Truth THE CASE OF CRICK.

NZ Truth, Issue 116, 7 September 1907, Page 4

Truth

THE CASE OF CRICK.

PUBLISHED EVEET SATUKDAY MORNING AT LUKE'S LANE (QFF MANNERSSTHEET),.WELLINGTON, N-Z. SUBSCRIPTION (IN ADVANCE), 13S. PER ANNUM.

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1907

CURIOUS, CONFOUNDING COINCIDENCES,

A celebrated writer has somewhere said that, ; when m one of its periodical spasms of piety and probity, the British public could be placated by the sacrifice of a victim on the altar of its own hypocrisy. This sort 'of vicarious sacrifice is .-analogous to the old Jewish subterfuge of the scapegoat which carried away the sins of the wandering Jews into the wilderness. For some months, oi rather for years, there has been a hunt after a scapegoat m connection with the Land Scandals. The efforts of Parliament to vindicate its honor by suspendin-a- or expelling one meijir ber ; of the - Government and • Labor Parties m proclaiming their own purity by outba-W'ling each other m the hue and cry against Crjck andi Willis ; and the repeated but abortive attempts ofthe Government, to obtain the conviction of this twain he Ifore judges and juries, having all failed, it has remained for a . practically irresponsibly bench of. judges to do what the regular tribunal of judge and jury declined to ' do, viz., lincf-Mr W. P. Crick guilty of corruption m his capacity of Minister of Lands.

At first sight this would seem to be the antithesis of., and. an anticlimax to, the regular administration of justice m New South Wales. That a Acre bench of judges merely en Uie report of another, judge, based on evidence taken -before Mitv sittine; as a Royal Commissioner— .that evidence given under tlie aegis of special Acts of Parliament hurriedly passed m the mddst of a political panic for the express purpose of chcoiir-kgiMig and protecting; informers— should exercise such power, .would seean to suggest a reversion to the-, days of ihe StuaijtSi \vhen cit.i/.eris .were judicially strangled m the Star Chamber and m the Court of High Commission. Indeed, tho. prbcaedingsVof Parliament, and of th? envman-judge-"jury Royal Commission, compel even more odious comparisons. They recall the murderous madness and judicial murders of the bogus Popish Plot m the reign of Charles 11. Our mutton-eating K"nr, Whose word no man relied on ; . Who never did a fool Mi thing, And never did' a wi.se one. Then informers of the Titus Oates and Dgngerfield type were encouraged by panic-passed Acts of Parliament and .backed, -up by corrupt and perjured politicians l ; ike Shaftesbury. to turn informers and falsely swear away the lives of innocent citizens.

It is a singular* coincidence, perhaps worth pondering over, that the only . two men picked' out of the* whole horde of Ministers, members of Parliament, "Reform" and "Labor" Land Agents, Syndicates, Banks and Squatters known to have been mixed up m these scandals, were two Cath-olic-Protectionist opponents of the present anti-Catholio, Anti-Democra-tic Party m power. This singular coincidence may or. may not he the mere accidental conjuncture of a concatenation of confounding circumstances. But the sinister sectarian color* is imparted to the pursuit, persecution, and prosecution of Crick and Willis by the fact 'that the first warrant issued m the case i was issued by Mr Stephen Murphy, an "Orange" Magistrate, on the information of Mr John Haynes, an "Orange" journalist and politician, who has a keen scent for anything like a politico-sectarian scandal.

These references to the sectarian aspect of the Land Scandals prosecutions.are all the more warranted, if not peremptorily called for, by the fact that i'hs overwhelming majority m .Parliament which declared Mr Crick was ineligible to sit m Parliament on the strength of a portion of Judge Owen's perfectly -honest hot peculiarly paradoxical and perplexing report, were pronounced Protestants of a peculiarly .gir ong "Orange" flavor. And it may also be pointed out that, although Messrs- Crick, and Wil-lis-have been several times tried by juries consisting of both Protestants arwj Oathblics, the Bench or Jury of Judges whioh tried, condemned and sentenced Mr Crick on Friday was composed of five Protestants and one Jew. In addition to this it may he observed that the Chief Justice, Sir Frederick Matthew Darleyt, who presided and took a most prominent part m initiating, leading and directing the proceedings against Mr Crick, is an Irish-Protestant from Dublin, who not lone: ago got into. a hv no means dignified or dignifying epistolary squabble with Cardinal Mofan, in' which the bias of bigotry was writ large m big letters.

,To insinuate that these confoundting coincidences are anything i more than accidental occurrences would he to imipeaoh the prob-it'y of our Protestant political paid patriots, and to commit the high crime- and misdemeanor of scandalum magnatum by suggesting that the ermine of justice has been stained with the spots of a sinister sectarianism. But no such suggestion is intended. What it means is simply this '—. Here m Australia sectarianism has become so ingrained m the body politic,, that a man who is neither a (religious bigot' nor a political paritisan can scarcely hope for promotion m the Government service today ; that a Roman Catholic finds it hard to fight his way into Parliament against sectarian influences ; and that «i v Irish-Catholic or an Australian -Shorn Catholic, or for the matter of that a Catholic of any sort can no more here than m Ulster expect a fair and impartial trial 'by ,h : s jicerf.:.". for the sim.i-h: icasun lth it a se'ct:irij.-n swayed rai lament. iand bi£Qlry-l»08sed Crown Law auth-

orities will not permit a Roman Catholic, Irish or Australian-born, to sit on juries empanelled' to try Roman Catholics. This was show* recently m the trials of Messrs (Jrick and Willis and others, and has been shown m scores of other cases, includine my own, when I have been on trial for my liberty m the Criminal Courts.

Nevertheless, thanks to their sense of right and justice, juries resent and resist such insidious attempts on the part of the Crown 'Law- authorities (m these cases the political rivals and reli'gaous antagonists of the ac-, ciiscd) to cajole or coerce them into a presumptive or prejudiced verdict. This has been shown over and over again m niy own case, where, m .spite of most elaborate . and perfidious processes to procure "packed" juries, they have either frankly acquitted me or honestly disagreed— except m one recent particular case, where they found me guilty of murder of a dear old friend, which a coroni-al enquiry and the medical and police testimony showed never could have been committed ; and for which alleged murder I have not yet been hanged or even indicted. But juries, like judges, are only human ; and even a packed jury panel is to be preferred ,to a biased bench of judiges, because we know from Herbert Spencer's "Studies m Physiology," that judges are subject to the most batter and bigoted professional bias, a weakness from which juries are generally and as a whole altogether free.

But after all, the most confound-' ing coincidence of this, Crick phase 1 of Mhese widespread and lonigfe tarn-d---ine: Land Scandals is the cynical', cold-blooded and brutal manner m which the" '-plutish prints and sectarian sheets of Sydney have during the past three years, week m and week out, and month after, month,' .sduj.ht Crick's scalp and literally .shrieked for his gore. Tlie cause and reason of this is not far tp- seek. It is' not' because /Crick 'is the only or even Ihe greatest of the many offenders mi*ed up' m these miserable Land Sc;. ndo Is, but because the personality of William Patrick Crick offers itself as a peculiar propitiatory sacrifice, for the sins "of others it is the desire and determination of these mendacious mercenary papers to shield from the stroke of the sword of justice. If Crick 1 is a .culprit, so,' too, are a do'^.ep other members of the late Farliam.cnt. most if not all of whom are seeking re-election at tlie pending General Election. The plutocratic "proteges" of these plutish papers aro the hanks, syndicates, corporations, big city firms of land and pastoral agents, as well as the big land-grahhibg, bribing souatters. These are the friends, controllers, supporters, and subsidises of the big boodling broadsheets of Sydney; and it is m their interests and not m those of .the people that these reactionary, conservative cut-throat rags hay.* raged for the gore of Crick.

Let anyone who doubts read the articles of indecent exultation m the leading columns of the morning papers over what they deem to he the political and professional ruin of one who is not only one of the most capable and courageous lawyers and politicians m the State, but one who has used his capacity and courage for individuals and. the whole community m cases oi* extreme judicial peril, and of widespread public distress and destitution. It cannot be forgotten that it was Mr Crick's legal acumen and moral courage that saved the falsely-accused man Buttner from the gallows at the eleventh hour, and it was equally Mr Crick's political courage and farseeing statesmanship which saved to this State no less than twenty millions of sheep Iron:, destruction durinc the late- deplorable and disastrous seven years 1 drought. And this is the sort 'of man over whose supposed ruin the daily dishclouts ' of sectarian-smitten and partisanplagued Sydney whoop find ronr like so many savages around their bound and tortured victim prior to- scalping and burning him.

Whatever his faults may be, whatever wrong he may be believed by many to have committed, these, together with a great many more, must and. will believe that he ( has not been proved guilty hy a regular and impartial process of law and •according to the canons of common British justice, which is- presumed to be the right and privilege of the meanest and basest creature m .the Commonwealth. True, Mr - Crick -has been condemned by five judges on the report of a brother judge sitting as a Royal Commission. But then it must not be forgotten that they were hinging a cause practically lying between Mr Justice Owen and Mr W. P. Crick. In case of doubt. t& whom would the benefit of it likely to be given— to the jud"-e or the solicitor ? In Mr Justice Owen was bound up the prestige of the Bench : and m Mr Crick the judges had before them a person who was by no means persona grata with tho Bench; and a nolitician and ex-Minister who m Parliament, m the Cabinet, m the Executive Council, and on the public platform, had often challenged and censured acts and utterances of certain members of the judiciary. These arc matters of notoriety which claim the consideration of every fair-minded man and woman m the country.

But there was* one iudge out ofthe six. Mr Justice G-. B. Simpson, one of the oldest, most respected, learned and experienced n) embers of the Bench, who dissented from the majority judgment of the Chief Justice and his four junior colleagues. Under the circumstances, Mr Justice G. B. Simpson displayed not only high moral courage and a firm prasp of the strictl-v legal technicalities of the case, but also a clear and comprehensive view of its rn'ore remote yet. vital constitutional aspects This learned iudere is a paraphrase of a well-known "Salvation" chorus :— Dared to be a Daniel, Dared to stand alone, Dared to have a purpose firm, , And dared to. make it known. And what was it precisely that this ("'ywM'ienced and learned .iudge said? m suli.slunoe .simnlv this : That it was unjust and un-British to ccm-

demn Mr Crick on the report of one man, sitting as a Royal Commissioner, although he might be a brother judge, especially as the evidence upon which his report was supposed to be based was not before the Court. This learned judge concluded his very powerful and pregnant judgment with the following significant words :— ' As the report stood, apart from the evidence given before the Commission, the question was, Could it be acted upon by the Court when •the result would be to inflict a terrible punishment upon an attorney He certainly thought that they ought not to act upon it. He did not think, that the report could be looked upon, as Mr Reid had stated m argument, as anything more than the expression of an opinion by a man m the street. It was no doubt the opinion of a distinguished judge of this. Court, but. at the same time, it was the oninion of one man and nothing else. Tho Commissioner's duty was to innuire into and report upon the purity of 'administration m the Lands Department, ond nothing more, 'and he dissented as strongly .as possible from the statement that the : finding of the Commissioner was a judicial finding. The Commissioner had no power to find anyone guilty of. 1 misdemeanour, and he ' was also of opinion that the Commis.sioner had no power to make a judicial findiwr. That being so. he thouerht it would be contrary to. thCr principles of British law to condemn a m-in who was nresumed to be innocent until be .wns proved io be guiltt. and he. therefore, though the rule should he discharged.

There is the calm and dispassionate utterance of an impartial man and just judge, basins his decision upon the bedrock principle of British justice, viz., ' that a man is to be deemed innocent until he has been tried and found guilty by a jury of his peers— not by the majority of a bench of six judges on the dictum of a brother judge sitting m the nonjudicial capacity of -a Royal Commission, and taking evidence from accomplices and other informers for whose protection Acts of Parliament have been specially passed. Let it be remembered that Mr Crick has already stood his trial no fewer than three times before the constitutional tribunals of his country. One jury acquitted him outright, and two others failed to agree as to liis guilt or innocence, so that m the eyes of the law he is an innocent man. But because he happens to he an 'attorney and solicitor, and,, therefore, technically an officer of the Supreme Court., the majority of a Bench of judges assumes to have .the power *and prerogative of pronouncing him guilty m matters upon which juries have already either declared him ' to be innocent or failed to agree. Mr Justice Cohen, m reading his "ditto" to the Chief Justice's decision, seems to be seeking to justify a Judgment about which he felt somewhat shaky, when he • made the following astounding statement :— As to the criminal trials, if after full deliberation by the juries respondent had been acquitted, this rule might possibly not be made absolute. In the trial before his Honor the jury did not consult as to their verdict, and as to the other two trials, so far as the deliberations oi a jury were con- ' cerned, they were inconclusive. It was not without considerable regret that he arrived at a conclusion adverse to the respondent, but, after a full and anxious consideration, he was led to concur m the order proposed by the Chief Justice. \ , Could anything more inconsequential and inconclusive proceed from the judgment seat! With all due deference and. respect to Mr Justice Cohen, I take leave to tell him that the disagreements of two juries m Mr Crick's case, leave him as much an innocent man m the eyes of the „law and Qf justice, as if they had been acciuittals. >

. But, pshaw ! why pursue- this phase of this extraordinary sample of British iustico on new and entirely novel Australian lines ? Mr Crick has his right of apneal either ,to the Federal High - Court or to the Privy Council m London. 'It is to he hoped that, for the sake of preserving the great popular privilege of Trial by Jury as cohtra-dis-in-p-uished from Trial by Judge, he will prosecute his right of appeal m one of these two directions to ' the utmost limit, and to the bitter end. •B-- doing so. he will do much to rehabilitate himself m the hearts of many of his countrymen' and countrywomen whose faces at present are turned from him— even more m sorroiy than m anger.

What is here written has been written m no' spirit of political rtisanship or religious rancour. "Of no party or sect am I." If lam anything at all— l am an unworthy member of the Anglican Church, m which Communion I was born, baptised, and married, I was married m St. James's Parish Church, Kingstreet, and , there mv two children were baptised by the Rev. I. CarrSmith. the rector, ono of them— my little two-months' old daughter— only as recently as Thursday last. I admit mv Anglicanism, like mv journalism and politics, is high, very high— a great deal too high for a pood many. people. Yet Auglican am I and Anglican I shall die, and as blunt old Bill Cobbett said m his "Legacy to Parsons" : I hope to lav mv bones at rest at last m an Anglican churchyard. So let those who pretend to see the cloven-hoof of sectarianism ih what is above written beware how they blaspheme. JOHN NORTON. Sydney. Saturday. Aug. 24th. 1907.