ARE THEY INNOCENT ?

NZ Truth, Issue 685, 3 August 1918, Page 5

ARE THEY INNOCENT ?

THE I.W.W. PRISONERS IN NEW SOUTH WALES, [xfraordinory Allegations Against tie Police A Royal Commission of Inquiry to be. Set .up

For some considerable time past, says the Sydney "Truth," there has been a suspicion m the minds of jus-tice-loving citizens that a very serious miscarriagp of justice occurred when, m 1916, twelve members of the Sydney branch of an association known as the Industrial Workers of the World were convicted of entering into a conspiracy to destroy by fire certain buildings m Sydney, and were each sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. The time at which they were tried was one m whioh leading public men thought it good polioy to excite odium against them, as a means of winning support for themselves and their party, as against another political party m thy Stats, which was falsely said to bo sympathetic towards tho methods allogodly adopted m Australia by the Industrial Workers of the World, The effect of the numorous pub,llo utterances which were made with regard to the accused men by the Prime Minister and other leading members of the Nationalist Party, was that it became a matter of extreme difficulty to find citizens — and particularly potential jurymen — whose minds could be kept free from the influence of the virulent denunciation of the members of the Industrial Woi-kers of the World which was uttered by the leaders of the Nationalist Party, and' fully reported — sometimes m large capital letters —and approvingly commented upon, m leading articles m the daily newspapers and m other parts of those papers m which what was said attracted particular attention. Very clearly the effect of this sort of thing was shown, m particular, m the case of one of the men convicted by the jury. We refer to the CASE OF THE MAN BEATTY, one of the accused members of the Industrial Workers of the World referred to. His Honor Mr. Justice Pring stated that the only evidence against this man was the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice; and he told the jury that they ought not to convict on such testimony, although they had the power to do so. In spite, however, of . what the Judge thus advised, the jury did bring m -a verdict of guilty against this man Beatty; and the Judge passed upon him the same sentence as was passed upon the others who had been found guilty upon the same counts of the indictment. That is to say, Mr. Justice Pring condemned Beatty. to suffer imprisonment for fifteen years. The uneasiness of the public mind has certainly not been allayed by the very remarkable speecn that was made m the House by the hon. member for Sturt, Mr. Percy Brookfleld. In that speech, Mr. Brookfie ld . declared that the chief witness for the prosecution, a chemist's assistant named Scully,. had made a statment m which he alleged that he had been incited by .certain police constables to manufacture evidence against the accused men. The official Parliamentary report contains the following very remarkable statement made by the member for Sturt: — Scully has made a statement, m which he says: — "I was asked by Constables Pauling and Turbitt if I could place dope into the pockets of some of the prominent I.W.W. men at the I.W.W. rooms before the raid took place. I replied by inquiring how I was going to get the bottles of fire -dope. They answered I need not worry about that — they could get plenty." That is one statement made by Scully, who, as I say, was the most material witness for the Crown. Although frequently interrupted, the member for Sturt continued his speech, and proceeded to make * THE FOLLOWING FURTHER STATEMENT:— The purport of the allegations by this particular witness is that he was informed by Constable Pauling that Hooper put the towel with the cotton waste and bottle m Teen's pocket. Mr. Brookfleld went on to say that Scully also alleged that "arranged evidence was handed to him, and he was told to learn it by heart — evidence necessary to secure the donviction of these men." Proceeding, Mr. Brookfiel4'

R. W. SMITH (Waimarino's Member m the Temple o' Gab.) M.P. Smith's a man of pith, Likewise a man of mind; When he's a foe to grapple with His equal's hard to find. Though all his speeches are but short, All others ho can trouse, For 'mong tho real long-winded sort, Pie boats the bally House.

another CroWn witness t6 fortify us m these allegations, and further, we have five reputable witnesses, altogether outside "of party influences, before whom these statements, were made. Those five witnesses can .corroborate all the spoken statements. The member also stated that Scully had issued a -writ against the Government m which he claimed £ 2000 for work done. He alleged that the Government , had promised him £2000 for such evidence as would secure the conviction of certain persons, but that the Government had not kept its promise. Mr. Brookfleld read from the Governmant'fl plead m defence the following! 3, And for ft third plea the defendant as to £*70' 10s paroel of the money olaimed under the second oount says that before action the said Government satisfied and discharged the plaintiff's claim for payment. 4. And for a fourth plea, thedefendant as to the residue of the money claimed under the second count says that the said Government never was indebted as alleged. Now, we express no opinion as to the truth, or otherwise, of the statements which the member for Sturt told the .Legislative Assembly had been made to him by the witness Scully; but we do say that, considering the fact that, without this witness, it is not at all" probable that the accused persons' would have been convicted 1 — even allowing for the extent to which the public mind had been inflamed and biassed by the utterances of public men and the statements of penny papers— that, therefore, the Government should certainly proceed to the appointment of a Royal Commission of inquiry into. THIS DREADFUL, CASE It is certain that with regard to the man Beatty, there would have been no conviction but for the evidence of (Scully; yet we are told by the member for. Hturt there is a 1 * written statement m existence, made by Scully m the presence of a number of reputable wit- . •nesses, that he, Scully, was the instrument of a conspiracy to produce false evidence against innocent men. This shocking condition of things calls for immediate action by the Government. It is not a question, here, aa to whether the Government chooses to believe, or to disbelieve, the written statement declared to have been made by Scully. What is required is that the uneasiness of the public mind should be removed. If members of the I.W.W. can be falsely accused of felonious offences, and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, so (the public thinks), may persons who are not members of the I.W.W. No man, no matter what organisation he may be a member of, must be sacrified upon false testimony; he must not suffer except for offences he has actually committed. Mr. Brookfield states that there is some evidence that cannot be obtained by any existing legal machinery, but can only be adduced by means of a Royal Commission with wide powers. Furthermore, he points out that to go before a Court "means an expenditure of hundreds of ppunds to get a case properly ventilated, and we have not the money to do it." Further interesting statements were made, m the New South Wales Legislative Assembly at a later stage when the Attorney-General was asked a and Mr. Hall, m his reply, said that, although he had given an assurance to the House that Scully would not be sent out of the country, he had that morning, learnt FOR THE FIRST TIME that Scully had "left Australia last month." He proceeded to say, "It ■was Extraordinary to .me. I must inform the House that Scully's passage was paid for by the police." The AttorneyGeneral proceeded to say: It appeared that the man had been hounded from pillar to post, and that there was no place for him anywhere. What amazed him vvas that the ■member for Botany had had all the information about Scully since February 5, and yet kept it until the previous evening. If any complaint was to be made as to the impossibility of cross-examining Scully, the fault lay not with the Government, but with the member for Botany. The member for Botany replied that:' Though Scully had made his sensational statements before him (the speaker) and a number of reputable witnesses, it was not thought that there was sufficient evidence m them alone. He was not prepared to disclose the information he then had, because other people were involved from whom it was desirable to obtain confirmation. Subsequently, Mr. Brookfleld said: -< Scully has mysteriously disappear-, cd. Was there no legal machinery available to bring him back, or w&a it arranged that he should go avray, so that he could not he cross-exam-ined? Ke asked "Why did the pplicia arrange for Scully to go away? Hera is . his written statement accusing some of the police of conspiracy." ' Mr. Fuller: Is it a s^orn state -i ment? Mr. BrookfioW: No, but it is m! Scully's own handwriting, and call be verified by rihbr witnesses. Mr. Tstfer (Chief Secretary):] What is the date of his written statement? Mr. Brookfleld: Only a short yrhilm ago. Mr. Fuller: But what is the date? Mr. Brookfleld: It was about June 20. We left no stone unturned to g,et ail those documents spoken ot last night drawn up properly, but th« rumor that Scully had gone precipitated our action. The matter was again dealt with m Parliament when papers were then put upon the table of. the House m which it was shown that Scully had received £200 as his share of the reward; £170 Cor his maintainance while the oases were on; and £150 In settlement of his claim from the Government for £ 2000 m payment for his services m giving information leading to the CONVICTION OF THE I.W.W. MEN. There was also a letter from Scully stated to have been sent m March, 1917 In which he alleged that his personal safety woxild be , endangered if he remained here, and m which he stated that "being destitute of funds" he desired to "obtain help" from the In-spector-General of Police. In another letter, stated to have been written on April 26 . last, Scully stated that he could not get employment, and had been expelled from the "Loyalists' Union" of coal-lumpers. He asked for "adequate funds" to enable him "to leave Australia and live under another name," and there get "a fresh start." His claim was settled for £150. Ot this, £51 9s 4d was paid for his passago by the Ventura. Scully was also sent £50 by draft to the London Branch of the Commonwealth Bank. It is stated that; the New South Wales Government has taken measures to secure the return of Scully "m the shortest possible time," and that a. Royal Commission will inquire into the allegations made against the police.