Page:The Trial of Gandhi.djvu/5

 counsel then read out portions of articles written by Mr. GanhiGandhi [sic] in the “Young India.”

Court said nevertheless it seemed to it that the Court could accept plea on the materials on which the sentence had to be based.

Sir J. T. Strangman said the question of sentence was entirely for the Court to decide. The Court was always entitled to deal in a more general manner in regard to the question of the sentence than the particular matter resulting in the conviction. He asked leave to refer to articles before the court and what result might have been produced, if the trial had proceeded in order to ascertain what the facts were. He was not going into any matter which involved dispute.

The Judge said there was not the least objection, Sir J. T. Strangman said he wanted to show that these articles were not isolated. They formed part of an organized campaign, but so far as “Young India” was concerned, they would show that from the year 1921. The Counsel then read out extracts from the paper, dated June 8, on the duty of a non-cooperator, which was to preach disaffection towards the existing government and preparing the country for civil disobedience. Then in the same number there was an article on disobedience. Then in the same number there was an article on disaffection—a virtue or something to that effect. Then there was an article on the 28th of July, 1921, in which it was stated that “we have to destroy the system.” Again, on September 30, 1921, there was an article headed, “Punjab Prosecutions” where it was stated that a non-cooperator worth his name should preach disaffection. That was all so far as “Young India” was concerned. They were earlier in date than the article “Tampering with Loyalty,” and it was referred to the Governor of Bombay. Continuing, he said the accused was a man of high educational qualifications and evidently from his writings a recognised leader. The harm that was likely to be caused was considerable. They were the writings of an educated man, and not the writings of an obscure man and the Court