NATURALISATION AND BRITISH HONOUR

Evening Post, Volume C, Issue 22, 26 July 1920, Page 8

NATURALISATION AND BRITISH HONOUR

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Professor Hunter in his letter on this .subject states "the corresponding English Act provides that a person whose papers of naturalisation have been revoked, may have his case investigated by a legal tribunal." The Act to .which he refers, "The British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1918," is in accordance with the principles of British justice, ir that it provides for a proper inquiry before, and not after, the revocation of naturalisation. That inquiry is to be held either (a.) by a committee constituted for thepurposo by the Secretary of State, presided over by a person who holds, or who has held, high judicial office; or (b) by the Hicjh Court, according to its rules of practice and procedure. The Aot directs the Secretary of State to revoke the certificate of naturalisation where the holder has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty, or has done certain acts specified, suoh as trading or communioating with the enemy. An incuiry ib obligatory if demanded by the holder except in two cases:

(1) Where tho act for which naturalisation is to bo revoked is sentence to a specified imprisonment or fine, which can be readily proved by the records. (2) Where the holder has been for not less than- seven years resident out of His Majesty's Dominions (with certain exceptions) and therefore cannot well bo communicated with.

The escu33s given for the refusal to give the person whose naturalisation has been revoked the right of appeal to a judicial tribunal appear to bo two, (a) that thero is certain evidence that could not be made public. Thers is no reason why the appeal should be held in public. It might be heard in camera iE necessary. The fact that it was held by a. Judge would bo sufficient guarantee that the appellant would have the opportunity of fading and cross-examining his accusers. The evidence on which the Government has acted bona fide may have been false and given by personal enemies or trade rivals. That can only be tested by a proper judi cial inquiry and effective,cross-examination and by the opportunity of calling evidence to refute the accusations ,

The other excuse is that it must be left to the Government to do justice. But, if the Government has already done injustice in revoking the naturalisation upon insufficient evidence, or, as suggested by Professor Hunter, even after a report of a commission whoso decision was in favour of the accused, how can justice be expected from the same tribunal, which has overy inducement to save its own face by refusing to reopen the matter?

It is incredible to me that our Parliament can so disregard the principles of British justice as to refuse a fair trial to.any man arbitrarily deprived of his liberty and of his rights as a British subject.—l am, etc., H. F. YON HAAST. 23rd July.