The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. MONDAY, MAY 31, 1920. A CONSTITUTIONAL POINT.

Southland Times, Issue 18835, 31 May 1920, Page 4

The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. MONDAY, MAY 31, 1920. A CONSTITUTIONAL POINT.

Although the Queensland Government in ! the o.=cussion on constitutional law that is I coming will plead State Sovereignty, there I a a wider issue involved which will truns | ccnd the State question, tbs right of ap i peal pu.:.--ossed by minorities. In modern j constitutions where the democratic form of { gos ei-.iiricnt is aimed at the basis oi law is i the wdi of the majority and in the written j wo.d oi the constitution mention is lardy I made of any process by winch even the I minority can protect itself. People are ! prone to forget that democracies, as well as ( autocratic governments, can be unjust, that 1 the rule by the majority, if the mino ity has i no -i nice and no superior tribunal to which to ; a;.pc 1, is really a bludgeoning process an . cannot be wholly justified. The right and i i . v..i..mhly of an individual -Or a minoril., i having the power of appeal from the high e.; authority in the land has been freely dis cu;-., cd through the ages and readers of Lo ,1 : A ton’s illuminating historical essays will ! remember that he advances powerful argu I meats to show that unless the individual i has tonic tribunal to which he can take i his case against the government of his | countiy, the instrument of the majority, i lie becomes hopeless and a lit subject for ■) violence. In the issues that have been : raised in respect to the Queensland Govcrnmeiu's recent legislation, we can have no doubt that legally Mr Theodore has done no

wrong in appointing a partisan as lieutenant governor, but to suggest that he was r.giu in using the temporary powers of that office for the purpose of making law a measure that is suspected of being ultra vires, that would probably have been held up by the State Gove;nor, is on entirely different matter. Mr Theodore may plead that some of his predecessors have “packed” the upper house of the State legislature foi the purpose of passing certain biffs and that they' have appointed as lieutenant-governors men who were partisans, but that cannot excuse his action in seizing a moment, when the lieuten-ant-governor was exercising for u limited period the powers of a State Governor, to put a partisan in that office and thus to ensure that a questionable measure would be signed. The plea that other ministers have acted with dubious authority is no excuse for such a flagrant removal of one of the most important and most effective safe

guards that the minorities possess. It mu-l not be forgotten that in these matters the State Governor, lep'rescnting the King, is the protector of tiie rights and privileges o: the people against the machinations of the government of the day. He stands as the protector of all and hot a part of the people and he is a court of appeal to which the individual citizen or a minority can look for justice. Like presidents in most republican governments, the State Gove;nor has no legislative functions, but he can delay the laws that have been passed with undue haste, laws that are of doubtful authority, laws that are unjust and

by means of his veto he can force a dissolution of parliament so that the offending law can be submitted directly to the people as an issue. It is obvious that these functions cannot be employed as they are intended to be employed if the State Governor is a partisan of the parliamentary mujqjity that is trying to enact a law that is questionable. Therefore, the government that removes the safeguard provided by an impartial State Governor, by putting the State Governor’s powers into the hands of a man pledged to support the government’s legislation, cannot plead that it is democratic. As a matter of fact such a move must

bear the aspect of an effort to prepare the way for something suspiciously like a die tatorship. Some false impressions of the position are gained by people who fail to discriminate between the government and the State. The government of the day is the instrument of the parliamentary majority and unless it is kept strictly within its constitutional powers the citizen" cannot he sure of his position for two minutes at a time. The King stands for the State, the entire body politic irrespective of divisions and it is for him, through his properly appointed representatives, to see that the majority of the moment is not the ruthless dictator of the moment, temporarily independent and beyond the control of the electors. It has been suggested by one gentleman well versed in the ways of colonial governments that the point in constitutional law involved in the Queensland government’s act should be referred first to the High Court of Australia, which is undoubtedly the wisest course as a first step, hut (he dispute as far as it has gone should open our eyes to the proper functions of the King’s representative in our midst and the important part that he plays in the Britsn scheme of democratic government. At times there have been suggestions that the

appointment of British statesmen or leaders to the post of Gevorrior should be stopped and the posts filled by men appointed from the citizens of the State concerned. Mr Theodore’s argument that these nien would bo partisans would become vital at once. For the office of Governor a country requires a man of substance who can stand ns the direct representative of the King, quite innocent of the political currents ol the country he is sent to. Once the Governor becomes the creature of the parliamentary majority, he ceases to act as the guardian of the 'minorities’rights and privileges and ceases to exercise those functions which though rarely called into play, are nevertheless of supreme importance in any British community.