REVELATIONS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21627, 23 April 1932, Page 18

REVELATIONS

SYDNEY'S NEW GUARD

“ ARREST MR LANG” BRIDGE INCIDENT' PREMEDITATED. (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, April 7. Some remarkable revelations concerning the plotting of the New Guard have been given in evidence during the hearing of the charge against Captain dc, Groot, who was responsible for the sensational slashing of the ribbon at the historic opening of Sydney’s Harbour Bridge. It is clear now that Captain do Groot’s act was premeditated, and that it gave place to a plot to arrest Mr Lang on the eve of the great ceremony. All along it was stated on behalf of tlie New Guard that Mr Lang would iiot open the bridge, but little notice was taken of these “ threats.” At the same time it was felt that where there was smoke it was reasonable to suspect that there was fire, and the public was kept on the tiptoe of expectation. There were three charges made against Captain de Groot. They .were: — (1) Maliciously damaging a ribbon, the property of the New' South Wales Government.

(2) Behaving in an offensive manner at the junction of the Bradfield Highway (the bridge approach) and the Sydney Harbour Bridge; _ ■ (3) Using threatening words to Stewart Robson (police inspector) as follows:— 1 “I, arn a King’s officer; stand back; do not interfere with me.” The second charge was heard first, and after describing the incident several police officers gave evidence that they regarded the actions of Captain do Groot as offensive to them. This evidence recalled., that given when the leader of the New Guard, some time ago, was charged with using offensive words when he bitterly criticised the Premier (Mr Lang). Those officers said that they felt personal offence at the words uttered. The magistrate upheld that view, but the Appeal Court did not, and the conviction was quashed. Inspector Mackay told the magistrate that lie regarded the ribbon slashing incident as “ very serious ” considering the sacred nature of the ceremony, “For a man to use such a childish, trivial, method to justify the statements of another man, I think very, very wrong,” he said. Francis Edward de Groot, who pleaded not guilty, gave his evidence in a clear, incisive voice, and did not hesitate to admit at the outset that he slashed the ribbon. He would not admit that he behaved in an offensive manner although what he did might have been offensive to Mr Lang and his Communist friends. At this stage he was promptly told by the magistrate that political speeches or references would not be permitted. He then proceeded to give his life’s history, saying that his people had lived in Dublin, where lie was born, for more than 300 years. He received a commission in the 15th Hussars in- August, 1914, and saw active service in France. After the Armistice he volunteered for an expeditionary force to Russia to fight the Bolshevists. He was in Germany with the Army of Occupation for several years and returned to Sydney in May, 1920. ' _ ' Captain dc Groot proceeded to give a remarkable account of the events which preceded, the slashing of the ribbon on tlie bridge. He said he left home early in the morning on the day of the ceremony and picked up a horse at Fort Macquarie in the city. The horse had an ordinary hunting saddle, so he fixed his sword to his Sam Browne belt. He was sitting on his horse in Macquarie street when the military escort rode out. from Government House. He took up a position not far behind the rear horseman of the guard, and followed the escort to the bridge approach. When the escort halted he halted also, and drew his sword from its scabbard for the first time that day to salute the Governor-General. He passed several hundreds of policemen. Then lie rode out into the centre of the bridge approach, because he wanted to find out where the ribbon was going to be. He rode out on the right of the mounted police ose&rt, but was separated from it by a cinesound lorry. He found himself near where the ribbon was to be, and about 10 minutes later the ribbon was stretched across. He heard all the speeches, and when “ God Save tlie King ” was played he was impressed by the ceremony until he saw hundreds of the occupants of the main official stand remaining sitting with their hats on talking, laughing, and smoking. It was then he determined to go on with his exploit. Captain dc Groot said lie was so incensed by the collective insult to his Majesty that owing to his own war service he felt he was a more suitable person to declare the bridge open than Mr Lang. When he saw Mr Lang step down preparatory to going across to cut the ribbon'he spurted his horse forward and made an upward cut at the ribbon with his sword. The first cut did not completely sever the ribbon, so lie made a second cut and then a third cut, and finally the ribbon parted. He had no intention of resisting arrest, and held his sword in such a position that it would hurt nobody. The words he used when he cut the ribbon were: “On behalf of the decent and respectable citizens of New South Wales I lieicby declare this bridge open.” At no stage of the proceedings was be excited, although be was pleased and elated at what he had done. Cross-examined, by the Crown solicitor Captain do Groot claimed that he was entitled to wear his uniform on all ceremonial occasions. Tlie sword was part of the equipment. He recognised that the ribbon cutting was the principal part of the ceremony as far as Mr Lang was concerned, but lie thought that only a small minority of the -people went to see Mr Lang cut the ribbon. He decided on his exploit on the Thursday before the opening ceremony and discussed his plans fully with the leader of the New Guard. The whole idea was kept secret, and only a few of the leaders of the movement knew of his intention. Previously he had been informed by the leader that a plan had been mapped out to have Mr Lang arrested for fraud and corruption, but de Groot have a better way that will cast ridicule on him, cause no injury to anybody, and make the whole world laugh.” De Groot explained that be bad made several inquiries at the New Guard offices as to whether any plan had been formulated to prevent Mr Lang performing the ceremony, and he insisted that his idea was the best, because it would involve nobody but himself in any trouble. Dc Groot held that lie would not bo committing any offence if be slashed the ribbon because no one was entitled to stretch any obstacle across a public road. If it was claimed by the authorities that the road was not a public place then be could not be charged with committing an offence. Finally the leader of the New Guard admitted that de G roofs plan was the better.

Dr George Redfcrn Hamilton, a medical specialist of Macquarie street, called for the defence, said that ho had an invitation to one of the stands, but had walked to a place set apart for press photographers without let or hindrance. Ho saw de Groot cut the ribbon, and after de Groot had been dismounted by a police officer ho heard people call out: “Throw him over the bridge. - ’ “Stub him with his own sword.” and “ Get him while lie is down.” He saw many people in the main official stand remain seated when the National Anthem was played. Do Groot made no threatening or menacing movement with his sword, and appeared to bo as cool as a encumber. Witness did not consider de Grout’s action offensive. He

highly approved, of )iis: a protest, to' Lang and his . corrupt Government., He thought it was a brave and plucky act which had the approval of all loyal citizens. He, was not-a member of the New Guard. Other , witnesses for the defence said that thhre-wero many people, in the official stUhd who did. not stand or- even remove their hats while the National Anthem was being played. Some of the women among the invited guests behaved in a manner disrespectful to the King, and several witnesses said that they were; incensed by this. In recording a conviction the magistrate said there ‘was no doubt that dc Groot intended to make little of the; - Premier of the Slate in the presence iff the King’s representative. His actiohs were grossly offensive, provocative, and clearly unlawful. There was, evidence that spectators in the immediate vicin-i ity of the scene resented what wps done. No organisation had any right whatever to interrupt such proceedings. De Groot, and those associated with him knew that perfectly welt, and he did not credit for an instance that they believed they had a right to do what was done. The act might have led to disturbances, even riots, and, indeed, it seemed that de Groot would have been roughly handled by a section of the crowd had he not received police protection. For.those reasons he imposed the maximum fine of £5. The other two charges were dropped by the Crown, and when de Groot left the court he. said “he was. satisfied with everything.” His ' sword 'ail’d the other exhibits ju the case were returned to him. ■■ ... ■