DR LISTON’S CASE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18556, 17 May 1922, Page 6

DR LISTON’S CASE

CHARGE OF SEDITION. SOME INTERESTING EVIDENCE. ACCUSED IN THE BOX. HEARING ADJOURNED TILL TO-DAY. (Per United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, May 16. The charge of sedition against Bishop Liston came before the Supreme Court today. When the case was called accused stepped smartly from one of the side doors into the court, and took his stand in the dock with bowed head and hands clasped behind him while the indictment was being read. Sixteen jurors were challenged by the Crown, and five by counsel for the defence. At counsel's request accused was permitted to take his seat at the barristers' table. Mr V. R. Meredith (Crown Prosecutor), in opening the case, said it was for the jury to consider whether the words alleged to have been used came within the categories Prescribed by the law. If so, was Dr listen guilty of the charge preferred against him? There was a further provision that no one could be deemed guilty in this connection if it could be shown that there was merely an endeavour in good faith to point out that his Majesty had been mistaken or misled, an attempt were made otherwise than by lawful means to bring about changes in the Constitution or Government, or to raise discontent or disaffection among the King’s subjects, or to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility. It whs tor the jury to consider whether Dr Liston’s words came within the category prescribed by law, and. if so, was he guilty of the charge preferred against him. The jury also had to consider the general circumstances in which the speech was made, the state of public feeling, and the number present, so that _ the effect might be gauged. On St. Patrick’s Day affairs in Ireland were very much before the’ public. Ireland was in a state of turmoil, and, though distant, the people here were very interested in what was going on, irrespective of nationality. The point was not a great one, but the concert did not begin with the National Anthem, as was the’ custom. Dr Liston represented the views of a large number of the members of his faith. His speech could not be compared with the words of an illiterate, irresponsible member of the He knew he was speaking with the _ voice of authority, and that words from him would have great weight among those who heard them. It was difficult to suggest that this vraa not a considered speech, because the programme contained notice of the speeefi. It was contended that underlying the speech was unveiled hostility and bitterness towards the British Government. He had overstepped'the mark of fair criticism. It was an abuse of freedom of speech. The first witness was Gordon Stanbrook (reporter). Answering Mr Justice Stringer, he said what he wrote for his paper was practically a verbatim copy of part of his notes, changed from the first person into the third person. His Honor: Are you sure of, the expression—“murdered by foreign troops”? Witness: Yes.

In reply to Mr Meredith witness said he did not take the whole of the speech, hut nothing /else that was said would have altered the tenor of the report. xo His Honor: The expressions were not qualified in any way. There was no doubt about use ‘of the words—’‘murdered _ by foreign troops”—referring to the glorious Easter of 1916, and of men and women willing to die. Mr Meredith: What did you mean. when you said'you took only what you wanted? Witness What I considered of public interest. I did not taka a shorthand note. * Counsel: Is it not risky to say part of a speech is verbatim, when you took it in longhand? witness: It is possible to remember some passages. He admitted that some of his evidence differed from that given in the lower court. He had to roly almost. entirely on his memory. Counsel: Do you still think the n'eople referred to by the Bishop died at Easter 1916?

Witness: On consideration I think the reference also concerned people who had died after Easter 1916. Do you say the Bishop said: Women daring Easter week were murdered by foreign troops? Witness: Yes, he said the list was ; n his hand.

y. . Further examined witness said he did not know that no priests were killed in 1916. He knew some priests were killed in Ireland. His recollection was not that the Bishop said: “I have a list of 125 men and; women who during, and since, 1916 ’ Save died for Ireland.” He would not deny - those were thi words used. 3 Counsel: I put it to you: The Bishop vsed the term murdered only in connection with those killed by the black-and-tans. -Witness: I must say that is not my recollection of it. •Witness said the speech was delivered in a, very calm manner, but there was some wery wild applause. His Honor: Ybu must realise that “murdered by foreign troops” would scarcely refer to people who wore hanged or died on h. hunger strike. Witness: On consideration it does seem a : strange meaning of the words. ■ jtiis Honour: Was it not possible the words referred to others?—: —It is possible ' but it did not .seem so to me at the time. The remainder of the evidence for the '■ Orown was on the lines of that given at the lower court. For the defence, Mr P. J. O’Regan said : that in' a’ charge of sedition based on newspaper reports accused was usually confronted ' with a shorthand note. In this instance the newspaper report was used. He had never heard of a case of the kind where a longhand report was. used, supplemented by the recollection, hazy in many cases, of witnesses, some of whom were obviously .biassed. He submitted that the Crown had not made a case to answer. ■ His, Honor ■ said the proof of the words used was a Dpatter of evidence. It would be; impossible for him to withdraw. the case, from the jury when there was direct evidence that certain words had been used ' which might in the opinion of the jury convey a seditious intention. Supposing there had been no reporter present, and no report made, might the seditious words not be proved by those who heard them? In this case there was something a ’little better than that. There was a skilled person present taking notes, though not in shorthand. Though there had been very serious discrepancies in the evidence as to what the Bishop actually said, that was a matter for the jury, not for the bench.

Mr O’Regan (continuing) said the jury must have been satisfied that the report on ■which the charge was based, which was admittedly brief, was also inaccurate. Dr Liston had preserved the notes of his speech, and they would be put in. The .jury would have no difficulty in deciding after hearing the Bishop that he had no seditious intention, and that the words, if properly reported, were not capable of that Interpretation. The words had to be taken fn‘their setting, and it was altogether unfifir to do as had been done by the press throughout New Zealand' to publish what the Bishop had said in one paragraph, isolated from the context, and make drastic ■comment upon it. He had no hesitation in saying this was the class of case which pur the jury system to the severest test. Giving evidence. Dr Liston said fie was hot a member of the concert committee nor of the Self-determination League. He had never been a member of the league, and had never attended a political meeting. This was the first public meeting he had Addressed in Ajuokland. He spoke a little longer than 20 minutes. It was about a week before the concert that he agreed to ejaeak. He was asked a fortnight before it to sjpeak. but was not out for the limelight. He prepared some notes (produced). :He was bom in Dunedin. His parents came to New Zealand in 1863 or 1864. They were horn, in 1847 and 1849 respectively. He adniitted • the report of his speech regarding then: baing driven from Ireland, and the words 4 ‘snobs of Empire” were substantially corroot. He was referring to the eviction of his parents, and the three and three--quarter millions evicted with them. He was recalling what, eviction in Ireland meant Mri Meredith asked whether this evidence .was admissable: whether the words should .not- speak, for themselves. Win Honor said it was a question of intent, and witness was entitled to explain : what his intent was.

. Continuing, Dr Liston said the reference "%o “foreign masters” was to landlords, who : were mostly absentees, and in that sense -were foreigners. They were both English ■ and Irish. The report of his remarks about Ireland having had an instalment of her - freedom was substantially correct, in that gave a historical statement of the fact 'referring to the whole Mitozy of Ireland

The “first instalment of freedom” referred to the treaty; in his opinion a gift of God, because it gave political freedom to Ireland. By “determined to have the whole of it” he meant that though relations had been adjusted by the treaty between England and Ireland there was still a great deal to be done. For instance, the union, of the two Parliaments. This could be achieved by a friendly agreement without any force. _ He had not mentioned force, and he failed to see how his words could infer the use of force. He had in his mind a parallel between New Zealand and Ireland. The relations between New Zealand and the Mother Country had changed, and were changing in quite a friendly way. The report about there being plenty to fight and die for Ireland did not accurately represent his statement. Quoting from his notes, he declared his words to have been: “God has made Ireland a nation, and while the grass grows and the water runs there will bo men in Ireland, and women too, to fight and even die, that God’s desire may he realised.” He had not the intention to infer that physical force should be used. His reference to Ireland as Empjre builders had been very briefly reported, but accurately in the main. The same applied to his remarks concerning Ireland’s achievements in art and literature, in which he had dealt at considerable length. The comparison between the difficulties of the Empire and of Ireland was in the main correctly reported. It referred to a situation which constituted the main reason why ho spoke at all. Many of their people were growing anxious about affairs in Ireland, and he wished to give them a word of encouragement. Two things had happened to raise hone—the conference between Mr Michael Collins and Sir James Craig, and Mr De Valera’s statement at Paris, that he would not oppose a Free State. This was what he had in his mind when he said Ireland's troubles might he overcome. He had no seditious intent whatsoever. The passage in his speech about the man who stood by Ireland was in the main correctly reported. He referred to Mt De Valera. Everybody knew Mr De Valera did not agree with the form the treaty was taking. He thought it a good thine in view of past history that there should be a man on watch to see that Ireland got all she was entitled to. Coming to the passage about the “glorious Easter of 1916,” Eh- Liston said the passage did not accurately represent what he said. It Was inaccurate, misleading, and hopelessly bungled. He thought it was taken down by a man who, however honest, was as competent to take down a report on Irish affairs as he himself_ would be to report a lecture on engineering. The document from which he read that portion of his speech had come to him through tha mail that afternoon just before the concert. His words were: “I have here a list of men and women who were proud to die for Ireland during and since_ 1916. Of these, 16 were executed by shooting in 1916, 52 killed while fighting during the Easter of 1916. including Terence M'Sweeney, Lord Mayor of Cork, who died of hunger strike, eight were executed by hanging, 12 executed by shooting, and 57. including three priests, were murdered by foreign troops.” “Those,” said Dr Liston, “were the exact words I used. Only those in the last category were meant to be described as murdered by foreign troops. He did not speak of the Easter week people as being murdered at all. He did_ not refer to any women as being killed in Easter week. Nothing would be further from his thought than to refer to those killed in Easter week as murdered. The word “murdered" referred only to those killed in 1920 by the Black and Tans, when the policy of reprisals Was in full «wing._ It would have been better to have mentioned Black and Tans instead of using the words troops, out he took it his audience knew the word “murdered” was used because leading statesmen and Anglican clergy in England employed it. It . referred to the Black and Tan reprisals. The words “glorious Easter,” 'he thought were used parenthetically. It was a common phrase applied to that insurrection. At the time it occurred many people in Dublin thought it a mad enterprise, but with the lapse of time it was felt that those who had died had passed beyond criticism. The conclusion of his speech about forgiving but not forgetting, was reported briefly, but very correctly. He spoke without any. show of feeling, and there was no disorder in the audience. He had no seditious intention whatsoever. That he would say most emphatically. The first comment he read on his speech was in the Herald on Saturday morning, and the Star on Saturday evening. His first thought was that the report was grossly misrepresenting him. He made up his mind to deal with the matter fairly quickly. On Monday morning he got the Herald about 8.16. containing a statement by the Mayor criticising the speech. About ah hour later he received a letter from the Mayor asking if he had been correctly reported. He then wrote the Mayor declining to reply as a protest had already been made public. There the matter ended. Criminal proceedings were threatened, and he was advised to keep silent otherwise he would have given the publje of Auckland the explanation he was giving in that unhappy Eosition. After proceedings were announced e wrote to the Prime Minister in terras already published. That letter set forth the teachings of the Church and his own personal sentiments. To Mr Meredith: When he first saw the report he 'felt himself grossly misrepresented. He would not oare to be responsible for- the remarks as reported. The speech as reported, had it been made, could bo very well criticised. He felt that the words as reported would bo improper as coming from a prominent man. But, for the Mayor’s letter he would have made a statement clearing up the misunderstanding. In face of the threat of criminal proceedings he was advised to keep silent. ■ Mr Meredith': Did you not feel it due to the public and your church to clear the matter up forthwith? Accused: Not in view of Mr Gunson s letter. , _ . ... . , When you wrote to the Prime Minister the position was the same?—Substantially the Earns. Yet you altered your mind? Accused: In writing to the Prime Minister my letter treated of different things. Mr Meredith: Tour letter did not sajy: “Tlje words reported to have been used’? Accused: I had nothing to retract. Counsel: Did you not think it due to the Prime Minister. Witness: Not at that time. Counsel: Did you notice the turmoil which followed your speech? Accused: I saw the newspapers were excited, but I did not know the people were. Counsel: Seeing the_ way the papers treated the matter, might you not have given the Prime Minister the explanation you have given to-day? Accused: That is a matter of opinion, and I had good advice. Counsel: Did you not consider it might have obviated these proceedings? Accused: We did consider that, but we decided against that course. Counsel: The ferm “glorious Easter” was used in connection with the Easter of 1916?

Accused: Yes, if. was the occasion of an insurrection in Dublin. Counsel: In which there was considerable damage to property and loss of life? Accused: Yes, it was ultimately quelled by bringing in troops. , Counsel; Troops from England?

Witness; Yes. Counsel: In what respect do you, suggest it was glorious? Accused: Because of the manner in which young men of the highest probity died trying to do something for Ireland. Counsel: Men of the rebel party?

Accused: Yes. Counsel: In using those words did you support them? Accused: I admired them. Counsel; When you used those words did you support and advocate their action? Accused: Must I answer that question, vour Honor.

Mr O’Regan objecting, his Honor said he thought it was hardly a proper question. Witness was being asked if he supported the rebellion when Mr Meredith said that intent was under consideration. He was askipg Dr Liston what he had in his mind in using the words, just as he had explained himself regarding other phrases. His Honor: If witness objects to answering he is entitled to do so, and he has objected to dealing with the list of those who had died. Dr Liston said he had changed ‘‘Murdered by British troops” to “foreign troops,” because he did not care to use the word “British." He thought, the word “foreign” would bo less offensive. This concluded the examination of Dr Liston.

The defence having other witnesses to call, the case was adjourned till to-morrow.