SAMOAN BANISHMENT ORDERS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19736, 8 September 1927, Page 14

SAMOAN BANISHMENT ORDERS.

Sir, —My attention has been called to a report from your correspondent at Apia on the above subject, appearing in your columns 011 August .9, and I desire to correct your correspondent. It is not "doubtful whether counsel will (by an appeal) attempt to upset the decision"-of the Chief Judge at Apia. The facts are that the opinion of King's Counsel in New Zealand has been obtained; that (security for costs has been fixed; that security has been given, and that the appeal is going forward. In order that your readers may be' the better able to follow the appeal when it is heard, this being a somewhat unusual case, may I explain that my defence was that' the banishment ordinance is ultra vires on the grounds that: (1) It strikes at the liberty of the subject without trial of the merfts. there being no charge laid, no evidence heard, no oath administered, no cross-examination, in short, no hearing of any kind , (2) that it provides a form of punishment neither permitted nor contemplated by the parent Act (Samoa Act, 1921) The Crown's reply was to the effect: (1) That the banishment is not a punishment, any hardship being merely incidental to the main purpose, namely, the preservation of peace, order and good government; (2) that the making of a banishment order is not a judicial act, but an executive one; (3) that if the Administrator says that he "is satisfied" to make the order, the Court has no power to inquire as to how he was satisfied. Thos. B. Slipper. Barrister and Solicitor.