POWER TO MAKE LAWS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16500, 28 March 1917, Page 6

POWER TO MAKE LAWS.

-i'fjf,'■'•/" t'!"r..';'/f'-■ 1 \'£> "'/-."■*' V ' : ;.:7 -■"■'■ ; "'*'^ SERVICE ACT . CHALLENGED.

APPEALS IN SEDITION, CASES. " [BT TELEGRAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIAT'OK.] .- '•', WELLINGTON, Tuesday. Important issues were raised before the Full Court of Appeal today, when the power of Parliament to pass the Military Service Act was challenged, and the contention raised that certain War Regulations are ultra vires. The cases arose over the conviction on charges of making seditious utterances recorded against Robert Scmple, Wellington (three charges), Thomas Brindle, Wellington, Peter Fraser, Wellington, Frederick Riley Cooke, Christchurch, and James Thome, Christchurch. Each of these is serving a term of 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour. The magistrates who entered the various convictions were Mr. W. G. Riddcll, of Wellington, and Mr. H. W. Bishop, of Christchurch. It is against their decisions that appeals are now made. The Bench was occupied by the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, Mr. (Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice Cooper, and Mr. Justice Chapman. Mr. G. Hutchison appeared for the appellants, and the Solicitor-General, Mr. J. W. Salmond, K. 0., for the informants, John O'Donovan, commissioner of police, &nd John Dwyer, superintendent of police, respectively. Appeal on Constitution Act. Mr. Hutchison stated seven points on which the appeals were based. Ho said that five of the cases arose under War Regulations of December 4, 1916, made 'raider the Act of 1914. The two others were under regulations made on September 20, 1915, and concerned Semple alone. The cases against Brindle and Fraser were identical. However, the constitutional question concerned all, and he would deal with that first. The Chief Justice : Do you suggest that the judicature can over-ride Parliament? Mr. Hutchison:NNto t sir. I challenge the competency of Parliament to pass the Act. Mr.. (Tustice Cooper: Exactly. You claim that the Act is ultra vires. Supporting his contention that the Military Service Act was beyond the powers of Parliament, as set out in the Constitution Act, Mr. Hutchison said that Parliament could legislate only for persons within New Zealand, and had no power to compel service abroad. Only the Imperial Parliament could, by altering the Constitution Act, give power to pass such a law. With regard to the regulations made under the War Regulations Act, 1914, he contended that as they dealt with offences beyond the Dominion, they were , ultra vires and void. Conflict With Crimes Act. Counsel also submitted that the regulations purported to create a new offence, one of "seditious tendency." This could not be done, as sedition was defined by the Crimes Act, 1908, and all seditious offences must be dealt with under that Act, and regulations could not alter or vary the Crimes Act. Counsel did not stress his fifth point, that the informations charged more than one offence, Mr. Justice Cooper remarking that only one offence was charged, that of seditious utterance- With regard to the point that the appellants were entitled to trial by jury, Mr. Hutchison contended that the War Regulations Act, 1914, did not exclude that right, but only excluded the necessity of the presentment of an indictment. In conclusion, he analysed tha various speeches upon which the convictions were founded, and contended that the speeches did not bear the construction put upon them by the magistrate.

Speeches Helped Germany. Sir Robert Stout said the magistrate ■would not have been honest if he had come to any other conclusion. Mr. Justice Chapman said that if it were possible for Germany to have as paid agents such eloquent speakers in New Zealand as she had employed in Russia and in other places, to try to weaken the military forces or to undermine the power of the Government, Germany would not want anything better for her purposes than the speeches under discussion. Mr. Hutchison Teplied that it would have been better if the speeches had not been made, but what he was trying to do was to show that the speeches did not offend against the regulations. In concluding. Mr. Hutchison contended, upon the authority of Rex v. Bums, that taking a wide and liberal view of the speeches the convictions could not bo sustained.

The Court adjourned till 10.30 a-m. tomorrow, when the Solicitor-General will present argument on behalf of the Crown.