DISLOYAL UTTERANCES

Otautau Standard and Wallace County Chronicle, Volume XI, Issue 553, 28 December 1915, Page 7

DISLOYAL UTTERANCES

CIVIL SERVANT CHARGED. As already mentioned m our columns, Francis Peter Hagen was convicted at Wellington last week before Mr D.' G. Cooper, S.M., for having published disloyal /Utterances, and fined £25. An appeal was dismissed by the Chief Justice. Air V. R. Meredith, of the Crown Law Office, prosecuted, and Mr E. G. Jellicoe defended. The following report of the case is taken from the ' Post ' : — Mr Meredith, m opening the 'case, said the informations were laid under the War Regulations Act, 1914, which provided for a fine up to £100, or imprisonment up to 12 months m case of conviction. The utterances of accused, were made while troops were departing from Wellington and on other occasions. —On the Wharf.— Walter Gore, messenger iv tlie -Public Health Department, stated that from a room of the department the wharf could be seen. On the occasion, the day before the 7th Reinforcements went .away, they were watching the men take their baggage on board the troopship. Someone said : " There's a lot of poor fellows going away. We don't know whether they will return." Hagen said : " A silly lot of ; they're ouly going to get what they are asking for." Mr Meredith, asked the witness to whom he understood the words applied. Mr Jellicoe argued that the question was not admissible. His Worship held that the question was' admissible under the terms of the regulations. Witness said he understood that the remarks applied to the troops taking their baggage down to the transports. Someone said thut Hagen ought to be ashamed of himself .for saying such a thing. Witness himself said that " Had it been the Eighth Contingent going away, and my bon is going m it, and he had made such a remark as that, I would certainly have given him all the assistance m my power to enable him to bite his tongue." Hagen made no reply. Two days before that (on October 6) there was a discussion m the office about what would happen to us under German rule. . They were all arguing about the cruelty of the Germans, and Mr Ell made the remark : " God help us if we come under German rule." Hagen said : "We would be just as well off under German rule as we are under British. The British were only out after territory." The remark was made by Mr Ell : " How about the Belgians?" Hagen replied : " That , was only an excuse for us to get into it." — Abuse of Nurse Caveil. — When the news of Nurse Ca veil's execution came through (witness continued) a discussion took place m the office. Hagen was against the others; that was his usual attitude. During the discussion Hagen said : " She deserved her fate ; she was nothing more than a - spy." When the news of the loss of the Marquette was received another discussion took place, and men said how sorry they were, because they knew the nurses who had been drowned. Hagen said the Germans were perfectly justified m sinking the Marquette. The nurses knew the risks they were running, and they had no business there. Witness reported the matter to the Deputy Chief Health Officer, to see if he could stop it. He knew very well that if it did not stop something serious would happen m the office; he was surprised that it had not happened before. Cross-examined by Mr Jellicoe, witness said he did not remember having taken part m the discussion. The adjective ascribed to Hagen was not uncommon m. tbe room. The chief clerk (Mr Killich) was sometimes present,, and on one occasion he stopped the discussion. — Reference to " Scabs."— Leslie John Ell, clerk m the Health Department, said Hagen, was m the department for six or eight weeks. He generally corroborated the previous witness's evidence as to what Hagen had said. Witness remonstrated with him. What did he say? asked Mr Meredith, dith. Witness : He didn't say he didn't mean • them. Mr Meredith : What did his demeanor indicate? Witness: It indicated tliat he meant the things he said. , Witness went on to say that early m October -the Defence Department seiit a' circular asking who would work overtime to assist the-.- men who had gone to the front. Mr Meredith : Did anybody sign it? Witness : Yes, all but Hagen. Mr Meredith: Did he' make any remark about it? ' Witness: He said that- anybody who signed it was a scab ' Cross-examined by Mr Jellicoe, witness denied that ho took np a position oi hostility to Hagen as soon as he entered the department. Hagen received less salary than witness, but occupied a higher position. He believed Hagen made some suggestions to the chief clerk relating to the work of the office, and the chief clerk sent out a memo, suggesting that sonu> alteration be made. Witness told Hagen to mind his own business, and that he would do thc work m hi© own way. He did not know whether that was before or after October 6. Mr Jellicoe : Will you swear whether it was before or after October 6? Witness : I will swear nothing. His Worship : What do yon mean by that? J Witness: That I cannot fix the date. The remark had no reference to my previous evidence. — No Joke: — Thomas Gsorge - Trowem, secretary of the Plumbers' J?oard and a clerk m- the Public Health Department, corroborated what had been said by previous- witnesses as to Hagen's remark when the 7th Reinforcements were preparing to leave. Mr Meredith : Was anything said to him? Witness: Yes. I said, "You're a nice sort of , you are. You are a pro-German." Mr Meredith : What was the state of your feelings? Witness : I felt like eating him. (Laughter.) What answer did he make? _He didn't say anything. f ''; Ife didn't say it was, a joke? Joke ! We don't joke about tilings like that. Witness, continuing, said that on another occasion HJagen' called 'them all "scabs" for signing a circular from the Defence Department asking them to work overtime. Later on Hagen said : " That's the way to fill. in the register. Say 'No' to everything." When Hagen referred to Nurse Caveil as a "spy" and later as a "traitor" there was a general hubbub. Mr Meredith : Were those the only cases m which Hagen made such remarks'? Witness : Not by a bushel. His general demeanor was of a pro-German character. ' ■ Mr Jellicoe contended' that the witness hadr' -no- right to- give ;&ueh. evidence, and asked that his objection be noted.

His Worship: There is no necessity. Referring to the incident arising out of the loss of the Marquette, witness said thut the Public Health Department had all to do with the sending away of the nurses who were lost, and took a- personal interest m them. Hagen said : " The Germans had a perfect right to sink the ship." Witness said : " Do you mean to say they had a perfect right to sink a ship with doctors and nurses on hoard?" and Hagen replied, " Yes." There was so much heat over the matter that it attracted the attention of the chief clerk, aaid Hagen was suspended. Giles F. S. Johns, clerk m the Public Health Department, also gave evidence ;is to what Hagen said about being as well off under German rule as British rule. It arose from a .general- discussion, which led Mr Eli to say : "God help us if we <xet under German rule." Hagen's remark was made by way of reply to Ell. Witness corroborated the evidence of previous witnesses as to what Hagen said about Nurse Caveil and the sinking of the Marquette. Hagen 's remarks so aroused their feelings that Mr Ell put them down on a sheet of paper, which was signed by the staff, and presented to Dr Valintine. To Mr Jellicoe : Witness said it was customary for Hagen to take tho paper away of a morning for about three-quar-ters of an hour, and then come back and tell them what the news was. This closed the case for the prosecution. — Eight of Free Speech. — For the defence, Mr Jellicoe said a plea of not guilty had only been entered to enable an important point of law to be raised relating to the liberty of the subject. As to the facts, he was not there to justify the alleged language, and with regard to the language used about the troops, no one had any right to decry or insult the country's troops. It was deplorable", he continued, that a Godless system of education had produced m the Public Service not only an absence of respect for authority, but the use of opprobrious oaths and a habit of swearing m conversation. His Worship remarked that there was no proof that that pervaded the service. There was evidence only that certain language was used on one occasion m one branch of the service. Mr Meredith said only one witness admitted having, used "language," and he made bold to say there was every reason for him to use it after the remark that had been made. Mr Jellicoe said it would be very sad if such language was tolerated m any department. He went on- to contend that the War Regulation had to be construed m the light . of the . common law, which gave the right to the subject of freedom of speech. British subjects were entitled to adopt an anti-war but not an antipatriotic or disloyal attitude, and parties and societies and newspapers had been formed on anti-war lines. Counsel contended that the War Regulations Act had to be construed m the light of the common law, which gave the right to the subject of freedom of speech. Those who held anti-war opinions were, he contended, as loyal as those who were making great gains out of. the. war. As to the regulation, he said it distinctly stated that the publication, to constitute an offence, must be of "disloyalty m regard to the present war," as distinguished from words used m the' heat of argument, lacking substance, and creating no lasting impression. An innuendo, or inference, or mere expression of opinion was not sufficient. None of the defendant's expressions, he argued, came under the terms of the regulation, nor did they express disloyalty, which meant want of fidelity to the Sovereign. He quoted 'several authorities m support of his contention, and said that His Worship had to answer two questions : (1) What statement or matter was made known by the defendant's expressions ? (2) What want of loyalty, what lack of fidelity, or violation of national allegiance to the Sovereign, the law., or the Constitution did thc words indicate? He added that defendant, who received a higher salary than Mr Ell, one of the witnesses, suggested alterations m the system, which were approved of by the chief clerk; but Mr Ell said he should go on doing his work m his own way. That had led to hostility between defendant and some other ■members of the department. If a man, m the heat of argument, expressed opinions different from" those held by the others, it would render the regulation an absurdity. It was surprising that the Public .Service Commissioners should have sent the . case to His Worship for de--1 cision. i —Evidence of Character.— Alfred C. I'urnbull, Inspector of Officers m the Lands Department, said defendant was with him for three years. He was a good officer, amenable to discipline, and of great application. He was very argumentative, and generally took the opposite side m arguments. To Mr Meredith, witness said defendant left for another department before the war I broke out.

+v Xl £ h " d Francis Madden, chief clerk m the Police Commissioner's Office, said defendant was with him for about nine months. He was a good clerk, and gave no trouble. He left witness's department to go to the Public Health Department. . — The Crown's Reply. — Replying to Mr Jellicoe's legal argument, Mr Meredith said the cases quoted by Mr Jellicoe dealt with sedition. Defendant was not charged with sedition, but with a distinct offen6e created under the War Regulations Act. It was imperative that there should be a united front against the enemy, and therefore it was necessary to prevent disloyalty or dis* affection, which might result m the rupture of that united front. Such remarks made to weak-minded men might cause injury, and it was to prevent their use that the regulation had been made. Defendant's remarks about the troops and about German rule could only indicate a disloyal mind. — Conviction Recorded. — "I think the case is plain enough," .said the Magistrate. " There is no doubt about the facts. Mr Jellicoe Said the question of law arose as to whether such statements indicated disloyalty m respect to the present war. In spite of the authorities quoted by Mr Jellicoe, m my opinion the words as used do indicate disloyalty, especially the words used on 6th October : ' We would be just as well off under German rule as under British rule. Britain was only after territory, and the Belgian business was only an excuse to get into it.' Also, on Bth October, referring to the Seventh Reinforcements going down to the wharf with their baggage, he said : ' There go the silly old s ; they will probably get all they are asking for.' His reference to Nurse Caveil was that 'She deserved her fate; she was nothing more than a traitor.' -You cannot; say, perhaps, that that is disloyalty to the British Sovereignty, but it shows what kind of man this must' be. As 'to the references to the nurses who went down m the Marquette, defendant said the Germans were justified m sinking ..the^ ship. .That is another indication of what sort of mind this man must have. That was what he said about those noble women who 'said,

when the ship was going down : ' Never mind us; save the fighting men!' In my o|jinior., there is no doubt that these expressions are disloyal, and show disloyalty to the supreme authority — our Sovereign. I shall not say what I think about the conduct of the defendant beyond the slight reference I have made, because I am given to understand that this case will go to a higher Court, and it* would be wrong for me to express an opinion. I shall convict the defendant on two of the charges — those relating to the remarks about German rule (6th October) and the" Reinforcements (Bth October) ; the other two cases will be dismissed. The maximum penalty is £100. I shall impose one penalty of £25 m regard to the case of 6th October, and convict only on the charge relating to Bth October."