SEDITION CHARGES.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume III, Issue 896, 23 December 1916, Page 10

SEDITION CHARGES.

SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT. JAMES THORN'S CASE Press Association. AUCKLAND, December 22. At the Magistrate's Court to-day, James Thorn, of the "Maorilaud Worker" staff, who was charged with using seditious utterances in a speech at the Globe Theatre, was convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.

James Thorn, who lias boon sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment on a charge of seditious utterance, is well known in Christchurch. Me was educated at the Christchurch High School. He served in one of the New "Zealand Contingents in the lioer war, and on his return worked at the Addington Workshops. Mr Thorn was one of the Political Labour League candidates at the 190"< and 1908 elections, contesting the South Christchurch seat against Mr fi. G. Ell. He took a prominent part some years ago in the attempt of the Farm Labourers' Union to secure an award, and is an ex-pre-sident of the Canterbury Trades Council. He spent some years in Socialist propaganda I work in England and Scotland, and on his | return to this country contested the Palmcr- [ ston North seat without success in the j Labour interest. He has been recently act--1 ing as sub-editor of the "Maorilaud Worker." SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS AT COURT. CASES AGAINST FRASER AND BRINDLE. 1 INTENTION OR TENDENCY? The Magistrate's Court at Wellington was crowded yesterday, when the hearing of the charges of sedition against Peter Fraser and Thomas Bvindle was taken. Mr P. S. K. Macassey appeared for the Crown, and each accused conducted his own defence. In his opening remarks in Eraser's case, Mr-Macassey stated that the charge was laid under section 1 of the recent War Regulations, clause 3 of which provided that a person was liable to a heavy penally who made any utterance, the publication of which had seditious intention, or the publication of which had a seditious tendency. Thus is was not nccesary to prove seditious intention. The speech was delivered in the presence of about 400 people. _ After quoting the various subsections of the War Regulations, under which he claimed that Fraser was liable, Mr Macassey concluded by asking Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., who was on the Bench, to compare the text and tone of Mr Lloyd George's latest message to the Dominions with the speech delivered by Fraser. THE EVIDENCE. John Thomas Watkins, expert shorthand reporter, gave evidence of having taken a verbatim note of the defendant's speech in, the Alexandra Hall. In reply to Fraser, witness said he had had considerable experience in reporting. He was not a member of the "Hansard" staff, but did reporting Work during the session. It would be quite wrong to say that there had been frequent complaints about his work.

Detective-Sergeant Rawle said that he attended the meeting on the night of December 10. On the platform were four men, and the hall was occupied by between 400 and 450 people. The addresses were listened to with great attention, and frequently applauded by way of showing appreciation of the sentiments expressed. Defendant was well received. At the conclusion of the meeting a resolution calling upon the Labour unions to take action in the direction of having the Conscription Act repealed was carried, with one dissentient.

Defendant: Were the speeches delivered in support of that resolution? They were wider than that. You ridiculed the King and said that Lloyd George had more brains than he did.

Is that ridiculing the King? If I said Lloyd George had more brains than you, would I be ridiculing you? —The comparison, I think, Ls quite out of place. I believe that you did ridicule the King. Detective-Sergeant Cox, who was also present at the meeting, corroborated- the previous witness's evidence, and had nothing to add. Detective Mason gave similar evidence, closing the case for the Crown.

FRASER ADDRESSES THE COURT. Defendant, when asked whether he wished to call any evidence, methodically arranged his papers and stated his intention of addressing the court. This he commenced to do, and, speaking in deliberate tones, referred to the Statute law dealing with seditious utterances. Under section 118, he said, no person could be deemed to have seditious intention if in good faith he set out to show that his Majesty had been misled or mistaken in his measures; if he pointed out defects in Governments and attempted to procure an alteration by lawful means; if he pointed out, in order to obtain their removal, matters having a tendency to produce ill-will and feelings of hatred. It was matter of common knowledge that a large number of people were opposed to the Military Service Act which, they believed, was liable to promote ill-feeling and hatred. A large number of people, including an important section of organised Labour believed that the passing of the Act was a mistake. The people of New Zealand had never been consulted, and organised Labour was endeavouring by peaceful means to secure a repeal of the Act. Therefore meetings had been organised throughout the Dominion, and at these addresses were delivered. It was one of the means adopted in an attempt to influence public opinion. Defendant read the resolution that was passed, such, he contended, being purely in the nature of a demand that Parliament should be summoned to secure a repeal of the Act. The resolution, and the speeches in support of it, were for the purpose of forming public opinion, "t certainly made the speech, a portion of which appears on the information," he said, "but some of it very jumbled, and docs not reflect great credit on the reporter. I dealt with matters of common knowledge only." In support of this he quoted Mr Lloyd George's famous interview with the Associated Press, which, he claimed, showed up the horrors of war such as he had depicted. PUBLIC RIGHTS. Continuing, Eraser said that he claimed to have the right, as a citizen of the British Empire, to state his] opinion if he thought any course I being adopted was wrong. Hardly j three days had passed after his speech before it was found that the German Government, giving way to \ the great force of public opinion—-

not on account of the love of peacemade a move in the direction of peace. Public feeling was very strong in Germany, where the same methods were being adopted as in New Zealand. Fraser proceeded to refer to statements said to have appeared in newspapers in support of his contention as to the state of public feeling in Germany. Mr Riddell, S.M., asked' if the defendant had any documents to produce.

Fraser said that he could produce extracts from German newspapers which had been translated in the manifesto of the minority of the Social Democratic Party. He added that at Munich on September 4 there was an enormous demonstration, consisting of hundreds of thousands of people, demanding peace, and also quoted from the remarks of Mr Hobhousc, who had been allowed to visit the prison camps in Germany, to the effect that the sentiment in Germany, particularly among the working classes, was all in favour of peace. The Magistrate pointed out that in order that, these statements should be all good, Fraser must produce some evidence.

Fraser reviewed his speech and deprecated the fact that the peoples of all the nations had no voice in the negotiations prior to the war. Mr Riddell: Do you think it would be a proper course for the parties concerned to meet and try to come to some arrangement? You know just as well as I do what the Germans have done; you know how they have kept their word. Assuming that some such arrangement were arrived at, do you think the German Government would abide by it? Fraser: I could not say that I would like to trust the ' German Government. He went on to refer to the League of Nations and the messages from America concerning Germany and disarmament. Any arrangement that would result the suing of millions of lives would be a good thing. Mr Riddell: I suppose you know that great efforts were made before the war?

Fraser replied th;it he could not agree with that, and proceeded to criticise what he called the want of firmness on the part of the British Foreign Office, and the "vacillatory diplomacy" of Sir Edward Grey. He believed it was still possible for the peoples of Germany and the other countries to bring about a settlement.

Mr Riddell: Do you think we are dealing with Germany? Fraser replied that as a representative of organised international labour he was interested in the welfare of every working man the wide world over.

Mr Riddell: Do you know—l suppose you do—that many of the working classes of Germany to whom you have referred are now fighting against Britain? Fraser: Yes. Thanks to Military Service Acts and conscription. If the Socialists of Germany had been in the majority there would have been no war, and humanity would not have been overrun as it has been. NO DISLOYALTY.

In conclusion, Fraser said that there was not a single word in his speech which would interfere with recruiting or the enforcement of the Act. There was no disaffection with the Government, but with the Statute, and certainly the demand for the publication of peace terms could not discourage the prosecution of the war to a victorious conclusion. Rather, their publication would set at rest the doubts in the minds of many people. His speech, he argued, contained not one word which could be construed or misconstrued into the nature of disloyalty. The words had been uttered with the highest intentions and the best motives, and he had believed that he was exercising his legitimate right, the right of freedom of thought and freedom of speech. In Britain and other places the right had been fought for and defended, and he would exercise it again. The sentiments to which he had given expression were, he claimed, in the highest and best interests of the people of the country and of the British Empire, and certainly in the best interests of the ranks of the working class. N Fraser proceeded to say that what New Zealand had done in the war would compare favourably with the work of any other country. He also started to refer to the exploitation which had taken place, but the Magistrate interposed, saying that snch matter was irrelevant.

Frascr then concluded his address, and in reply to the Magistrate said he did not wish to call any evidence. Mr Riddell: You intend to rely upon your explanation? Fraser: Yes, sir. The Magistrate intimated that he wanted to look into one or two of the points raised, and also to read the whole speech. He would give his decision next morning CASE AGAINST BRINDLE. The charge against Thomas BrinMe was then proceeded with. Brindle was not represented by counsel. Mr Macassey stated that the same clauses of the War Regulations applied in this instance. If a statement that the fight was in class interests and not in national interests was not seditious, what was it? John Thomas Watkins gave evidence as to reporting the speech, and read the particular utterances on which he prosecution relied from his transcribed notes. Corroborative evidence was given by Detective-Sergeant Rawle and Detective Mason. Defendant asked the former this question: "Was there anything in my speech which could be construed as outside that which was necessary to support the resolution?" Detective-Sergeant Rawle: Yes. Defendant; What was it? Detective-Sergeant Rawle: One passage struck me particularly. It! was this: You said that the King had; two meatless days, and that that pro-j bably meant that instead of white veal he would have pigeon-pie, and instead of champagne he would have Burgundv. "IN THE PUBLIC INTERESTS." The case for the Crown having' closed, Brindle addressed the court. | He said that in the first place at the i meeting they endeavoured to instil j into the. public mind a desire to sweep away from the Statute Book! the Military Service Act. He thought that such would be in the interests of j the community.

Mr Riddell: You prefer the voluntary system-to the compulsory? Defendant: Well, I am opposed to war at any time, so it is not quite a fair question. If I had to choose, however, I would choose the voluntary system.

Mr Riddel!: You are a man of peace? Defendant: As far as the vjar of nations is concerned, yes. There are other wars besides the war of nations. In them lam not a man of peace.

Mr Riddell: Yes, go on. Defendant proceeded to claim that his speech was not seditious, but was composed of statements of fact. It was time they began to consider the roads which led to the blood pond of Europe. His statement that the "slaughter on Gallipoli" was only for the purpose of making a free presentation of Constantinople to Russia was only a statement of fact. Yet Russians were sent to Siberia in exile only because they were trade unionists and. Socialists. Mr Riddell: You need not tell us about Russia. Defendant: Pardon? Mr Riddell: Have you ever lived in Russia?

Defendant: No, not materially. Brindle, who appeared to be addressing the public at the rear of the Court much more than he did the Magistrate, proceeded to justify his remarks on the ground that British liberty had gone, and that it was perfectly reasonable that they should endeavour to reslore that freedom. It could not be said that his speech was seditious.

Accused intimated that he did not intend to give evidence. His Worship: Well, you have put your case as well as it could be put, I think. Before giving a decision I desire to read through the whole speech, and you will therefore be remanded until to-morrow morning, when I will give my decision. SENTENCE OF TWELVE MONTHS. Fraser and Brindle were brought before the magistrate this morning, and each was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment.

MAN CHARGED AT HAMILTON

Press Association. HAMILTON, December 22. William M'Manus, a middle-aged I man, was charged to-day with sedii tious utterances, and was remanded, j bail being allowed in the sum of I £6OO.