A SHIRKER'S LETTER.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume III, Issue 760, 18 July 1916, Page 12

A SHIRKER'S LETTER.

SEDITIOUS SENTIMENTS. NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION CHALLENGED. PIERCE C. FREETH CHARGED. Prt9& Association. I'ALMERSTON NORTH, July 17. Two charges of alleged seditious publication were preferred against Pierce C. r'reeth, editor of the "Manawatu Daily Times," at the Magistrate's Court to-day, before Mr Hewitt, S.M. The charges were:—(l) That on May 27, 1916, at I'almerston North, he did publish in the "Manawatu Daily Times" matter indicating disloyalty in respect of the war in a letter signed "Shirker"; (2) that on May 27, 1!>16, he did publish matter that was likely to interfere with recruiting in a letter bearing the signature "Shirker." Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr Meredith appeared for the prosecution and Mr Cooper for the defendant.

Mr Meredith said he wanted to disavow any suggestion on the part of the editor or the management of the paper of disloyal sentiment. On the contrary, the editor had dealt trenchantly and fearlessly with questions arising out of the war, and had always maintained a strong patriotic attitude. The letter published over the name of "Shirker" contained sentiments that practically verged on rank sedition. In a subsequent issue Mr Freeth criticised and disavowed the letter, hut. the fact of its publication was considered prejudicial at the present time. The letter forming the subject of the charge was read and its publication admitted.

Mr Cooper said such letters were published so that the writers could be "slated" editorially. There was nothing in the letter that could be construed into anything that was prejudicial to recruiting. He asked his Worship to look at the matter .from a broad point of view, and he would say that the publication of the letter would not turn one man away from fighting for his country. The letter appealed to a. certain class who would never enlist. These people were a negligible quantity. There was nothing to indicate disloyalty in the letter; it was insulting, no doubt, to legislators and men with capital. His Worship: It might raise the thought in some minds that rich men should part with their wealth before other men should enlist.

Mr Cooper said ho* would submit issues of the paper showing its attitude on the present crisis; also copies containing editorial comment on "Shirker's" letter, which would show that the editor had adopted a broad minded, patriotic attitude. Counsel further stated that the publication of the letter had not interfered with recruiting in Palmerston North, for when the last reinforcement was called up it'was over strength. Pierce Charles Freeth, managing editor of the Manawatu "Daily Times," said he had received innumerable letters on the present situation, and had selected one, which was "Shirker's," for publication, and had dealt with it editorially a few days later. He had entirely disagreed with the sentiments contained in the letter.

Mr, Meredith: Have you any objection to giving the name of the contributor? Witness objected to give the name of an anonymous writer.

Mr Meredith said it had been suggested that "Shirker's" letter was not likely to interfere with recruiting, but he asked would "Shirker" have been allowed to address a public meeting and use the words he did in his letter? Counsel said "No." He read portions of the letter, which he claimed suggested that men should not fight for "the wool kings and moneyed classes." There was a further suggestion that anybody who enlisted was "dancing to the piping of politicians." There was no suggestion of disloyalty on the part of defendant, but the publication of such letters as "Shirker's" was introducing the writer to a much larger assemblage than he would get in any other way. As Mr Freeth refused to give the writer's name, and the publisher was not the responsible party, counsel contended that the editor was responsible. The publication of the letter had been a distinct breach of the War Regulations Act. His Worship said he would take time to consider the matter. If defendant was convicted it was evidently a case for a nominal fine, lie would reserve his judgment.