The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is in corporated the West Coast Times. MONDAY, JANUARY 4th, 1926. THE DEPORTATION CASE.

Hokitika Guardian, 4 January 1926, Page 2

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is in corporated the West Coast Times. MONDAY, JANUARY 4th, 1926. THE DEPORTATION CASE.

iiiwnrj [Jiipvi \wiu.V> i 'ilLllvl IIILPIPMingIy on the New South Wales deportation ease, and on that account we iind room for the article to-day, for it throws much light on the legal and political situation which became dually involved. The “Sydney Herald 1 ’ says; There i.s a tendency m certain nuar-

tors to acclaim the finding of the High Court in the Walsli-Jolinson cases as a “\ictor.v” lor Labour. The assumption is ridiculous, and is insulting to the Court itself. Judicial tribunals do not take sides. They declare the law without fear or favour. The decision was no more a victory for Labour than, had it been in a contrary sense, it would have been a victory for the Nationalists. Moreover, the Court did not sit in judgment over Messrs Walsh and Johnson, it did not review the circumstances which led to their appearance before the Board, ncr had it anything to say about the evidence which led to the recommendation-. It was not concerned with their doings at ail. The sole question before the Court was whether the Commonwealth Government possesses, tinier the Constitution, the power which t sought- to exercise; it held that the Government does not. When the reea.se of Messrs Walsh and Johnson was irst ordered, the reasons were not given, and there wore seen to he tu o possibilities. The summons liefore the Court, the arrest or the detention ai Garden Island, might have been invalid on technical grounds, and the irregularity might he one which could he cured without great difficulty. But there was an alternative, involving a more fundamental issue. The Government might- have exceeded it.s constitutional character. This is the proposition which the High Court has affirmed. The cases are added to the not inconsiderable list of those in which the High Court has pronounced legislation passed by the Commonwealth Parliament to Ik? ultra vires. They show how extremely hard it is for the most experienced and competent legal advisers of the Commonwealth to say in advance whether a measure is constitutional or unconstitutional. The Federal Parliament is empowered to legislate in regard to various matters, including immigration, trade, commerce, and so forth. Proceedings were instituted before the Board in pursuance of Section 8.-VA of the Immigration Act, the recent amendment which purports to authorise the deportation in certain contingencies, of persons net horn in Australia. In respect of this clause two views were expressed by the Court. The Chief Justice held that it was mimed at and hit immigrants, and not members of the Australian community. In so far it was valid, but. he said, it should not lie construed as extending to persons who had made their homes in the country and become part of the people. Those who have

resided in Australia for a number of years, as Messrs Walsh and Johnson have done, cannot properly be termed immigrants. Mr Justice Higgins, on the other hand, considered that the section was intended to apply to members of the Autralian community, and was therefore invalid. But either way the effect is the same. The contemplated deportations were illegal. Sir Adrian Ivnox further observed that the acts enumerated in the section as supplving grounds for deportation are not prohibited, either by that section or by any other law of the Commonwealth, nor is any punishment provided for their commission. So there the matter stands. The Commonwealth Government’s plans have miscarried. The High Court has saved Messrs Walsh and Johnson from a sea change. We are not to be deprived of their company. The activities which the Deportation Board found to he inimical to the welfare of the Commonwealth ■are apparently, within the law. There we may leave Bosses Walsh and Johnson and consider a more general aspect of the case. Things not forbidden by statute may at the same time be extremely objectionable. Practices lor which no penalty exists may. nevertheless, gravely prejudice the body politic. Surely the incitements of firebrands, wbo persistently foment discord, stir up strife, and attempt to paralyse industry. are mischievous, and should be stopped. The direct loss they cause us is enormous; indirectly they are responsible for further evil, for they engender an atmosphere of mistrust, tension, and irritation, which is not conducive to smooth running in industry. As it is, wo are lold. (lie Commonwealth Government has not the power to deal effectively with these gentry. They can go about their antisocial business with impunity. Bui cannot the Government invest itself with the power? Cannot; Parliament declare certain practices to he illegal? Is there anything in the Constitution to prevent it? Activities such as those r.f which evidence was given before the Board may not he counter to the law, hut they are highly subversive. and it is desirable that they should lie cheeked. A community mar he long-suffering to a. fault; there should he limits to toleration.