Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 15.pdf/172

 A Twentieth Century Trial for High Treason. about half an hour to read. Each count was for adhering to, comforting and aiding the Queen's e.nemies, after which was set forth the various overt acts constituting the of fence. The trial commenced on January 23d, in the Lord Chief Justice's Court before Lord Alverstone (Lord Chief Justice), Mr. Justice Wills and Mr. Justice Channels, a true bill having been found against the prisoner on December igth. An imposing array of coun sel was engaged in the case, amongst whom may be mentioned, for the Crown, the Attor ney General (Sir R. B. Finley, K. C), the Solicitor General (Sir E. Carson, K. C.), Mr. H. Sutton, Mr. Charles Matthews and Mr. Guy Stephenson, instructed by Lord Desart, the Director of Public Prosecutions; for the prisoner, Mr. Shee, K. C., Mr. Avory, K. C., Mr. Brion and Mr. Dwyer. The court having been opened, the usual proclamation was made and the jury were empanelled. About one hundred and fifty jurymen had been summoned, but as no one was challenged this proceeding only occu pied a few minutes, and the Master of the frown Office then read the indictment. The prisoner was next called upon to plead, but before he did so his counsel moved to quash the indictment on the ground that it disclosed no offence under the statute. The motion was, however, refused by the court on the ground that this was not the proper time at which to take the objection. The prisoner then pleaded "not guilty," the jury were sworn, and the Attorney General opened the case for the Crown. The prison er's points of defence were, in the main, three in number. First, that already noticed; sec ondly that he was a naturalized burgher; and thirdly, that he was in the Transvaal and with the 2cl Irish Brigade in his capacity as a journalist and war correspondent and not as a combatant. On the first point, when it eventually came on for discussion, the prisoner's counsel ar

gued that the words "be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm" must mean either (i) that the accused person being in the realm has been adherent to the King's enemies wherever they were, or (2) that the enemy being in the realm the accused had been adherent to them wherever he was. But every case that had been decided impliedly decided that the accused must be in the realm when he did the overt act. The Lord Chief Justice—What do you say the words "or elsewhere" in the section mean? Mr. Avory said that if the accused person was in the realm he might be giving aid to and comforting the King's enemies outside the realm. The point was, however, as will be readily surmised, not allowed. Nor had the contention of the defence that the pris oner was a properly naturalized burgher a more successful result. Mr. Shee's and Mr. Avory's argument on this point was to the effect that the Naturalization Act of 1870 laid down no limit of time or circumstances as to when a citizen might become a natur alized member of a foreign State. The legis lation did not intend to treat as a traitor a subject who in fact became naturalized abroad. The Attorney General replied that the point taken for the prisoner was, that al though war was raging between this country and another, a British subject might lawfully become naturalized under the Act of 1870. He should ask their Lordships to say that this statute had no application to an act which in itself would be a crime. It was nat uralization in view of the existence of a state of war, naturalization which could only be obtained upon this British subject pledging himself to fight against Great Britain. The naturalization could not in fact be obtained until the prisoner had adhered to the enemies •M his country, and had made a declaration that he was willing to take up arms against this country. Thus, in effect, two overt acts