COMMUNISM

Southland Times, Issue 21728, 14 June 1932, Page 6

COMMUNISM

PARTY CONSTITUTION AUTHORITY OF CENTRAL EXECUTIVE EVIDENCE IN COURT (Per United Press Association.) Wellington, June 13. Lengthy evidence involving the constitution of the Communist Party and questions as to the authority of members of the central executive or the controlling body, occupied much of the time of the Magistrate’s Court to-day when the case against Richard Francis ' Griffin in connection with the publication of the Red Worker and Strike Strategy and Tactics, was continued. Griffin pleaded not guilty to the charges of printing and publishing documents which were alleged by the Crown to be seditious. Evidence for the police was given by Detective Waterson, who said he understood Griffin was secretary and organizer of the Communist Party. Accused was a Communist delegate from New Zealand to Russia four years ago. Witness gave further _ evidence as to accused’s connection with the Communist movement, his evidence closing the case for the Crown. The first witness for the defence, Alexander Galbraith, said his official position in the Communist Party was printer and publisher of the Red Worker. He had never seen Griffin printing or publishing the Red Worker. Accused had no connection with the Vanguard Press except in connection with the accounts. Counsel for the Crown: Are you the person who is entirely responsible for the Red Worker? Witness: I am, and as I am a Communist, all I want to see in it is Communist propaganda. Are you a member of the Central Executive?—Yes. Is the accused?—Yes. What is his official position?—He has none. The chairman is elected at each meeting. Is not Griffin looked upon by the Communists in New Zealand as their leader? —No. We have no leader. Who do they look upon as their leader? —The Central Executive. Mr Page: How many are on the Central Executive? Witness: Oh, it fluctuates from time to time. I suppose throughout New Zealand there will be about twelve. Mr Page: In Wellington, I mean. Witness: I should say probably eight. I would not be sure. Some of them are in gaol. How long has Griffin been a member of the Central Executive?—For some time. You said he used to be secretary of the Communist Party. When did he cease to be that?—lf I remember rightly, at the end of 1930. He was then prosecuted and I was made secretary. Witness said he ceased to be secretary in March, 1931. Griffin had not since been secretary. In his evidence, accused denied that he was printer or publisher of the Red Worker or the strike pamphlet, Strike Strategy and Tactics. An account had been opened at the Bank of New Zealand in the name of the Vanguard Press, but that account was later changed into a general account for the Communist Party. When he signed cheques in connection with the Red Worker, he did so at the request of Galbraith, and when he took copy to a linotype operator, it was also at the request of Galbraith. He had not been responsible for the tenancy of the premises since 1930, when he served a term of imprisonment for having seditious literature. The document which he had in his possession and which the Crown alleged was the central scheme, was merely a “speculative scribble” on his own part, and not an official document of the Communist Party. The Sentences. Richard Francis Griffin, Alexander Galbraith and John Joseph Robinson were each sentenced to reformative detention for a period not exceeding three years, William Alexander and George Lockhart was sent to gaol for three months, and Leslie Raymond McDowell and Edward Hogan were each convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within two years. The Magistrate, in passing sentence, said the substantial defence raised by Griffin was that not being the registered printer and publisher of the documents in question, he should not be convicted of printing and publishing them. That, in his view, was not the correct interpretation of the law. Although there might be one chief actor, many others might be convicted if it was shown that they were parties to publication. In defendant’s own evidence, he was clearly shown to be a party to issuing the pamphlet and paper. Griffin had stated in evidence that he was actively concerned with every movement of the Communist Party and in that he included the literary department which was a branch of its activities, and the publications of which represented its views. He admitted also that he had written some of the articles which appeared in the Red Worker. “Taking his evidence alone, it seems clear that Griffin has been shown to be a party to the issuing of the paper which I have already held to be seditious,” the Magistrate said. “With opinions, political or otherwise, this Court has no concern. Every man is entitled to hold what opinions he chooses, and within certain well defined limits, express those opinions, both orally and in writing, but he is not at liberty in the course of such expression to incite others to lawlessness or violence. These papers, as I read them, contain from end to end an appeal and incitement to resist the law by militant mass action and bring about the overthrow of the State and constitution by revolutionary violence. Dissemination of this type of literature is calculated to do a great deal of harm. I think it not unlikely that the wanton destruction of property that recently occurred at Wellington was traceable to this source.” The Magistrate added that those who lived in this country must obey its laws. The publication of papers that were seditious or incited lawlessness or disorder must cease. Lockhart was charged with having a Red Worker in his possession. McDowell and Griffin with printing and publishing the paper and pamphlet, and were also charged with selling the paper and having it in their possession. Robinson was charged with printing and publishing the pamphlet. Strike Strategy or Tactics. He was formerly registered as the proprietor of the Red Worker. Galbraith was charged with printing and publishing two issues of the Red Worker. He claimed to be the printer and publisher of the paper, and said McDowall was only employed in the production of the paper. Hogan was charged with having the paper in his possession.