GERMAN-BORN PRIESTS

Evening Star, Issue 17368, 2 June 1920, Page 7

GERMAN-BORN PRIESTS

DEPORTATION ORDER SUSPENDED. A Sydney cable in last night's 'issue read : " The military authorities have been instructed from Melbourne to remove the names of Fathers Jerger and Hirschfield irom the deportation list, pending a reconsideration ot the matter.'' An application for an injunction to. restrain the Defence Department from deporting him from Australia was made by Urftirles Jerger, a Roman Catholic priest, before the Full High Court at Melbourne on May 21, and was disallowed. The order had previously been sought from Mr Justice Starke, who referred the matter before the Full Bench, which consisted of the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Duffv, Mr Justice Rich, and Mr Justice Starke. Sir Edward Mitchell, K.C., and Mr Power {instructed by Mr T. P. Nolan) appeared for Jerger, and Mr Latham (instructed bv the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor) for the Minister of Defence (Senator Piearoe). In an affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant, he said that he was born at St. Blasien, Baden, South Germany, in 1869. He was the son of Philip Morlock arid Wilhelmina Jerger, and the latter died at Chatswood, Sydney, on September 4. 1919. His father died in the vear oi applicant's \ birth, and about 1870 or 1871 his mother married John Jerger. Jerger was born in 1842 at Niedereschach, Germany, antl subsequently went to England, where he was naturalised as a British subject about 1862 or 1863. A vear or two after the marriage the applicant was taken to England bv his stepfather and mother, and about 1887 or 1888 they came to Australia. His stepfather's certificate nf naturalisation was destroyed by fire in 1899, and rather than go to the trouble of sending to Plymouth for a copy of his naturalisation certificate, his stepfather applied for fresh naturalisation papers, which were granted in 1907. The applicant had joined the community of Passionist Fathers in 1892, and had continued in Australia as a- student and priest in holy orders ever since. He had been advised that he was a British subject, and that any attempt to deport him from Australia would be illegal. An answering affidavit- was filed by Mr T. Trumble (Secretary for Defence), in which he said that on February 13, 1918, Jerger was interned in the concentration camp at Holdsworthy. On August 14, 1919, the Royal Commission appointed to deal with the qnestion of the release of internees recommended that Jerger was an undesirable person to be released in the Commonwealth. The report said in reference to Jerger: Under ordinary circumstances and his 48 years of residence under tile British Flag, he should be allowed to remain here, but he still says that he is a German. . . . He is a man of strong personality, and has been one of the leaders of the internees. His internment has made him vindictive and revengeful. Considering his conduct as alleged before internment, we think that the magistrate's decision that he be eompnlsorily repatriated should not be interfered with. Action was beinsr taken to repatriate the plaintiff when, owing to the illness of his tnother, it was postponed. Further inquiries were then made, with the result that- the Attorney-General'a drpnrtment reported : There- is convincing proof that- Father Jerger is German-born, and, producing no proof of naturalisation, was during the war an active propagandist against the cause of the Allies. No reason is { seen for disagreeing with the iecormn.cnI dation of the- Aliens Board that he b? j deported. j After hearing argument, the Chief Jus- ; tice (reports the 'Argus') 'said that the i Court had decid-e-d that the application must be dismissed. Father Jerger was born in. Germany of German parents, and the anus was upon him to establish the fact- that he was a British subject- The British Act of 1870 provided that a married woman should be deemed to be the subject of a State of which her husband for the time being was a subject, and that where the father or the mother, if a widow, had obtained a certificate of naturalisation the- child 01 such father or mother should also be deemed a British subject. It was clear that his father had never obtained a naturalisation certificate, and it- was equally clear that his mother, when a widow, never became naturalised, Therefore the urovisions of that Act did not apply. Alternatively it was claimed thai plaintiff was a British subject by virtue of the Commonwealth Naturalisation Act. 190347, which provided that" a person not being a Vatural-born British subject, whose mother was married to a peison naturalised under the law of the Commonwealth or v>tate, and who at the time of such naturalisation was an infant residing with his parents, should be deemed to be naturalised. In order to do that he was required to prove that his mother was married to a person naturalised under a law of the Commonwealth, that at the time of such naturalisation he was an infant, and duriurr such infancy he resided with his parents in Australia. It was alleged thai his stepfather was naturalised under such law because he had been naturalised under a. Jaw of the United Kingdom. The applicant could not relv upon the subsequent naturalisation of his stepfather in Australia in 1907, because at that time he was not an infant, nor was he residing with his parents. The meaning to be read into the Act was that the "Commonwealth" law was a law passed under the legislative authority of the Commonwealth. His stepfather's naturalisation under the British law was not naturalisation under a Commonwealth law. and he fulled on that- point also. It was therefore clear that plaintiff was not a British subject. The application would be dismissed, with costs.