DIVORCE AND NATURALISED GERMANS

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 20, 18 October 1919, Page 5

DIVORCE AND NATURALISED GERMANS

Sir,—Permit me to call tho attention of your readers to the Di.-orce and Matrimonial Causes Amendment Bill, 1919, which has been passed by tho Legislative Council. The purposes of the Act, so far as persons of- enemy origin are concerned, appear to bo— 1. To prqvent the children of a German father and a British mother resident in New Zealand from being brought up as Germans or with German sympathies, or being taken back to Germany. This is proposed to be achieved by making the mother their guardian, to the exclusion of tho father. 2. To prevent a British woman, who is the wife of a German resident in New Zealand, from being dragged,off to Germany or else left stranded because she refuses to accompany him. Thn Act applies to Austrians, Turks, and Bulgarians as well as Germans, whether naturalised or not, but the number of inter-marriages with the first three is negligible compared to thosi with Germans. With the general idea of the .Act most citizens will lie in sympathy. lis provisions, however, are grossly unjust to the German who is a naturalised Ttritifh subject and who has lovallv observed his oath of allegiance. With the naturalised German who is disloyal,_ tho remedy is easy. Wo havo tho powor to denaturalise him and to renationalise his British wife. Tn siitfh case she might well lie made tlw guardian of her infant children and be granted the right to a divorce if her husband left 'Iht to return to Germany or wished to take Iter back to that country against her will. But why the loyal naturalised German should, cspeciallv now that he is treated as a helot in. New Zealand, be chained to the country under penalty of being divorced from liis wife it is hard to understand, According to tho Bill this penalty attaches to him no matter whether his duty to his employer necessitates his going elserwhero in the Byitish Empire,

whether a good opening presents itself for his abilities in another Dominion, or whether ho wishes to travel on business or pleasure. Ho may 1» in a bank or business firm that gives him an appointment in Australia, ho may bo offered a post in Canada or South Africa, or even be sent to England, where ho may wish to have his boy? educated at Oxford or Cambridge. No matter.. At the end of twelve months, his wife, even if slio consented to his departure from New Zealand, whatever service he may bo renddering to the British Empire, in entitled to her divorce. Tho Court has no-option in tho matter. As long as there is no collusion—anil what an opportunity the Bill gives for collusion—tho Court must dissolve tho marriage if tho husband has been continuously absent from New Zealand for morn than twelve months, even if the wife lias no reasonablo ground whatever for refusing to join him. In a case of this kind it might have been expected that the husband against whom such drastic provisions are»enacted would bn given exceptional opportunities of defending himself The reverse is the ense. Personal service is unnecessary. The Court may order notice by letter or even by advertisement, and may accept such evidence as it thinks fit, whether strictly legal or not, that, the husband is a person of enemy origin. This is panic legislation run mad, which would be farcical if it were not so contrary to all British traditions of justice. Wo have taken away the rights of naturalised Germans as British citizens in New Zealand by preventing them from acouiring aiiT interest in land without a license. (Tho present practice of the Government is to ' grant no general licenses, to refuse a. license to acquire rural land, and to compel application for a license in each instance.) Now it is proposed to take away from them the custody and control of their children, and having done so,' tho Government says: "We shall now compel you to stay in New Zealand for ever under penalty of being divorced by your wife." , I wish to emnhasipe the fact that this legislation applies not merely to enemies but to Briit.sh citizens, even if they have been loyal, Jiave done their bit for Eng; land during tho war, so far as they were nerinitted to do so, and havo lost sons fighting for the Empire. I trust that the House of Representatives will carefully scrutinise the Bill and realise its full signification before accepting it. "Privilegia" are as dangerous now as they were in the days of ancient Rome.—l am, etc.. H. F. VON HAAST. October 13.