MACHINE SHEARERS' UNION.

Evening Post, Volume LXVIII, Issue 136, 6 December 1904, Page 5

MACHINE SHEARERS' UNION.

VALIDITY OF A ROYAL COMMISSION. APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT. DECISION REVERSED. [PBESB ASSOCIATION.] SYDNEY, sth December. The Pull Court on 28th June gave a decision declaring that a Commission appointed to enquire into the working of the Machine Shearers' Union was illegal and unconstitutional. An appeal was brought, and to-day the High Court of Australia reversed the Full Court's decision, the Bench unanimously holding that the Commission was lawful. , The Chief Justice, in delivering the j High Court's decision, said it had been j suggested that the appointment of the j Commission was an interference with the , course of justice. The Arbitration Court ! was to a certain extent experimental \ legislation, and it was not likely that all I its details could in the first instance be j worked out with complete satisfaction, i Very likely the machinery or ground- . work of the Act contained defects, and , if in the opinion of the Legislature the I law in certain respects was defective, | surely the Legislature could not be de- I barred from enquiring into any of those \ defects. In no sense could the appoint- ! ment of the Commission be called inter- ! ference with the administration of justice, ' nor could the issue of the Commission be said to have been for an unlawful _ purpose. In the present case all the ob- ' iections taken by the respondent had been fantastical, The appeal was from the decision granting a writ of prohibition directed to W. M. Macfarlane, S.M., and William , Richard Clough, the appellant, restrain- • ing them from further proceeding on a ; conviction at the Central Police Court, i Sydney, on Ist March last, by which ' John Leahy, Secretary of the Machine Shearers and Shed rjjnployees' Union, was fined 20s and 5s 6d costs, and in default forty-eight hours' light labour, for re- j fusing to be sworn before a Royal Com- j mission appointed by the Governor on j 2nd February last. The Commission was i appointed to enquire into the formation, { constitution, and working of the Machine Shearers and Shed Employees' Union, industrial union of employees; whether the Machine Shearers and Shed Employees' Union, industrial union of employees, was an evasion of the Trade Union Act or the Industrial Arbitration Act; whether the existence of the Machine Shearers and Shed Employees' Union, industrial union of employees, was an obstacle io the fair and complete presentation of any dispute which .jnight arise in the pastoral industry, and whe-ther-any alteration of the law, and if so what, was necessary in respect of the premises. In the course of their judgment the Judges of the Supreme Court unanimously declared the Royal Commission illegal and unconstitutional. On 23th June last special leave was obtained from the High C</urt to appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court on the following, among other, grounds : (1) That the said Supreme Court was in error — (a) in holding that the Royal Commission appointed on the 2nd day of February, 1904, was illegal and unconstitutional ; (b) in granting the said writ of prohibition; (c) in holding that the said Royal Commission was the creation of a new tribunal unknown to the law, and for that reason was illegal; (d) in holding that the questions submitted for the consideration of the said Royal Commission did not involve an enquiry into question of public interest and for the public good, and that private rights and interests protected by law were invaded and disregarded by the said Royal Commission; (c) in holding that the subjects submitted to the said Royal Commission for enquiry were a retrial of the matters already litigated in the Arbitration Court ; (f) in holding that the Arbitration Court had full power and jurisdiction to deal with all or any of the matters submitted to the said Royal Commission for enquiry. (2) That the said judgment of the Supreme Court was an undue restriction and interference with the prerogative^ the Crown. (3) That it having been proved that the offence alleged, viz., thfe refusal to be sworn before a Royal Commission, had been committed, the said Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to grant a prohibi,tioi>-