DEPORTATION OF LYONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19032, 1 June 1925, Page 10

DEPORTATION OF LYONS.

LABOUR LEADER'S PROTEST. RIGHT OF TRIAL CLAIMED. [BY TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION. J WEST.PORT. Saturday. The leader of the Labour Party, Mr. H. E. Holland, M.P., made the lowing reply to-day to Sir I'rancis Bell. "Many thanks for your prompt reply regarding the Lyons case. It is, of course, truo that murder is one form of direct action, seems to' me to be a wide exaggeration in the inference that all direct action necessarily includes murder. As you know in this country direct action on the industrial field is countenanced by law. However my .main point is that if Lyons had been guilty o advocating murder or any other breach of the law it should bo proved against him openly in a Court of law, wheie witnesses would be on oath and where he would havo a chance of presenting llis dfifGUCG. " For 700 years it has been the proud boast of -the British people that the British law. safeguarded the individual against arbitrary imprisonment or banishment, and that every accused person is entitled to be tried by a jury of his peers. The fundamental principle of that law is being violated in this case and direct action is being subsituted for lawful trial. Deportation without trial is one of the most dangerous forms of direct action, inasmuch as it places in the hands of the Attorney-General of whatever party happens to bo in office the power to inflict heavy punishment on ex parte evidence without the accused having any chance whatever of adequately defending himself. I would urge that this superseduro of a properly constituted judiciary by Ministerial dictatorship is foreign to the' established idea of British justice, is bad in principle, and must work out disastrously in practice." ■ Lyons whs employed as a trimmer on the steamer Manuka and his deportation was ordered following troublo which resulted in the vessel being laid up at Wellington. In the course of his reply to Mr. Holland Sir Francis Bell said:- " Lyons openly expresses contempt for constitutional methods and advocates what he designates direct action to provide a social revolution, and distributes literature, the mere possession of which for publication is a criminal offence. You know, as I do, that direct action includes murder, and you therefore rightly oppose it.' The Attorney-General is bound by law and public duty to prevent it." BOUND TO THE LAW. SIR F. BELL'S ATTITUDE. [by telegram.—-own correspondent.] WELLINGTON. Sunday. .• Sir Francis Bell's reply to Mr. H. E. Holland, dated May 30, is as follows "The reply to your second telegram has been delayed by political events. I agree with you that the expression 'direct action' does not necessarily include murder, wherever it is used, but that expression does include murder to opponents when used in the programmo of those whoso principles Lyons adopts and advocates. With regard to the established principles of English freedom yon rely on, you must remember that the Undesirable Immigrants Exclusion Act, 1919, passed power to administrate statutory duties on to the Attorney-General. You opposed (ho passing of the Act on grounds summarised in your telegram, but the Legislature passed it.- The Act has no application to any New Zealand resident, and is only directed against the advent of persons dangerous to the peace. "I do not agree with you that it is a procedure that inflicts any injustice. On the contrary, common sense requires such application over visitors determined to practise and advocate what our law prohibits. I think that right and just. If I thought otherwise, I, as AttorneyGeneral, must none tho less obey it, and act as the law requires. You may move to repeal tho law, but I cannot agree that you should protest against my obedience to the law, although you disapprove of it." •