Indians Sentenced for Sedition HIM. Supreme Court on July 22 before Judge G. W. King and jury consisting of "Messrs. N. David, G.E.O. Mayne, W.G.
LIN. Cum Sapuran having had in his possession on June 29, 1930, certain seditious Publications, with intent to distribute the same, Article 81 of the China Order. in Counelt (1925).
'The prisoner refused to plead and his Lordship entered a plea of "not guilty" on his behalf. After hearing the evidence the jury returned a verdict of "guilty" and a sen-'That the distributable balance of tence of two months' hard labour, with deportation to follow, was imposed, Mr. Victor Prestwood, Avistant Crown Advocate,—prosecvted; the prisoner was undefended.
Outlining the case for the prosecution, Mr, Priestwood said that at about 8.35 pu. on June 29. the prisoner was seen walking along the north side of Bubbling Well Road towards Mohawk Road distributing pamphlets to civilians and members of HIM. Forces. He had translations was Instead of reeling, "I India we are being exterminated tke same manner as dog and ea! the passage should have read "We: are being beaten in the same manner: '3 dog and cat," he said. In answer to his Lordship, the -police inter-prefer denied that this interpreta-tien could be put upon the words in the pamphlets.
Asked by his Lorship if he ished. to give evidence or to make any statement, the "My only' witness is God, do as you like."
His Lords Mz. Priestwood that. in in, then greed with the refusal of the prisoner 10 give evidence in his own behalf it was unnecessary for the Crown t> make any closing speech.
Summing up, his Lordship re minded the Jury that wi the attitude of the prisoner had male hhis task @ hard one they must not! permit that attitude to their deliberations. There three factors which sider. First, had the prisoner in his postessicn certain publica Secondly, did he intend to publi and distribute the same? Thirdly, were those been arrested by Actg. Det. Insptr. D.B. Ross, with the assistance of of the Ist Bu. The ire Regiment and C.P.C, 3850. The pamphlets were written in English, Chinese, and Garmuki Giving evidence, Det. Insptr. Ross said that at about 8.39 p.m. fon June 29 he was proceeding east long Bubbling Well Road in motor ear when he aw an walking in a westerly along the north side of the road almost opposite the Carlton Building. The Indian was handing pamphlets to Chiness and foreign pedestrians and also to soldiers in Uniform. The witness said shat he stopped the car and asked one of the soldiers for one of the namyhlets. this was written in English and 'Chinese and emanated from tue Eastern Oppressed Peoptes' Associa. tion. He theb arrested the prisoner, who threw a number of parphle: s the air. While in the police moter car after his arrest, the Trisoner demanded that a bundle {ying on the to him. Thi bundle was found to contain an Indian ational Congress scattered by que concerned, the Crown had troved fts case. "As regarded the third: question, the jury must bear in mind that seditious matter, fined by the authorities, was matter calculated to incite tumult or dis ode!
Although Hberty of the Press and freeder thought existed within the British Empire suen liberty and such freedom hen they threatened thority. Tt was impossible te shut one's eyes to the fa that trouble in India which Government was tryins to overcome and the jury must decide whether the pamphlets involve the ease represented 9 genuine attempt to alleviate th state of affairs i tempt to incite the people of India. to agitate against the Bri Crown.
The jury brought a verdict as stated and were sed from, further duty for a period of one year, In H. M, Supreme Court on July' 25, before Jud G. W. King and a jury consisting of Messrs. R. A. R. Owen, J. J. Judah, found that 13 of there were printed in English and and. 67 in Gurumkhi, the Sikh written language.
Pte. John Hobbs, of the 1st Bu. The Worcestershire Reginent, said that the prisoner had handed Lampblets to both himself and his companion, Pte. Poffey, while they were crossing Bubbling Weir Road to Mohawk Road at about 8.40 pan, on June 29. Other pamphlets had been given to both Chinese and foreign pedestrians. The pamphlets handed to him were the same as those in court. The: prisoner had been taken to Central Police Station by the last witness and he and Pte, Poffey had accompanied them.
Pte. Stanley Poffey, also of the Worcestershire Teegiment, corroborated the evidence of Pte. Hobbs end added that he had seen the Pamphlets in the possession of the prisoner. C.P.C, 1850 said that he was on traffic duty at Bubbling Well and Myburgh Roads on June 29 and assisted Det. Inspr. Ross to arrest the prisoner. He also picked up pamphlets which the prisones had zeattered in the roadway.
Faujah Singh, police interpreter, said that he had translated the pamphlets for the police. The translations in court wore accurate.
His Lordship said that the translations. must be read tack to the prisoner by some one cther than} Faujah Singh who understood Gurmukhi. A man named Sharmer volunteering for this duty, the Insurance Association for an amount of Tls. 2,000,000, being the direct security for the debenture holdes. In addition to this specific security there is the further security repre sented by the investment of the ordinary share capital, amounting to Tls. 3,192,500, The meeting then terminated.
July 3 certain publications contain ing seditious matter, with intent to tribute the same, contrary Article 80, Sub-Section 1, of the China Order in Council (1925).
He was found guilty and sentence ed to two months? hard labour, with deportation to follow.
Mr. Victor Priestwood, Assistant, Crown Advocate, prosecuted; the the jury, was} not present in court when his name was called by the Registrar. His Lordship fined him £5, but said that he would be given every opportunity to show why such fine Should not be levied.
Outlining the case for the Crows, Mr. Priestwood said that on July. 3, in consequence of certain reports lo to dixwell Road Police Station regarding the distribution of seditious pamphlets at the corner of North Szechuen and Paoshing Roads, Det. Sub-Inspt. - G. Bennett and Pro F. Wats Set. son visited that district in a motor car about 11 p.m. They saw two Indians, one of whom was" tae prisoner, standing at the intersect tion of those roads. The prisoner was arrested after a struggle, but the other Indian escaped into Chapei. At the time of his arrest, the Prisoner had a bundle of pamphlet: under his left arm which were the same as those in court.
Det. Sub-Insp. Bennett said that three complaints were made to the Dixwell Road Police Station on July 3 regarding the activities of Indians, the last report being made at about 10.15 pam. by Mr. N. Isaacs, a Special Constable. Accompanied by Prob. Sgt. Watson, and Chinese detective No. 249 he then went by motor ear in a southerly direction along North Jdians distributing pamphlets at the joomer of North Szechuen and Pao-shing Roads. One of them, whom he identified as the prisoner, was arrested, the other escaping into Chapei. ' When arrested the prison-for dropped 200 pamphlets on the ground. These were picked up by the Chinese detective and were in Prob, sat. Watson corroborated.
nee ard added that the prisoner was cautioned and charged in the usual way.
Mr. N.S, Isaacs, who said that he was employed by the Shanghai Horse Bazaar & Motor Ca, Ltd, and a Special Constable, said that at about 10.90 p.m. on July 3 while walking from north to scuta along North Szechuen Road he saw two Indians, one of whom was the prisoner, distributing pamphlets to pedestrians and also throwing them into passing tramcars and busses. He watched them for some time and then went to the Oversea Garage and telephoned to the Hongkew Police Station, the Dic-well Road line being busy. He also went by motor car to the Dix-Road Station where he saw the prisoner in custody.
At the conclusion of Mr. I evidence, his Lordship thanked for his public-spirited conduct. may say that the thanks of the "for your vigilant work interest." in the' publi A clerk in the employ of the Municipal Council having given evidence to the effect that the Chinese and English texts of seized pamphlets were identical, and Sgt, H, Yamaguchi having been recalled for questioning by the prisoner, hi Lordship asked the prisoner if he wished to give evidence in his own behalf. The prisoner said "Only God knows.
I do not wish to sa} than T said in the His Lordship then read out for the information of the jury the statement made by the prisoner before his committal for trial.
1 up, his Lordship said that the case was in many respects similar to the one concluded on Tuesday and he was sure that the members of the jury had read his remarks on the subject of sedition as published subsequently in the Press. The jury Would have to ask themselves very much the same Jquestions: Had the prisoner eer-tain publications in his possession? Did he intend to publish and distribute the same? Were those pubations seditious? opinion, the Crown had as far asthe first two questions were concerned. The jury must then consider if the ppoblications were seditious. Sediious matter was defined by. the China Order in Council, under which the trial was brought, matter calculated to cause tumult or disorder. Tt could fairly be assumed, if other definitions, inclu that of Mr. Justice Stephen's twere taken into consideration, that seditious matter wi dom of speech and writing existed throughout the British Empire. Every British subject was entitle fed to express his opinion. He might attack politicians, as indeed had been and still was being done; hho might attack or criticize. the Government or try to show that the Government by its conduct had brought about a certain state of affairs. But such attacks or eri sin must be expressed carefully, land language calculated to cause public discontent or disaffection must be studiously avoided. It was impossible to shut one's eyes to the fact that there was certain discont-
China, and also trouble in which the British Government ax endeavouring to overcome, and the jury must consider the effect which the language used in the pamphlets would have on tha people of China or on Indiar natio here.
The pamphlets were, to say the least, very strongly worded. They started by condemning the Simon Commission, saying: "The report of the Simon Commission has forced S.|India to draw the sword". Tnoy also contained such expressions ast revolutionary mass. action, and the revolution has gone [beyond a petty bourgeoisie movement." They had been thrown ints trams and "buses, There was na evidence to show by whom the trams or buses were occupied, but it was evident that the intention had been to distribute the pamphlets indiscriminately, to both Chinese and foreign travellers and to both Chinese and foreign pedestrians, After a short deliberation, the Jury returned the verdict as stated. His Lordship said that much as ho disliked saying anything to hurt the feelings of a convicted person must say that he saw no excuse for the prisoner's conduct and, in the circumstances, would impose the maximum sentence under the tute, one of two months' hard la-dour, with deportation to follow.
The members of the jury were excused from further duty for a Period of one year.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.