THE WEBB CHARGES.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 29, Issue 40, 25 May 1917, Page 5

THE WEBB CHARGES.

CHRISTCHURCH, May 23

The hearing of the charges against JVC. Webb, M.P., of making seditious utterances at Greymouth on April 19th, was proceeded with in the Magistrate’s Court to-day. Mr Raymond, K.C., prosecuted, and Sir John Findlay, K.C., defended.

Mr Raymond, in opening the case, said that, if there was a seditious utterance having a seditious tendency, then, no matter what the motives of the defendant might be, those motives could not be taken into account. He was now regarding the matter entirely from the point of view of'the safety of the State and society. The utterance of a well-intentioned man might be more fatal to the public than the utterance of an evil-intontioned man, because the opinion of the former would carry weight where, the opinion of the latter would not. He would not go into the question of motives, but would submit that they were perfectly irrelevant, whatever the rights of the miners might be. It was a question, not of the rights of the individual, but of their duty to loyally observe the laws of the country in relation to its military and economic resources. This was clearly indicated by the special legislation which had been passed by the Legislature and the War Regulations.

Constable McMahon, who took a shorthand note of part of Webb’s speech, said he had a certificate for 120 words a minute.

Sir John Findlay's cross-examination was in the direction of establishing that McMahon's note could not be accepted as a reliable report of the whole of Webb's utterances.

In opening for the defence, Sir John Findlay said that, according to the Crown’s definition of the War Regulations, they were absolutely unqualified. Under such a definition a shrug of the shoulders was sufficient to have a man tried for sedition. If in the privacy of his own homo he expressed certain opinions, he was liable to arrest and to be haled before a court on a charge of sedition. Under Regulation *1 of the War Regulations Act, 1914, any utterance written or spoken in public or private against the Government of New Zealand made the author liable to be sent to gaol for twelve months. That was not the case under the Crimes Act or the Common Law' of England. In New Zealand to-day, unless the court interpreted these regulations in a different light from that suggested by the Crown, no man or woman who criticised the Government was safe. Sir John contended that under such a construction remarks made by Mr G. Fenwick and Dean Fitchett in Dunedin the other day, whereby they criticised the Government, would render those gentlemen liable to twelve months’ imprisonment. Was New Zealand to be tonguetied and left at the mercy of officialdom? He contended that the case against Webb had broken down, ae McMahon had admitted that he had left out and altered words of Webb’s speech. The case was adjourned till 10 a.m. to-morrow.