CHARGES OF SEDITION

Otago Witness, Issue 3348, 15 May 1918, Page 7

CHARGES OF SEDITION

SEQUEL TO CHRISTCHURCH - MEETING. TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED. CHRISTCHURCH, May 8. The charges of sedition preferred against E. Langloy, J. Flood, and H. Hunter, in connection with the amendment carried at tlie Opera House meeting of Second Division reservists on April 28 were heard this afternoon in the Magistrate's Court, before Mr Bailey, S.M. The interest taken in the proceedings, apart from their bearing on Second Division affairs, was deepened by the fact that all of the men charged areprominent in the Labour movement, consequently the court was crowded. John Flood, waterside worker, was charged that ho did publish a seditious utterance at a public meeting held at Christchurch by preparing and reading a resolution to the effect that no Second Division man should leave for camp until the demands of the Second Division League are conceded by the Government; and also demands that an election be held immediately.

Ernest Edward Langley was charged with proposing the resolution, and Hiram Hunte • was charged with seconding it. Langley was further charged that he did publish seditious uterances at a public meeting held at Christohurch by proposing a resolution in the following words:—"That, until the demands of Second Division men are acceded to, no Second Division man leaves for camp." In opening the case for the Crown, MiRaymond, K.C., referred "to the meeting of Second Division reservists at Christchurch at which the motion wa3 moved, and remarked that the meeting in itself was quit-; constitutional, and so far as was known was well conducted. The motion which Mr J. Greshpn had moved was within perfectly constitutional limits. Counsel outlined the circumstances under which Larigley's amendment was moved. It was submitted that the resolution moved by Langley and passed by the meeting was a seditious utterance, and had a tendency to incite Second Division men who were called up for service, and who were leaving on the following night, to break the law. A natural consequence would have been the refusal of Second Division men to go into camp the next night and a conflict -d authority. Langley had the confidence of members of the Waterside Workers' Union, and no doubt of other people connected with the Labour movement. Weight would, therefore, be attached to his words that would not be given to the vapourings of irresponsible persons. Mr Raymond also remarked that, in case of sedition, it was important to remember what was the state of the country at the time. There had been a call for extra men, and the first lot of Second Division men were to go into camp. There was also the agitation for bigger allowances for wives and children of soldiers. Jt might be suggested that the Mayor (who was in the chair at the meeting) should not have put the- amendment. That was not relevant. Whether the Mayor had made an error of judgment or not was, he submitted, quite irrelevant. The two questions to be answered were: Firstly, were the words ufterod as alleged? and,' secondly, had they a seditious tendency? It was submitted that if these questions were answered in the affirmative the Crown's case was proved. Mr Cassidy (who appeared for Langley) submitted that there was no evidence to justify conviction. It was a etrange thing that the chairman and the man who handed up the amendment had not bfien called, and so put the matter in its proper light. The Mayor, who was noted for his patriotism, would certainly have blocked the molion if it had appeared to him to be seditious. Langley gave evidence on his own behalf. He said he was not addressing Second Division men; he was assailing the Government.

Mr Raymond (Crown Prosecutor): I put it to you (Langley) that the inevitable tendency of your remarks would be to inc;.e Second Division men not to leave Christchurch.

Accused: That was not in my thoughts. His Worship said there was little doubt that the utterance the subject of the charge interfered with his Majesty's forces, it being direct incitement to Second Division men not to leave Christchurch for camp. The charge had been proved. During the hearing of the charge against Flood, Mr Holland (Mayor of Christchurch) said he did not grasp the significance of the motion at the time, or he would never have put it to the meeting. It did not at the moment 'strike him as seditious. Mr Hunt, for accused, said Flood was not an anti-militarist, and had fulfilled all his military obligations. Flood's intent was a direction to the Government that it should call up no man to camp until the Second Division League's requests were granted. Counsel complained that in all these seditious cases which came before his Worship, it was the small fry that had been prosecuted. Why were not the Mayor (Mr Holland), Mr M'Combs, M.P., and" Mr Gresson also prosecuted? The Magistrate said a conviction must be entered.

In Hiram Hunter's case, Mr Hunter, who appeared for him, said accused was not a member of tbe Second Division League, but he attended tho meeting as a city councillor and a public man. Accused had simplv seconded the motion in reply to the Mayor, believing- that there was no seditious intent in it. Accused was not an antimilitarist; and possessed a good and clean record. There had been no seditious intent on tho part of the Mayor or Mr Gresson or of accused.

Accused gave evidence that he did not in tho slightest degree intend tho motion to bo an incitement to the men not to go into camp. _ Had the Mayor or Mr Gresson given him any hint that tho motion was sr-ditious ho would not have seconded it. Had he wished to prevent these men from going into camp ho would not have acted in the way ho did. His Worship convicted Hunter. He said he considered the Mayor was ill-advised to have put tho motion to tho meeting, but owing to the existing excitement he did not realise its effect.

In imposing sentence the Magistrate said it was unfortunate that this particular meeting happened at tho time* of very great trouble, during a crisis in tho war. Anything tending to interfere with the Government at this time had to bo deprecated. Ho imposed the following terms of imprisonment:—Langlcv and Flood, each six months; Hunter, three months.

WATERSIDE WORKERS' "DEMANDS." CHRISTCHURCH, May 10.

At a very largely attended meeting of tho Lyttc-lton Waterside Workers' Union, the following motion was carried unanimously—-" That this union views with alarm the unjust and outrageous sentences passed on Langley, Flood, and Hunter, for alleged sedition. We consider them a direct attack upon organised Labour, and demand the immediate release of the men. That a copy of this' resolution be forwarded to the Acting Prime: Minister and the Minister of Justice, and also to tho newspapers."

REQUEST FOR REMISSION. WELLINGTON, May 11. A deputation representing the New Zealand Transport Workers' Advisory Board to-day interviewed the Hon. T. M. Wilford (Minister of Justice), asking for a remission of the sentences on tho men recently convicted of sedition arising out of the carrying of a resolution at Christchurch at a Second Division League meeting. The deputation declared that the men's past history showed that they were not likely to bo deliberatelv seditious, and that in moving the motion they had no intention of breaking the law. It was suggested that under tho circumstances tho recording of a conviction would meet the case.

Mr Wilford replied that tho whole matter would be considered by tho Cabinet on Monday.

A CLERGYMAN CHARGED

CHRISTCHURCH, May 10. The Rev. James Henry G. Chappie, who preaches in Christchurch, was charged at the Magistrate's Court this afternoon with having uttered sedition at Greymouth. The charge stated that on March 29 he said: "You are under the heels of the War Lords. We have not enough population for our own country, yet we are losing after the annexation of Samoa. The patriotic poison is in our schools. Children are taught to salute tho flag and taught to sing the National Anthem. I tell my children when they come home not to sing the National Anthem. I < am hoping with a fervent hope that in this war there will be no victor. To pray about a war is blasphemy. A woman goes down the Valley of Death to bring a child into the world. She nurses it, sends it to school, and sees it through the Sixth Standard. Then comes the call to arms, and it goes away to war. What for? To die for its country? No! To die for the profiteer." Another charge stated that on the same occasion ho said: "Russia wanted war, Britain wanted war, the upper class in New Zealand wanted war. Never has there been such a wonderful five days' (meaning the days of the Russian revolution). "The Old Russia has gone and the new Russia has come in. I hope before I die to see a similar movement in New Zealand. I hope the day will come in New Zealand when these- war loans will be repudiated. I hope not a penny of the war loan will bo repaid. vYou do not authorise them." Mr Raymond K.C. appeared for the prosecution. Accused (who was represented by Mr Twyneham), pleaded not guilty. Mr Twyneham, in asking for an adjournment, said inquiries would have to be made on the Wesi Coast, and the defence would probably be that the words were used with qualifications or elaborations which would completely disprove any charge of a seditious tendency. . The remand was granted till next Friday.