SEDITIOUS SENTIMENTS

NZ Truth, Issue 612, 10 March 1917, Page 6

SEDITIOUS SENTIMENTS

A Catholic Priest Prosecuted

Father Roche From Australia

Fined a "Fiver"

Words at the Waverley Lead to Worry

Promptly "Peached On" to the Police

(From "Truth's" Auckland Rep.)

An unusual case came before the Auckland Magistrate's Court on Tuesday last, when >& young Australian Roman Catholic priest, Father John Arthur Roche, was charged with making seditious utterance, m that he published the words, "The Germans are a better civilised nation than the British" and; "You are a. fool to go to the war." _ * . When the charge was read' to him DEFENDANT PLEADED GUILTY, and added that he wished to get back to Australia. . The circumstances which brought about the offence were* related by Chief-detective McMaho4i,ywho said that on Monday evening a" soldier and friend were m conversation m the commercial-room at the Waverley Hotel. Defendant came m and joined m the conversation, which was general, and finally turned on the "subject of conscription, and the result of the Referendum on the question m Australia. The discussion became heated, and it was then that the defendant said that the Germans were a better civilised nation than the British, and that the soldier was a fool to gcT'to the wW. The soldier took strong exception, to the statements, and later, •informed the Defence Department, who forwarded the matter on to the police, and' tho preflent prosecution followed.

Later, said the Chief- detectiVe, Father Roche said he was an Austra-. lian, and he was quite ignorant of the fact that he had committed an offence as it -was not an offence against the law m Australia. He l also said that m speaking as he did lie had had no intention of being disloyal.

■■■■'His' Worship I '(Mr. F. V. Frazer). asked defendant if he had 'anything to say or explanation to make, and defendant replied that the words m the charge-sheet might not be exactly correct, but m any case he did not uso the words maliciously. Aa a resident of Australia he was quite unawaro of the' Regulations m New Zealand under which' he was ' charged. Chlef-detectlve Al^Mahon then PUT IN A GOOD WORD by saying that m vlewiof the fact that tho soldier was ( m uniform, it was hardly likely that an intelligent man like defendant would walk into the lion's den If he were aware of the existence of the Regulations, Magistrate Frazcr said he was sorry that a clergyman should make invidious comparisons between the British and Germans, and he was surprised that a priest, who must be presumed to be an educated man, should say that tho German nation was more civilised than our own. Tho German nation might possibly be better organised, but • civilisation had a different and higher meaning. The remark that tho Germans wero better civilised gave the whole in-, cldent an unpleasant flavor and it looked as if disloyal sentiment were involved m the words. This was the most regrettable part of the whole affair. However, |n extenuation, it could 'M> said that the words • were not used at a public meetIng or gathering, and it was merely an Instance of defendant . expressing his views to somo chance acquaintance. Defendant had expressed regret and had made no attempt to justify his remarks. Father Holbrook, who was m court, m answer to his Worship as to wnether ho know anything of . defendant, said „ ho knew that dofendant regretted using the words and it was hardly likely that there would be a repetition, as defendant, if permitted. Intended to return at once, to Australia. Father Holbrook said he could say nothing except regarding character and suggested that the penalty should take THE FORM OF A FINE to enable defendant to return to Australia that afternoon. His Worship said that owing to^the position .a, clergyman/ occupied the words used might, influence the minds of other people and he was sorry that they had been used. Ho did not think the dose was one for imprisonment as no serious Intention ,of wrong doing was "shown, and quite' posslblj' owing to tho War Regulations m New Zealand being: different from those m Australia there was no knowledge of wrong" doing. It was an isolated instance, and as defendant was returning to Australia at onco and waa not likely to return ho did not consider that the offence would fco repeated. The words had , not been used m public, and though that was no excuse, it might bo urged m extenuation that regret had been expressed and tho defendant had pleaded Ignorance. Defendant would be convicted and fined £6 and coats 7s. «*•■•,..