By Government

23 "MARCHING RULE" LEADERS SENT TO GAOL Extraordinary Movement In Solomons Broken Up By Government

From Our Own Correspondent

Honiara. Feb. 16.

WHEN 29 leaders of the “Marching Rule” Movement (“Marching Rule” was coined as the result of the at tempt by natives to say “Marxian Law”), were brought to trial here, an important stage was reached in one of the most remarkable developments in this part of the South Pacific.

The trial, which lasted 25 days, was concluded here on February 14.

Six of the accused were found not guilty; nine were sentenced to six years’ imprisonment with hard labour; the re mainder received sentences ranging from five years to one year.

In giving judgment, the Judicial Com missioner (Mr. W. T. Charles) said that the cause of the case was the legality of Marching Rule on Malaita. Marching Rule would, under the law, be illegal if it— • had some members who. as a re quirement of Marching Rule, were under an agreement not to disclose any sed itious activities of the movement to the Government: or • was part of a wider movement in other islands also and as such had its own separate delegates, or acted inde pendently of the other party; or • had appointed delegates to obtain re cruits or to confer with delegates of other branches of the society.

He said that the movement would not be illegal if its aims were exclusively re ligious or charitable.

The accused’s defence was that March

ing Rule aims were the protection of pro perty; the care of children, the aged, in firm and sick; the preservation of native customs, and similar objects.

The Judicial Commissioner found, how ever, that Marching Rule had in fact— (l) disclosed to those it was persuading to join the movement that, secretly, Marching Rule was to prevent workers from accepting employment, to take over courts, the means of punishment, and all other Government functions: (2) set up private police forces known as “duties,” who made arrests, acted as guardians of persons accused and con victed by Marching Rule, and were often armed with truncheons or bayonets. (The Judicial Commissioner said that, in the face of the evidence, the accused’s contention that the function of “duties” was to act as a fire brigade and as nursemaids and kindergarten attendants had received the consideration it de served) . (3) Marching Rule had set up illegal courts in deliberate defiance of Govern ment and had illegally held people prisoner.

In consequence, the Judicial Commis sioner held that Marching- Rule on Malaita was an illegal organisation and that the convicted persons were members of it.

GOVERNMENT for nearly three now has been trying to direct the energies of Marching Rule into more productive channels and, in particular, into the native councils and courts set up as

a training ground in democracy, and operating under Government advice and control —a policy instituted, it must be stressed, long before Marching Rule was heard of.

These courts and councils have wide legal powers, including all those demanded by Marching Rule, with the single ex ception that gerieral control and power to review court sentences was insisted upon by Government and denied by Marching

Rule. Government patiently tried to point out to Marching Rule leaders that they were not qualified to wield such wide powers without supervision, and was forced finally to act in defence of private rights, on the complaints of persons un justly and illegally imprisoned by the organisation.

This by no means indicates, however, that the policy of educating Solomon

Islanders to self-government, by allowing them powers to regulate their own affairs, is to be dropped, merely because certain misguided persons attempted to take absolute powers into their own hands.

In many places in the Protectorate, Government-sponsored native courts and councils are progressing well. The pro gress of the Solomon Islanders to self government has been checked by March ing Rule impetuousness—but not halted.