum" penalty was £100, = but, in this case bo. thought a light fine of £5 would meet the ends of justice. He would warn defer.-, dant and others however that future 1 publications would not be dealt with so |j lightly. The offence was a very serious " -.1 one against the State at the present time 11 when men were being called for. - "P \J»