THE LISTON CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16735, 17 May 1922, Page 7

THE LISTON CASE.

SEDITION “ALLEGED.

YESTERDAY’S PROCEEDINGS (Pkr Far.*! Association .) AUCKLAND, May 16. .jThe hearing of the charge of sedition against Bishop Liston was continue! in the Supremo Court to-day. The remainder of the evidence for (.lie Crown was on the lines of that in the lower Court. THE DEFENCE. For the defence Mr P. J. O’Regan said that in a cnarge of sedition based on newspaper reports the accused was usually confronted with a. shorthand note. In this instance a newspaper report was used. He had never heard of a case of the kind where a longhand report was used, supplemented b., the recollection, hazy in many cases, or witnesses, some of whom were obviously biassed. He submitted that the Crown had not made out a case to a nswerThe Judge said that proof of the words used was a matter of evidence. It would be impossible for him to withdraw the case from the jury when there was direct evidence that certain words had been used which might, in the opinion of the jury, convey seditious intention. Supposing there had been no reporter present and no report made might seditious words not be proved by those who heard them .*• In this case there was something «* little better than that. There was a skilled person present taking notes, though not iiU shorthand. Though there had been very serious discrepancies in tlie evidence as to what thd bishop actually said* that was a matter for the jury, not for the Bench. Air O’Regan, continuing, said Hie jury must be satisfied that the report on which the charge wras based, which was admittedly brief, was also in-

accurate. Bishop Liston had preserved rotes of his speech and they would be put in. 'Hie jury would have no difficulty in deciding, after hearing the bishop, that, he had no seditious intention, and that the words, if properly* reported, were not capable of that interpretation. The words had to bo taken in their setting, and it was altogether unfair to do as had been done hv (he Press throughout New Zealand, to publish what the bishop had said in one paragraph Isolated from the context and make drastic comment upon it. He had nr hesitation in saying that this was .« class of case which put the jury system to the severest test.

BISHOP LISTON’S EVIDENCE. Giving evidence, Bishop Liston said * was not a member of the concert

committee nor of the Self-Determin-ation League. He had never been a member of the league, and he ha 1 never attended a political meeting. This was the first pumio meeting he had addressed in Auckland- He spoke a. little longer than twenty minutes. It was about a week beforo the concert that lie. agreed to speak. He was asked a fortnight before it to speak, but was not ovit for the limelight. He prepared some notes (produced). He was born in Dunedin. His parents came to New Zealand in 1863 or 1864. Thev were horn in 1847 and 1849 respectively. He, admitted the report of his speech regarding their being driven from Ireland, and “ Snobs of Empire "was snbstantinlly correct. He was referring to the eviction of his parents and three and three-quarter millions evicted with them. He waf> recalling what eviction in Ireland meant. Air Meredith asked whether (his evidence was admissible. whether the words should not sjionk for themselves. His Honor said it was a question of intent, and witness was entitled to explain what his intent was. Continuing. Bishop Liston said the reference to “foreign masters was to landlords, who were mostly absentees, and in that sense were foreigners. They weix? both English and Irish. The report of his remarks about Ireland having had an instalment of her freedom was substantially correct. In that he gf*ve an historical statement of fact referring to the whole history of Ireland. The “first instalment of freedom" referred to the treaty, in his opinion the gift of God. because it gave political freedom to Ireland. By ‘ determined to have the whole of it ’’ he meant that though relations had been adjusted by the treaty between England and Ireland there was still a great deal to bo done, for instance, the union of the two parliaments. This could be. achieved by friendly agreement, without any force. He had not mentioned force and lie failed to see how his words could infer the use of force. He had in his mind the parallel between New Zen - , land and Ireland. The relations between New Zealand and the Mother Country had changed and were changing in a quite friendly way. The report about there being plenty to fight and die for Ireland did not accurately represent his statement. Quoting from his notes he declared his words to have been : “God has made Ireland a nation and while grass glows and water runs there will be men in Ireland, and wrflnen too, to fight and even die that God’s desire may lie realised.’’ Ho had no intention to infer that physical force should be used. His reference to Ireland as Empire builders had been very briefly reported, but accurately in the main. ’.l’he same applied to his remarks concerning Ireland’s achievements in art and literature, on which he had dwelt at considerable length. The comparison between the difficulties of the Umpire and of Ireland was in the main correctly reported. It inferred to the situation, which constituted the main reason why he spoke at all. .Many of their people were growing anxious about affairs in Ireland. and he wished to give them a word of encouragement. Two things had happened to raise hope, the con forence between Mr Michael Collins and Sir .James Craig and Air dc Yaleva’s statement at Paris that he would no.: oppose the Free State. This was what he had in mind when lie sai.d that Ireland’s troubles might lie overcome. He had no seditious intent whatsoever. The passage in his speech about the man who had stood by Ireland was in the main correctly reported. He referred to Air do \ alera. Everybody knew that Air do Valera did not agree with the form the treaty was taking. Ho thought it a good thing, in view of past history, that there should be a man on watch to see that Ireland got all she was entitled to. Coming to the passage, about the “ Glorious Easter of 1916” Bishop Liston said the passage did not accurately represent what he said. It was inaccurate. misleading and hopelessly bungled. He thought it was taken down by a. rna.n who. however honest, was fifl competent to take down a report- on Irish affairs as he himself would be to report a lecture on engineering. The document from which he rend that portion of his speech had come to him through the mail in the afternoon just before the concert. His words were: “ I have here a list of men and women who were proud to die lor Ireland during and since 1916. Of thwo sixteen were oven., ted hv si—*.

ing in 1916, fifty-two were killed while fighting during the Easter of 1916, including Terence M’Sweeney, Lord MajiW of Cork, died of hunger strike, eight executed by hanging, twelve executed bv shooting and fiftyseven, including three priests. were murdered by foreign troops." “Those,” said Dr Liston “ wero tlie exact Avords I used. Only those in the last category ■were meant to be described as murdered by foreign troops.” He did rw>t speak of the Easter week peo•ple as being murdered at all. He did not. refer to any woman as being killed in Easter week. Nothing would be further from his thought than to refer to those filled in Easter week as murdered. The word “ murdered” referred only to those killed in 1920 by the Black arid Tans, when the policy of reprisals was in lull swing- It would have been b»ctter to have mentioned the Black and latis instead of using the word “troops,” but bo took it his audience knew the word “murdered” was used because leading statesmen and Anglican clergy in England employed it. It referred to tlie Black and Tan reyri sals. The words “ glorious Easter ” he thought were itsed parenthetically V It Avas a common phrase applied to that insurrection. At the time it occurred many people in Dublin thought it a mad enterprise, but with the lapse of time it was felt those who had died had passed beyond criticism. The conclusion of his speech, about for giving but not forgetting, Aras report, ed briefly but very correctly.

He spoke without any show of feeling. and there was no disorder itt the audience. Fie had no seditious intention whatsoever. That he would say most emphatically- The first comment he read on his speech was in the “Herald” on Saturday morning, and the “Star” on Saturday evening. His first thought was that the report was grossly misrepresented. He made up his mind to deal Avith the matter fairly quickly. On Mruylay morning he got. a “Herald” about 8.15, contain-

’ ing a statement by the Mayor criticisr ing the speech- Tt was not until about an hour later that he received a letter from the A.fayor asking if he ’ Trad beetn correctly reported. H# 1 then wrote to the Mayor declining to replv as his protest had already been made public. There the matter ended. | Criminal proceedings were threatened and he was advised to keep silent, otherwise he. would have' given the 1 public of Auckland the explanation Tie was giving in that unhappy position. After the proceedings were announced ho wrote to the Prime Minister in 1 terms already published- That letter set forth the teachings of the Church anu his own personal sentiment?. I BISHOP CROSS-EX A MIfNED. To Air Meredith : When he first saw the report he felt himself grossly misrepresented. He would not care to be responsible for the remarks as reported. The speech as reported, had it been made, could be very well criticised. He felt that the words as reported would be improper as coming from prominent, man. But for the Mayor’s letter he would have made a statement clearing up the misunderstanding. In face of the threat of criminal proceedings ho was advised to keep silence. Mr Meredith : Did you not feel it due to the public and your Church to clear the matter up forthwith?—Not in a'ieA\ r of Air Gunson’s letter. When you wrote to the Prime Minister the position was the same?-- Substantially the same. Yet you altered your mind in writing to the Prime Minister?- — My letter treated of different things. Your letter did not say “ AT ords reported to have been used ? I had nothing to retract. Did you not think it due to the Prime Minister? - Not at that time. Did you not notice the turmoil which followed tout speech?- T saw the newspapers were excited, hut T did not know the people were. Seeing the way the papers treated the matter, might you not have given the Prime Minister the explanation yon have given to-day?- That is a matter of opinion, and I had good Did you not consider it might hare obviated these proceedings? -AYe did consider that, hut we decided against the course. - The term “ Glorious blaster was used in connection with the Plaster of ( 1916?—Ten. . , ~ It was the occasion of the insurrection in Dublin, in which there was considerable damage to property and loss ■ of life?—Yes. H was ultimately quelled hv bringing in troops? Troops from England. Acs. In what respect do you suggest it was : glorious?—Because of the mannei in which voung men of the highest probity died trying to do something Tor Ireland. Men of the rebel party? Y'es. In using those words did you support them?—I admired them. > When you used those words did you support and advocate their action t Witness: Must T answer that ques | tion. your Honor? Mr O’Regan objecting, his Honor | said he thought it was hardly a proper , question. Witness was being asked if j he supported the rebellion. Mr Meredith said that intent was 1 under consideration. He was asking | Bishop Liston what lie had in his mind in using the words just a.s he had ca plained himself regarding other j phrases. His Honor: If witness objects 1o j answering he is entitled to do so, and lie has objected. Dealing with the list of those who had died. Dr Liston said he had charged “murdered by British troop*” to • foreign troops” because he did not care to use the * word ‘‘British.’ Ho thought the word “ foreign ” 1 would be less offensive. This concluded the examination of Liston. The defence having other witnesses o call the case was adjourned till tomorrow. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE).