"SOMETHING UNIQUE"

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8654, 12 February 1914, Page 8

"SOMETHING UNIQUE"

FIRST SEDITION CASE TRIAL OF EDWARD HUNTER COMMENCED. The first of the cases of alleged sedition, uttered during the recent strike, was heard before His Honour the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court yesterday, the accused being Edward Hunter, who was charged that on Sunday, December 14th, 1913, at Newtown Park, in the presence of a large crowd of waterside workers then, on strike, and others, he did, in making a public speech to the crowd, utter certain seditious words, to wit; You fellows must realise that, if you are going to control things properly, you must have might behind you.* You cannot do it with a box of cigarettes -and a match. The strikers control the Coast, and have set aside all law and order. The men on strike were told hy 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 beep set aside, and everything is controlled by the strikers. They 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 one thousand, we can put one down beside him, just as good a man; and if this is going to be a contest as to who is .going to control, then we are prepared to make it a contest. More than that, we men know that this Government is shedding blood. Wo had our fellowworkers brutally murdered in Waihi. There is no instance, from the workers’ ranks, where we have caused . any bloodshed. Now, if they are going to shed our blood, why should wo look on at our women and children being clnbbed, and offer no retaliation P Now, if they want a revolution, they can Imve it. It they force it on us, they can have a revolution, or words to the like effect.

The jury consisted ofJohn Patterson (foreman), Albert William Oates Travers. Victor Churchhouse, Cecil James Check, William Cook. Robert Dillner, Tom Ellis Mawbey, John McGregor, Joseph Henry Mills, Frederick James Embury, Walter John Weston, and George Hill. Mr P. B. K. Macassey, Crown LawOfficer, conducted the prosecution, and the accused, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by. Mr T. M. Wilford and Mr P. J- O’Regan. POSITION 0F THE LAW.

Mr Macassey said that tho words were uttered in the presence of about 2000 people. The jury had to say whether the words constituted an offence. Section 110 of the Crimes Act provided that everyone was liable to two years’ imprisonment who uttered words expressive of a seditious intention: Section 118 defined a seditious intention as an. intention to bring into hatred or contempt, or incite dissatisfaction against, the Sovereign, Government, or Parliament; or to incite His Majesty’s subjects to procure, hy other than lawful means the alteration of any matter or law; or to raise discontent among His Majesty’s subjects; or to promote ill-feel-ing, or hostility between different classes of His Majesty’s subjects. The statute went on to provide that, no one should be deemed guilty of sedition who intended in good faith to point out that the Sovereign was mistaken, nr incited to an attempt to procure alterations of the matters by lawful means. Counsel referred to the acts of violence that were committed during the period out of which this charge arose, and the general effect of the strike. He mentioned thecase in 'which the Right Hon. John Burns was, charged with sedition, and quoted from the judge’s direction to the jury in that case in order, to show the nature of sedition.

EVIDENCE A"S TO THE WORDS, Evidence was first given by Melville Edwards, a reporter on the staff of the “Dominion” newspaper, who stated that he estimated the attendance at the meeting addressed by Hunter, at about 1500, consisting mostly of working people. He testified to tho correctness of Hunter’s remarks as published in the “Dominion.”

Cross-examined by Mr Wilford, witness said that it was necessary to abbreviate the report, and in using the phrase “you must have might behind you,” Hunter, might also have said “Right is might.” Counsel also questioned the witness closely on the transcription of portions of his notes. Some of the matter, witness stated, was written from memory, but he had no doubt as to it correctly representing Hunter’s meaning.

Detective Lewis stated - that he was present at the meeting in the Park. The meeting consisted mostly of waterside workers on strike. Witness took a note (in longhand) of part of ac-! cused’s speech. Detective Lewis read from the. notes which ho had taken,, and explained that he did not pretend to give the exact words used, but in effect what the accused said. Witness also gave evidence as to riots and disturbances which occurred during the strike.

In reply to a question by Air Wilford, the detective stated that his notes of Hunter’s remarks were not made at the meeting, but were written on the morning following their utterance.

Mr Wilford contended that such notes were not admissible; the detective had refreshed his memory from notes not made at the time.

The point was reserved for argument subsequently. Air Wilford asked the detective to pick out any parts of the report in the “Dominion” that he could swear to for accuracy.

The witness said he was positive as to the utterance, “ If they want a revolution they can have it.”

Detective Dempsey gave evidence as to having been present at the meeting. He listened to what was said by Hunter. _aud a. day or two later wrote out. portions which he remembered, and gave the .notes to Detective Lewis. Mr Wilford wished to know if the witness could absolutely swear to any single lino of the utterance in the indictment. Witness replied that lie could not positively swear to any portion.

This concluded the evidence for the Crown, and Mr Wilford called the accused. HUNTER IX THE BOX.

Edward Hunter stated that he was, twenty-eight years of age, was mar-j

ried. ami had four children. Ho had boon in this country about seven years, having come from Scotland. Ue was a minor by occupation, and was engaged in that capacity until recently, "hen some trouble occurred on the coast. The speech he gave at Newtown Pork -was delivered to something over a thousand people. He denied that the report from which the indictment was framed was either accurate or fair. Ho was sorry to find himself associated with such ideas, which he did not hold with. The reference to “might" was wrong; he had said, "You must have right behind yon.”

“I am an avowed Socialist." said tho accused, “and this was a propaganda speech. If there is one thing I am anxious for it is the prestige of the Socialist movement.” .Accused explained that a reference by him to the “ folded arms ” policy was directed against those who merely sat by the fire, and was intended to show that the fireside philosopher Was of no use. He had gone on to show that the. individuals who stood at the corners of the streets with a cigarette and matches, and took no part in national life, were of no use to the cause at all. The accused added that the people on tho coast had been frightened of starvation ; they wore feeding on biscuits, and no relief fund was started by the Mayor of Westport, so that the union itself took the matter' in hand. He did not use tho words, “ We had our fellow-workers murdered in Wailii.” He had said that if the Massey Government forced the existing conditions on them it would force a revolution. He would be ashamed to speak words advocating bloodshed. The movement with which he was associated was thoroughly opposed to the shedding of blood. In answer to Mr Macassey the accused stateduthat the contest which, he advocated between the workers and the authorities was an intellectual contest, and the protest, which he urged was a protest against tlio clubbing of women and children. “ QUEER KIND OE CASE.” Mr Wilford, in addressing -the jury, said this was a queer kind of case, and ho believed that, except in regard to Maoris, it was tho first case of sedition heard in New Zealand. Ho referred to the wording of the different sections in the governing Act under which it would be necessary' to bring the accused before ho could be deemed to have offended against the section. He also spoke of the portion of tho Act which protected the speakers of words uttered in good faith with the object of raising dissatisfaction or encouraging to an alteration of the constitution or laws by lawful means. Counsel pointed out that they had to make legal history in this matter by commencing with Hunter. Mr Wilford recalled tho prosecution of John Burns in 188 G for alleged sedition and his acquittal. He did not cite that case to show that the present proceedings might serve as a stepping-stone for Hunter to become a Cabinet Minister — (laughter)—but to quote tho remarks of the presiding judge as to the meaning of tho charge of sedition. The judge in that case had. advised the jury not to be too strong to mark if the prisoner made use of an ill-con-sidered or too strong an. expression. It was not fair to read a. sentence in a way to convict a man, it it could be read in a way to show him innocent. Mr Wilford went on to analyse the evidence, and in conclusion expressed the hope that the jury- would act fairly by the accused. As the hour of C had been reached,His Honour reserved his summing-up til] to-day, and the case was adjourned till 10 a.m. Hunter was released in his own recognisances.