Persecution of Organiser Martin.

*THE WORKER*

Brisbane August 4, 1894

Persecution of Organiser Martin.

The case of Organiser James Martin was brought before the police magistrate at Winton on July 11^th, the charge being preferred against him by the notorious Sergeant Malone, who arrested him, as being a person of evil fame, under section 199 of the Justice Act of 1886, which reads as follows:

“When complaint in writing on oath is made before a justice that any person is a person of evil fame, and the complainant there from prays that the defendant may be required to find sufficient securities to be of good behaviour, such proceedings may be taken, and defendant required to find sufficient securities to keep the peace for such time as the justices may think proper, and, in default, may commit defendant to gaol for a period not exceeding six months.”

The organiser defended himself, and Malone being in hospital, it was said, for some reason or another, the case was remanded, Sub-inspector Dillon prevailing on the magistrate to refuse to grant bail to the organiser. The case came up again for hearing on July 13.

One of the principal witnesses was the complainant, who was called as Constable Pulley. He said; I remember the 2^nd of the month. I was at Oondooroo. I was a shearer. Defendant came there on Sunday night, and a meeting was held next morning , at which Martin spoke. After reading extracts from the WORKER, defendant read a telegram that several sheds, including Westlands, were out on strike, and then said that the Associated Workers' Union had asked the pastoralists to meet in conference, which had been declined; Martin said it had come to a time now (the 1^st instant) when he thought it was about time to kick against the eighth clause of the shearing agreement. He thought that the pastoralists were not very well situated at the present time, and the banks were pushing them. He also stated that now was their time to gain their ends, and if they did not now succeed they would never again succeed.

He stated that the country was not in the same position now as in 1891 with regard to police protection, and said, “I don't say you are going to kill anyone, and I don't say that you are not going to kill anyone; that lays amongst yourselves.” The meeting then adjourned, and the men proceeded towards the office to attend the roll call. It was decided to refuse to sign the agreement, but no vote was taken. The majority appeared to be in favour of “kicking” against the agreement. The men went towards the station, and Mr. Ramsay said, “Have you men come up to sign?” Several of the men desired to hear the agreement read out, which Mr. R. C. Ramsay did. Defendant was present at the time, in front of the crowd about the edge of the veranda, 6ft. from the office door. Mr. Ramsay commenced calling the roll, when defendant started talking to Mr. Ramsay, disapproving of the agreement. Martin spoke against the eighth clause. Pulley then went on to describe the disturbance that took place. He added; I received three blows. The man who struck me first I do not know. Defendant was about five feet from me when I started to push through the crowd. I never gave any provocation to lead to an assault. The crowd appeared to be very excited. I was covered with blood over the face, shirt, and waistcoat, and considered the position very unsafe, and that I was in danger. The speech made by Martin at the creek had a great influence on the men, and caused them not to sign the agreement.

I first knew the defendant in the end of April or May of this year at Cambridge Downs. I do not know that it was owing to the influence of any particular person that the assault was committed. As far as I know defendant took no part in the assault.

After calling one witness who denial that Martin had said anything calculated to incite the men to violence, or that he had used the word “kill” in any way, the defendant gave evidence on his own behalf. He then wished the case concluded, and stated that as bail was refused, be elected to have the case concluded that evening.

One of the strong points against him was that he was found in possession of a revolver and number of cartridges. He maintained that it was necessary for every bushman to carry firearms, in consequence of the frequency of murders and assaults. Regarding the quantity of cartridges carried, Martin said that it was not all unusual for bushmen to carry such; they frequently had “practice” on the road. He emphatically denied that he used the words, “I don't say you are going to kill anyone, and I don't say you are not.” He had no hand in the assault on Pulley, and he considered that he was acting in a legal manner when going round the country advising men not to sign the pastoralists' agreement. The charge against him was of the most flimsy nature.

Sub-inspector Dillion replied, stating that previous to the arrival of Martin in the district the men were peaceably disposed, and that since the advent of Martin in the district, outrages had occurred.

The defendant was required to enter into a recognisance, himself in £100, and two sureties of £50 each, to be of good behaviour for six months, or in default to be imprisoned in Rockhampton gaol, unless in the meantime the required recognisance is given.