CENSORSHIP OF LETTERS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16622, 20 August 1917, Page 4

CENSORSHIP OF LETTERS

WHY ACTION WAS TAKEN.

SOLICITOR=GENERAL'S ADVICE

MR, ELLIOTT CROSS EXAMINED. REFUSAL TO NAME INFORMANTS. The inquiry into the allegations made by the Rev. Howard Elliott against the Auckland postal officials was continued before Mr. H. W. Bishop, S.M., on Saturday. The Postal Department was represented by Mr. A. Gray, K.C., and Mr. H. H. Ostler appeared on behalf of Mr.* Elliott. Mr. W. R Morris, 1.5.0., secretary to the Postal Department, and Mr. <J. C. Williamson, Chief Postmaster, Auckland, watched the proceedings. Mr. Gray commenced his cross-examina-tion of Mr. Elliott. Witness said that in June he gave up the charge of the Mount Eden Baptist Church to take up the position of national lecturer for the Protestant Political Association. The views he disseminated on the public platform were those of his association, but they could not be dissociated from his own personal views. He had delivered two addresses* upon the work and aims of the associationone in Auckland and the other ir Wanganui. The lecture delivered in Hamilton was not under the auspices of the association, although Roman Catholicism was dealt with. He had delivered similar lectures to i?j,t at Hamilton in Eltham, Stratford, Dunedin. Wellington, and Auckland. The lecture in Hamilton led to a disturbance, which, the witness alleged, was organised by the Roman Catholic Church. Referring to an account in an Auckland newspaper of the proceedings at the meeting, Mr. Gray asked witness if the report was substantially correct, and received a reply that the article conveyed a wrong impression, because it omitted certain happenings. The report, which had been written by a Roman Catholic, was "twisted." It was admitted by the witness that, as a resultof the meeting, there had been a good deal of trenchant adverse comment concerning himself, the organisers of the meeting, and also of a pamphlet entitled "The Hideous Guilt of Rome in the European Carnage." Mr. Elliott admitted that he was one of those who shared the responsibility for the publication of the pamphlet. "Newspapers in Taranaki had also censured him concerning his public utterances. Mr, Elliott's Meetings. Mr. Gray: You interviewed the Attor-ney-General on May 26 in reference to the publication of the pamphlet referred to. Were you accompanied By anyone else?— Yes, by Mr. J. S. Dickson/ M.P., and Mr. A. Donald, of Masterton. Did you say anything to Mr. Herdman in regard to pclice protection at some meetings proposed to 'be held by you? Yes. Then you apprehended disturbances, and possibly attacks on yourself?— Yes; but my apprehension was based on the statements of Roman Catholic priests. Did Mr. Herdman give you any encouragement regarding the continued distribution of the pamphlet?—We were told that the Government had decided to take no action because of its publication. Did Mr. Herdman give you a serious warning regarding your public utterances ? —No, he said we should have to keep within the War Regulations. Is there not a War Regulation regarding creating dissension, hostility or internal strife in the community ?—Yes. Did Mr. Herdman warn you about transgressing that regulation Yes, but he said that so long as we confined ourselves to matters of history, we should be quite safe. Did you receive a similar warning from Sir James Allen?— I saw the Minister of my own accord, and he gave me a friendly warning to be careful. Did you receive a warning from the superintendent of police, Auckland, or any other police officer?—No, the police have not communicated with me in any way in respect to my public utterances. iou are aware that Roman Catholics are joining the army?— Yes, they are being conscripted for the most part ♦1. /Sll to """y that members of the Church are not taking the part thev should m regard to the war?— wish to say that very definitely. Are you anxious to help to bring the war to a successful conclusion Yes hut not to sink Protestantism and the interests of Protestants, which are being filched from us by the actions of the t . -Political Roman Catholic organisaIn reply to further questions, the witness said he had been a minister for 20 years, and he began propaganda work against Roman Catholicism when he was at school. The subject matter of the letters that were sent through the post .not fiction. Every inquiry contained m the letters bore a sub-stratum of truth which could be tested. He did not deliberately invent the inquiries. The letters were intended a3 a trap Mr. Gray: Do you believe that a cenESrV 8 * tll l H ,ng exercised over Box 912 -Yes but when the allegations were made, a difference was noted. The Committee of Vigilance. Regarding the Committee of Vigilance who are the members am no pre" pared to say. pre But-1 want to know; <r{ ve me {ho names.-I refuse to do so P he Are you a member—Yes nc Counsel appealed to the ' commissioner as to whether the witness should answer Mr Sr'n M ;- ? ish ° P ruled that Mr. Elliott need , not give the names of the committee unless he desired. Mr. Gray continued his cross-examina. made°toTn fcterS v re + to the compK « ♦« t .?, the . chlei . postmaster, Auckland, as to the miscarriage of letters. Witness said the reason he did not supply a lift of names to the postmaster because ll* M , fvised that if he intended to make definite charges against the post office he should not supply the list. With the system of filling, and stamping an checking . that was adopted it was imnS ■able that empty envelopes shouldTa™ been posted. In regard to the delivery of empty envelopes, witness said that that was part of a conspiracy to secure tickets for the public meeting In con nection with the late delivery 8 of certain letters addressed to clergymen he sugrated that the object wnS to prevent he" addressees making announcements to their respective congregations Counsel proceeded to ask witness hew he knew of the existence- of the order in the instruction book at the post office stating that all correspondence addressed to Box 912 was to be detained Qaressed Mr. objected to the question on the ground that the information was ob tamed for the purpose of working up the case, and the question of Mr. Gray « therefore not privileged " Mr Gray submitted that the witness was bound to answer the question could b BiS a£ed. rUled that th ° 9-tion

Mr. Ostler: Then I shall advise the witness to refuse to answer Mr V,?j sho: That will be your responsibility. * Mr. Gray, to witness: Did you communicate the information to your counsel —I refuse to answer. Were you informed by any person of the existence of the order?— decline to answer.

Mr. Bishop: In. the interests of the public and the commission the question should be answered, and the complainants must accept the onus of refusing to answer. b

Mr. Gray: The Postal Department is anxious to have a thorough investigation Mr. Bishop: It is obvious that there is some leakage in the post office. Mr Ostler: How do you know the information was not given to me? Mr. Gray : Some officer has committed a breach of his oath as to secrecy, and if i his identity is not disclosed the whole staff

will" rest under an unjustifiable stigma. To witness : Will you say who gave you the information. —No. Do you decline at this inquiry to give the answer that will assist the . commissioner or the head of the Department to discover who has been guilty of a serious breach? —Yes, if ib means that a postal officer would be involved in serious consequences. Do you suggest that would be the result?—l refuse to answer. In reply to Mr. Ostler, witness gave his age as 40 years, and said he had five children. Mrs. E. Stewart,. Mount Eden, gave evidence as to receiving from Box 912 an envelope from which the contents had been abstracted. At this stage it was decided to interpolate the evidence of the Splicitoi-General, Mr. J. W. Salmond, K.C., one of the witnesses called by Mr. Gray. Censorship of Box 912, Mr. Salmond stated that he was responsible for drafting all war legislation- and the War Regulations. He bad been consulted as to the censorship of letters, and . was familiar with matters relating to Box 912, Auckland. At the end of 1916 the attention of the authorities was called to the action of the Committee of Vigilance and of the Rev. Howard Elliott. A private communication received by the Hon. A. L. Herdman enclosed a copy of the pamphlet issued by the committee. He did not propose to mention the name of the Minister's informant, but he was not a Roman Catholic. The pamphlet was referred to witness, and he came to the conclusion that it was a mischievous publication, and that the mails should not be used to circulate it. . He therefore wrote on December 13, 1916, to the Chief of the General Staff, Colonel C. M. Gibbon, who was the chief military censor, and, in consequence, a censorship was established over the post office box of the Committee of Vigilance. The suggestion of censorship came from witness and not from any Minister of the Crown. The witness gave an emphatic denial to the suggestion that the censorship had been established over the box in the interests of the Roman Catholio Church. The action taken was in the public interest, and similar action would have been taken had the Roman Catholic Church attacked the Protestant churches. The pamphlet could serve no good purpose, and would have the effect of inciting public discord and religious antagonism. The pamphlet would have had an appreciable effect on the recruiting of Roman Catholics, whom it did not attack on the point of creed, but in relation to their attitude in the war. Mr. Gray: Have you since seen any reason to alter the censorship over Box 912?— I regret that stronger action was not taken. Mr. Ostler: Is that a threat? Mr. Gray, to witness: Are you a Roman Catholic? Is Colonel Gibbon a Roman Catholic?— I could not say, but I have no reason to believe that he is. You are responsible for advising a censorship over Box —Yes. Mr. Ostler : Are we to understand that you are the censor of New Zealand? —No, I am a legal adviser to the Government.' r Effect of Regulations. When you said that you regretted that stronger action was not «taken, is that a threat?—l make no threats. You meant a prosecution under the War Regulations ?—Yes. Can you point to any War Regulation, affecting the publication of a pamphlet?— I think the War Regulations of December 4, 1916, would govern it, but the regulations were gazetted after the ■ publication of the pamphlet. Is the person who sent the letter to Mr. Herdman a member of Parliament? Yes. I think we know the gentleman.l think you do. The Rev. Howard Elliott's name was not mentioned in the letter? Then when you issued the instruction to Colonel Gibbon you did not know Sir. Elliott in the matter? No. And the censorship was not imposed because of his speech at Hamilton ?No. Is the censer under control of the New Zealand Government?— The Government has power to dispense with his services. Is there any statutory power authorising the appointment of the censor?— but his appointment is governed by Section 27 of the Post Office Act; he was appointed by Governor's Warrant. Why have you allowed the Roman Catholic Press to publish seditious statements without taking steps to suppress such statements? never take steps unless I am instructed or asked to advise. There has been: no prosecution of any publisher of a Roman Catholic organ in New Zealand ?—That is so. Is there any censorship over the correspondence of the Roman Catholic Federation ?—I cannot answer. When you say that the pamphlet had a mischievous tendency whv did you not adopt your favourite way and "issue a War Regulation making it illegal -You could have made a War Regulation prohibiting the Protestant Political Association from holding meetings instead of holding the letters back?—We should have been firmer; perhaps your way would have been better. Mr. Ostler: I will guarantee that no Minister of the Crown will instruct you to do that. The commission will resume at 10.30 o clock this morning.