THE SOUTH AFRICAN "MARTYRS."

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 261, 2 April 1914, Page 4

THE SOUTH AFRICAN "MARTYRS."

Mr. Andrew fisher's declaration, that the deportation of labor leaders from .South Africa was a breach of the laws of slavery, may be at once set down as a bit of rhetorical exaggeration based upon the speaker's well-known sympathies rather than upon knowledge of the law. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that the action of the South African Ministry was violently opposed to British statute and common law. It was as illegal an act as could well be conceived, and justifiable only by the plea of urgent necessity. Even then it is only justifiable politically, not legally, and, failing the passage of an Indemnity Act, .Ministers would have been liable to punishment as criminals, and might in addition have been east in heavy damages had the deported men sued them civilly. Such being the position, there is all the more credit due to General llothu and his colleagues for taking such a tremendous personal risk in the interests oi public peace and safty. While it is absurd to talk of "slavery, as labor agitators the world over arc too prone to do, there is 110 doubt that the deportation was an arbitrary and illegal act. and if it had not been contrived so swil'tlv and secretly, the law courts could have prevented its being carried into execution. The '•proclamation" of martial law did not ill the slightest degree alter or modify the situation. So 111 ikh we gather from a lucid explana--1 ion Liiven by Professor -1. If. Morgan. Proles-01- of as Lnivti'Mly College, London. He declares I hat martial law can only prevail bv virtue of a ■state of war existing to such a degree that the ordinary law is superseded through the courts having i--eased to sit, "Proclamation'' may linike such a state of things known, but the pioclamatiou in itself lias 110 legal validity—the courts having power to determine whether the assumption of rule by the military authorities was justifiable. Allot her principle laid down is that martial law can only be used for suppression - it cannot be used for punishment, except in so .far as penal measures may arise immediately out of the suppression. As soon as the state of "'war" is at an end. it is the duty of the military authorities to hand over their prisoners |

Professor Morgan had no (loubt that, had an appeal to the South African courts been possible, they would have prevented the deportation, on the ground that "no state of war existed to warrant such an illegal measure." There is a Smith African statute that provides for thf. deportation of certain people, but tlio professor is satisfied that "it could not possibly be held to justify the deportation of British subjects of European descent not convicted of a criminal offence by the ordinary tribunals of the country." The passing of the Indemnity Act has of course the effect of making perfectly legal what was till then an arbitrary and illegal act. It was an act without precedent, and therefore establishes what is characterised as a dangerous precedent, a "perilous remedy," as the historian Hallan tailed all governmental resort to martial law, because it is a procedure which Governments arc prone to "maintain too long, to pursue too far, to extend too much." It is not quite clear that the South African Oovcrnment will be able to resist the temptation to extend the arbitrary method upon which it ao fearlessly cmbarked. The Indemnity Act cannot have a prospective action empowering the Government to prevent the return of the d#ported men. Professor Morgan holds that the Crown has no more power to prevent British subjects from entering British territory than it has to expel them, and the deported leaders could therefore, if they chose, enforce their right to return to South Africa. The men were not sentenced to perpetual banishment, not even to banishment for any fixed term—they were simply deported by force—and they have a right to go back. We suspect, however, that they will not exercise their right, for beyond doubt tliey would be arrested the moment they set foot on South African soil and charged with sedition or treason-felony. The authorities, we believe, have found sufficient evidence to convict at least some of the deportees of these offences, and therefore the expatriated "martyrs" will prefer to lie low and say nothing. Mr. Tom Mann, who has gone to South Africa in their ; interests, will probably also find it ad- . vigable to bo very discroet in his words . and actions while lie is within the jurisi diction of General Botha.