DEPORTATION TANGLE

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 151, 23 December 1925, Page 6

DEPORTATION TANGLE

WALSH AND JOHANNSEN CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECT LABOUR JUBILATION. (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, 17th December. The bewildering tangle of constitu- j tional and legal arguments which has wrapped* itself around the desire of the Federal Government to deport the extreme leaders of tho Australian Seamen's Union, Thomas Walsh and Jacob Johannsen, have made thoughtful Australians look with envy on the laws of New Zealand, which allow the Dominion to deport an agitator like Noel Lyons, of "ham and eggs" fame, without any lega,! fuss or delay. For almost four months the Government has endeavoured to rid Australia of Walsh and Johannsen, but instead of their being on tho high seas on the way to the lands which gave them birth, they are still free men in Australia, taking severe legal action against the Federal authorities for falsely imprisoning them. BRIEF HISTORY OF CASE. A brief history of their case is necessary here. On 17th July the I Federal Parliament passed an amendment of the Immigration Act, giving, as it was believed, power to the Federal Government to deport anyone born outside Australia who had been found by a special board to bo a disturber of the peace, good order, and industrial calm of the country. Speci--1 fieally aimed against the seamen's leaders, owing to the. long succession of maritime disputes Australia has suffered, Walsh and Johannsen were served with summons in the thick of the British seamen's strike on 31st August to show, cause why they should not be deported. On ,3rd September the board began its sittings and concluded the case against Walsh on 14th October, after twenty-seven days' hearing: The case against Johannsen opened on 27th October" and closed on 10th November after five days* hearing. On 20th November Walsh and Johannsen were arrested. The same morning the State Full Court granted a rule nisi for a writ of.habeas corpus to prevent their detention, the application being made by the legal advisers ( who had conducted, their case throughout, Messrs. A. Watt, K.C., and Dr. H. E. Evatt. The; same afternoon, Mr. E. Lamb, K.C., for the Commonwealth, applied to the High Court, which took the case out of the hands of the State Court on the ground that an interpretation of • the Commonwealth Constitution was involved. On 23rd November the application was opened before.the Full High Court, postponed for a weak, and closed on 9th December. The judgment of the Court was given last Friday, 11th December, and this.ordered the men to be released immediately, with costs against the Comonwealth. Immediately there was a roar of jubilation from the Labour camp. Every Labour politician seemed to regard the decision as a personal victory for himself, and a flood of statements were issued by them. The .purport of these seemed to be.astonishment that .the High Court had proved "incorruptible." That, these comments were, to say the least, unseemly was emphasised by the fact that, ac-cording!-to its custom, the High Court gave ho reasons for its decision. Thus, all comment was based upon what Mr. Bruce, afterwards described as the "element of party politics." STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER. .While Mr. Bruce refrained from immediately making comment, he issued a statement over the week-end in which he regretted that this element had been introduced into a matter "that was solely one of the legal interpretations of the powers of tho Commonwealth." He pointed out that the administrative action in question had been taken on a law passede by a majority of the representatives of the people, and the people had shown their approval of that Government in a definite way at the elections. But the most important portion of Mr. Bruc'e's statement was that relating to the Government's action if it was found from the High Court's reasons for its decision that the powers of the Commonwealth were narrower than had been generally supposed, or than were essential for i the welfare of the people of Australia. "In that event," said Mr. Bruce, "it might be necessary to appeal to the people by way of a referendum for an amendment of the Constitution." COUNTING UP THE COST. •. Already there arc taxpayers counting up the cost of this deportation action. The costs allowed by the High Court will amount, to not less than £12,000, and to this may be added tlu cost of Walsh and Johanusen's counsel's fees at the Deportation Board hearing, amounting to not less than £10,000. Then each of tho members) of that board was paid 25 guineas a day, and the Commonwealth had senior and junior counsel engaged. Their fess would total about £8000, There have'been the salaries of a special force of Commonwealth peace officers. During the time' Walsh and Johannsen wereiin custody, their farsiilies were paid liberal sustenance ;illowances. The referendum indicated by Mr. Bruce would cost at least £100,000. To cap it, Walsh and Jo- i hannscn have each issued writs for £20,000 against the Commonwealth, Mr. Bruce, and ithe superintendent of the peace force for alleged false im prisonment, and each of their wives for £5000 each. If the Commonwealth were mulcted of these full costs, thers would be a bill of nearly a quarter of a million to meet. Walsh and Johannsen have also both issued writs for £5000 against Mr. Bavin, Leader of the State Opposition, for alleged slander, and far similar sums against Mr. Lamb for remarks they made during the Deportation Board's hearing. An interesting remark overheard in the city this week was that if Walsh and Johannsen win all tho actions for damages they contemplate they will be fairly. substantial -capitalists themselves an.t that this might be the easiest way of ridding Australia of her maritime i;:;----tremists!

An incident illustrating the character of Walsh and Johaimsen occurred ■when the men were brought from their place of confinement on Garden Island to the city. To have impounded belongings returned to them, thvy were taken to the office of the Commonwealth Police Korvc. Althoug'i only an hour had elapsed i ince the High Court announced it» deelsic>';i, there was a Itrg* crowd (waiting tlie

two men, including, of course, numerous newspaper reporters and photographers. Instead of showing signs of elation at a great victory, Wabh was in a savage mood, and among the photographers he hurled a suit case and various parcels he was carrying. He brusquely, rudely, refused to be interviewed. Johannsen, the calm, phlegmatic Dutchman, took it mora calmly. Smiling cynically, he ajlowed himself to be, snapshotted, and even had a few words to say to the reporters. Much comment was passed upon tho different behaviour of the two men.