STRIKE ADVOCATES

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8611, 23 December 1913, Page 6

STRIKE ADVOCATES

HUNTER AND ARMSTRONG MUST KEEP THE PEACE. FORMER COMMITTED ON CHARGE OF SEDITION. Charges against Labour speakers m connection with utterances at the Newtown Park meeting on the 14th inst. were proceeded with before Mr J. S. Evans, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. HUNTER TO FIND SURETIES. In. the case of Edward Hunter, a West Coast miner, charged with sedition, the Court first heard an application by Detective Mcllvency to have the defendant bound over in sureties to keep the peace. Mr P. J. O’Regan, who appeared lor the accused, stated that ho had agreed to enter into sureties. Counsel called attention to what he described as an anomalous position in the law. He pointed out that the accused was a stranger to Wellington, his occupation being that of a- miner at Donniston. Ho was a married man, and had not boon long in New Zealand. Hunter would have no difficulty in getting sureties of the peace if they wero ordered m tho West Coast district. LAW REGARDING SURETIES.

The position, Mr O’Regan continued, was that section 154 of tho Justices ot tho Peace Act had provided that if it was inconvenient for tho persons providing sureties to attend at the place of hearing, the committing justices might make a duplicate order to obtain tho sureties at the town of residonco of such persons. This provision was repealed by the Criminal Code Act of 1893. There was a bill before tho House during the recent session to remedy tho anomaly, but it was not proceeded with. Counsel referred to tho case ot Barker, who was kept in gaol in Wellington; ho could easily have obtained sureties in Auckland, but under the circumstances of tho law, his guarantors would have had to attend in Wellington and enter into tho securities in his presence. it would bo difficult for Hunter, against whom nothing was previously recorded, to got sureties in ’Wellington in the two days at his disposal. The strike had now been declared off, and tho circumstances wero materially different from what they were a few days ago. HEAVY SURETIES NOT ASKED FOE.

Mr H. H. Ostler, Crown Prosecutor, said ho was net going to press for heavy bail. - He did not offer any defence of tho language with which Hunter was charged, hut ho thought he <Mr Ostler) was justified in saying it was “hot air,” and that 'it was great exaggeration. It was common knowledge that tho state of affairs on tho West Coast was not as Hunter described it to be, and no such catastrophe had arisen as ho had threatened in his speech. Now that the strike had been declared off, clemency would bo tho best con iso. This differed from the previous cases in that tho words then were uttered to an audience that was drunk with excesses of violence, and were more dangerous for that reason. In Hunter’s case the words were spoken to an audience that was somewhat sobered by defeat, and when tho excitement in Wellington had subsided to a certain extent. Had tho words been used in Westport, ho would press for substantial sureties. His Worship: “What is tho position in WestportP” Mr Ostler:: “According to tho newspapers tho strike is over there, too.” His Worship asked if Hunter was going back to Westport. Mr Ostler said ho presumed he was going _ back for Christmas, as ho had his wife and children at Westport. ll© should imagine there was no danger to the public peace in Hunter’s going hack now that the strike was over.

His. Worship, after hearing argument as to the method of arranging sureties, said that section 16 provided that it was not necessary for all tho parties to bo present at the same, time, when sureties were entered into.

Mr Ostler said that section 154, which was repealed, only dealt with recognisances to appear before the Supremo Court on an indictable offence. His Worship ruled that it was not necessary to bring the sureties to tho peace where tho case was heard. Mr O’Rogan: “If Your YVorship is satisfied that it is not necessary, it gets mo out of ,a difficulty, because the same question will arise in another case to come before the Court.” REMANDED TO WESTPORT.

His YVorship said he would remand Hunter to Westport, to be hound over in securities.

Mr. Ostler said lie did hot ask for substantial hail, but at the same time he asked that it should not bo made merely nominal;, ho did not ask for anything like the substantial securities required in the cases of tho strike leaders—this man was not a leader. His wmrds were spoken at the tail-end of tho strike, and his audience was not likely to be incited by them. Mr O’Regan said that the accused was not a property holder. Ho worked at the Denniston coal mine, and his home was in Westport. His YVorship; “Can ho get substantial securities?—l don’t mean substantial amounts.”

Mr O’Regan: “He can get responsible people ns long as tho amount is not too high.”

The accused was bound over in his own recognisance of £SO and two sureties of £SO each to keep tba pence for sis months. THE SEDITION CHARGE. Subsequently Hunter was charged with having on the same date used certain seditious words, to wit: You fellows must realise that, if you are going to control things uroperly, you must have might behind you. You cannot do it with a bos of cigarettes and a match. The strikers control the Coast, and have set aside all law and order. Tinmen on strike were told by the leaders that they had the freedom of the city there, and, having that, could do anything they thought fit. There is a Mayor in Westport, but he has been set aside and everything is controlled by the strikers. They (meaning the Government of Xcw Zealand) can bring the “specials” round to the Coast, in fact, we give them a special invitation, and I swear this, in the name of the party most concerned, that for every one "special” that they care to put down on the Coast, up to ono

thousand, wo can put one down beside him. just as good a man; and if this is going to bo a contest as to who is going to control, then we are prepared to make it a contest. More than that, wo men know that this Government is shedding blood, AVe had our fellow-workers brutally murdered in Waihi. There is no one instance, from tho workers’ ranks, whore wc have caused any bloodshed. Now, if they arc going to shed our blood, why should we look on at our women and children being clubbed, anti offer no retaliation? Now, if they want a revolution, they can have it. If they force it on us, they can have a revolution. Evidence was given by Melville Edwards, a reporter on the staff of tho “ Dominion” newspaper, who had reported the meeting held in Newtown Park on the date in question. Ho testified to the correctness of tho words which appeared in tho paper, and subscqueivtly in the charge. Detective Lewis deposed to having been present at the meeting, and having taken notes of parts of tho accused’s speech. Ho reproduced tho .remarks of tho accused as ho had taken them. QUESTION OF RELEVANCY. Mr O’Regan objected to evidence which did not relate to tho words with which the accused was charged, as it was not relevant. Mr Ostlor submitted that it was relevant as showing the circumstances of tho case. If these were held not to bo relevant, ho would ask for an amendment so as to charge tho accused with using these other words. His Worship noted Mr O’Regan’s objection. Detective Lewis, continuing, said that the language charged in the information was substantially what, the accused said. He also gave evidence as to the conditions existing prior to the meeting. Detective Dempsey, who was in company with Detective Lewis at the park meeting, also gave evidence, corroborating that of the previous witness. The accused pleaded not guilty, and was committed to stand his trial at the next sitting of tho Supremo Court in Wellington. BAIL REDUCED. Mr O’Regan stated that tho accused was bailable as of right on this charge. On Saturday, when he was ho was granted bail in one sura of £2uo and two sureties of a similar amount. Counsel asked that the amount of hail now be reduced. This would be a. safe course, as tho accused intended returning to the ..Westport district to resume his occupation as a miner. If bail were reduced so as to allow him to obtain sureties, it would bo appreciated very much. Mr Ostler intimated that ho had no objection. His Worship said the circumstances had sufficiently changed to warrant a reduction. He proposed to alter tho bail to one amount of £IOO and two sureties of £IOO each.

Mr O’Regan suggested that His Worship should make the bail of tho same amount as the sureties of the peace, which were more important. Mr Ostler: “ If Your Worship is inclined to reduce it, I have no objection. The circumstances have so altered that it could be done with safety.” Tho bail was reduced to one amount of £75, with two sureties of £75 each or one of £l5O.

ARMSTRONG’S CASE,

Hubert Armstrong, another visitor from tho Coast, was called upon to answer an application by tho police that he should be ordered to find sureties of the peace, the application being made in respect of the following words alleged to have been uttered in a speech at Courtenay place on December 7th:

So far there has not been a special constable on duty in Greymouth I say this; If special constables como there armed with batons, we shall meet them with revolvers; even if it costs us our lives.

Mr O'Regan announced that the accused was willing to bo bound over to keep the peace. He was a resident of Kunanga, and a well-known and reputable citizen. Ho was married, and was a representative man among the miners, and had always been in the forefront in settling any difficulties that had arisen. In this case he became affected by the prevailing epidemic, and used some strong language. Mr Ostler said that his remarks in the previous case would apply to this. His information was that there was nothin'g known against Armstrong, who had borne a reputable character. His Worship ordered Armstrong to enter into his own bond of £SO and two sureties of £SO each to keep the peace for sis months. ARMSTRONG'S SURETIES FOUND. The securities for Armstrong were forthcoming yesterday afternoon, the bondsmen being Messrs John Dowgray and John Glover. INSULTING LANGUAGE. Frederick Kemp, for whom Mr O'Regan appeared, was charged on remand, before Mr Evans, S.M., with having used insulting language to Sergeant James on November 6th, the words being " You scab." Mr,O'Regan stated that the accused had been on strike, and felt rather strongly. The accused was now satisfied that he had used the words, although he could not remember using them. The strike was over now, however, and lie regretted using the language. He was a married man with several children, and as he had been on strike for several weeks he was not in good circumstances. Accused was convicted, and ordered to pay lis costs."