The Dominion. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1912. A "FREE" COUNTRY.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1617, 7 December 1912, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1912. A "FREE" COUNTRY.

In April next the electors of Australia will be asked to declare by popular vote their acceptance or rejection of the proposals of the Australian Labour Caucus with regard to certain important—fundamentally important—amendments to_ the Federal Constitution.' Not satisfied with the answer of the people upon the proposals embodied in the referendum of 1911, the Caucus now presents.proposals of practically similar import, trusting m part to the improved organisation of its political system, but mainly to a separation of the different issues submitted, to carry at least some of the changes. We do not propose at this stage to examine at iength_ the various proposals in the six Bills into which the referendum is now divided. We will say this, however, that if the referendum is carried the Labour Caucus in Australia will be invested with arbitrary and tyrannical powers practically similar to those enjoyed" by the French Jacobin Club of the revolutionary period, and in the exercise of its authority may be expected to be just aB intolerant. In a land where liberty and personal equality are held to be essential to the spirit and intention of democratic legislation, there will be no freedom for anybody, for the people of Australia, by passing these proposals, will voluntarily place themselves and the Commonwealth under the absolute domination of a political machine almost as well organised for boss rule as is the Tammany maohine which has corrupted and degraded the administration of the law in the United' States. The Labour Caucus has already demonstrated that the tendency of boss rule in its regard for constitutional rights and traditions is downward, not upward. It will not tolerate individual conscience, or personal principle. The ideal of the Caucus is that wnat it shall say, shall bo—every trade unionist must oome to heel at the crack of the party whip, and vote yos or no as the Caucus directs. Tho Federal Constitution has been in existence for ten years, and it has been left for a Labour Caucus to propose amendments which will subject private enterprise to an intolerable overlordship, and weaken the indepchdence and impair tho efficacy of the Australian judiciary. For example, the second question to be propounded to the electors of Australia at the referendum reads as follows : — Whon each House of Parliament, in the came eeeaion, lion by resolution dwUrM that tho indwtrv or bustjieas of producing, Bwaufestuacs, <a BUJSWBS &BJ

specified goods, or of supplying any specified services, is tho subject of a inouopuly, tho Parliament shall havo power to mako laws for carrying on the industry or business by, or umlor tho control of, tho Commonwealth, and acquiring for that purposo on just terms any prow)Z"ty uwxl in connection with tho industry or business.

Apart from tho general purposo of tho clause, which is to convert at tho will of Parliamcntr—which is tho Caucus—an enfcorpriso deemed by tho Caucus to be a privato monopoly into a State monopoly. There is also the most amazing and impudent suggestion that tho determination of tho very involved and highly technical question as to whether a particular enterprise is the subject of a monopoly or not is to be left to the will of Parliament, not to tho High Court, tho privileges and functions of which are, of course, characteristically ignored. In a Labour Parliament, this question would not oven bo determined within the walls of tho Legislature, but in tho secret conclavea of tho Caucus. Thoro is no other possiblo interpretation of the clause referred to, and positively no escape from tho contingent domination of the Caucus machine. Precisely the same "democratic" 'assault upon constitutional principle contributed to tho rejection of Mr. Roosevelt at the recont Presidential election in the United States. At Columbus, last February, Mb. Roosevelt declared that tho American Constjtution should provide "means which will permit tho people themselves by popular vote, after duo deliberation and discussion, but finally and without'appeal, to settle what tho proper construction of any Constitutional point is": to- the Third Party Convention he submitted that the people "should be given the chance, after full and deliberate judgment, authoritatively to settle what interpretation'it-is that their representatives shall thereafter adopt as binding." Of these proposals, tne Now York Evening Post observed:

"It aeededi vwy little dissection of this political proposal to show what it meant. It was not the assertion of the people's right to alter the organic law, because all existing Constitutions confer that power. What it did mean was that' any Constitutional provision might bo , interpreted, and any previous interpretation of. it by the highest courts might bo reversed, at the will of a popular majority obtained in a single vote—^without restraint, delay, or deliberation except such as the voters should choose to impose upon themselves;, and tha/t this overruling of the courts might be done under th© influence of passion, excitement, hard times, or demagogic leadership.

When tho adoption of tho American Federal Constitution itself was under popular consideration, The Federahst newspaper especially stressed the doctrine that "the complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution," an independence which, quotes the New York Post, "in monarchies is essential to guard _the'_ rights of the subject from the injustice of the Crown, in republics is equally salutary in protecting the Constitution and the laws from the encroachments and the tyranny of faction." "A majority held in restraint by Constitutional checks and limitations," the 'late President Lincoln declared in his first inaugufal address, "is the only true sovereign of a free people." How very far removed from this high ideal are the campaign declarations of Me. Roosevelt, and the declared intentions of tho AustralianLabour Caucus !, In Australia, tho Caucus machine will shortly have, to consider the appointment of a Judge of the High Court, in succession to the late Mr. Justice O'Connor.' The Federal High Court haa incurred the iro of trade unionism by its steadfast adherence to the principle that the Australian Constitution cannot be made subservient to Acts of Parliament—it must remain intact unless altered by the will of the people. Parliamentary enactments which have conflicted with the principles of the Constitution have been declared ultra vires by Sir Samuel Griffiths, Sir Edmund Barton, and the lato Mr. Justice O'Connor. Not so with Mr. Justioe Hiqqin3 and Mr. Justice Isaacs, who regard the Legislature (which at present js the Caucus) as a properly constituted interpreter of the Constitution. Suite recently, the Chief Justice deared that a certain course taken by tho Crown, as represented by the Federal Attorney-General, in an alleged monopoly case, was vory unfair, and the Attorney-General ; Mr. Hughes, did not hesitate to criticisa the. Chief Justice's craduct in Parliament, which ' again, commented Liberty and Progress, was a new de--parture on the part of the legal representative of the Crown. The same lournal goes on to say: "By appointing a judge of similar political views to Mr. Justice Isaacs and Mr. Justice Higoins, it will, in all probability soon bo able to get the past constitutional decisions of the High Court .reversed.' The two judges mentioned have always taken the stand that they will not _ consider themselves bound by previous decisions when sitting with their brethren on the Bench. With a new judpe of their own mind, the majority will be able to proceed to lay down the constitutional law after their own fashion, leaving the Chief Justice and Sir Edmund Barton in a hopeless minority." We have outlined, broadly, the situation which confronts Australia in connection with the referendum nosals of the Labour Caucus. As ave said, the very liberty of the individual is threatened by the Caucus machine, which can create or destroy. It created Mr. x ßeeby a Cabinet Minister, and because Mr. Beeby, who is the brainiest member of the New South Wales Cabinet, has asserted some independence of principle, due punishment, in tha shape of political extinction So far as Labour is concerned awaits him. "There are some questions _ upon whioh a man should take his own stand," says Mr. Beeby, "and tho present question (the referendum) is to mo one upon which all citizens should maintain the- right of free discussion without party domination ; this statement may involve my retirement from politics, and I make it deliberately, knowing that this risk is involved." It is this right of free discussion that tho Australian Labour machine seeks to, destroy, and will destroy if the people of the Commonwealth do not _ placo _ a stricter guard upon their own interests.