"OPPOSED TO WAR."

Waikato Times, Volume 99, Issue 16634, 27 October 1925, Page 9

"OPPOSED TO WAR."

NEWSPAPER COMMENT. EX-M.P. CLAIMS £SOOB, "I will not admit that I. advocated revolutionary Socialism. What is revolutionary Socialism to one person might mean quite a different thing to another . . . 1 do not believe in

sending men to a war I would not go I,: mvsolf. I am opposed to war. . . . I believe in a 'Working-class Republic'

. . I deny that I was ever disloyal to King or Empire." These were a few expressions to which Michael Patrick Gonsidinc, an exmember of the Federal Parliament, g-ave utterance when under cross-ex-amination by .Mr Shand, K.G., during the hearing of an action brought by him in Sydney against the proprietors of "Truth" newspaper to recover £SOOO compensation for alleged libel contained in an article appearing in an issue of that paper published in Adelaide on February 2 1 last.

In his opening lo Hie jury. Mr Curtis explained thai his client was the secretary of the Barrier District of the Workers' Industrial Union of Australia (Mining Department', of which lie was formerly the president. The article ho complained of was one which accused him of debasing the position he held as secretary of the union," and which, if true, rendered him unlit for that position. There were several unions in the Broken Mil district, and in January last negotiations had been going on between the employers and employees in respect of wages and better conditions of the men. " Delegates had proceeded to Melbourne and had returned to Broken Hill with the information that the terms thai had been submitted had been rejected. On February I a mass meeting was held, at which it was decided to turn down the terms of the owners.

Matters at the time, said counsel, were looking very serious, and it became necessary that (he members should work together and endeavour to bring about a cessation of the trouble. Indeed, the position had become so acute that it was necessary that a man should come to Sydney to confer with the Labour people here, and the plaintiff was selected for-that purpose. He arrived there on February 15. The defendant newspaper subsequently contained an article headed, "Barrier Strike Spectre," "Miners' Ominous Decision," "Financial and Moral Assistance Sought," and embraced other phrases, such as:—"lf Fight Is Forced On." "Perhaps Merely an Intrigue for Darling Seat," and

'•Are Miners Pawns in Political Game?" The article concluded with .the words: "The strike tluust may be only one of the moves in the sordid game of politics." Plaintiff declared that the article meant that lie had been guilty of politically engineering, and was willing to foment strikes with the object of gaining his own ends, and to serve his own purpose. The defence was a general plea of not guilty.

Revolutionary Socialism

Cross-examined by Mr Shand, plaintiff said lie had been connected with Labour ideals for a great many years, but he would not admit that he was a Socialist, and advocated revolutionary Socialism. What was revolutionary Socialism to one person might mean quite a different thing to another. He admitted, however, that during the war he was prosecuted under the War Precautions Act for using offensive language against the King, but he denied that he ever used the words, and said he was wrongly convicted. He also denied that during the war, in 1017, at Broken Hill, he had in any way been connected with the hooting of soldiers. Plaintiff knew Paul Freeman, hut he denied he had advocated revolutionary Socialism with him and he also denied that he had communicated extensively with him.

Plaintiff, when asked by Mr Shand what he meant by a republic, replied: "What ordinary people mean. The people to be free lo elect their chief executive officer. 1 believe in a republic of that kind."

And, believing that, you look the oath of allegiance as a member of Parliament, and look the oath to the King?—That is so. In answer to Mr Shand as to whether he opposed the sending of troops out of the State, plaintiff said lie was opposed to war. lie did nol believe in sending men to a war he would not go to himself.

Against Imperialism. Plaintiff declared himself against Imperialism, and said he did not believe in the existing capitalistic system. He believed in a "Workingclass Republic." He denied that he was Acting-Bolshevik Consul here. Ittook Sirninoff's place; he was acting f( r the Russian Government. When a member of Parliament he wrote to .;. Garden, congratulating him on the launching of the "One Big Union." lie admitted thai in 1017 he had gone to Port Pirie with other delegates, and thai there was a cessation of work, bul he denied that he had done anything lo bring about such cessation other than the carrying out of lhe instructions of his union. He denied thai he was ever disloyal, either [< the King or Empire. The case is part-heard.