LANG'S DILEMMA.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21165, 23 April 1932, Page 11

LANG'S DILEMMA.

CRISIS NOW ACUTE.

NO BANKING FACILITIES.

DECISIONS OF COURT.

COMMONWEALTH POWER

attachment of funds.

By Teles™ ph—Press Association —Copyright

(Received April 22. 8.15 p.m.) SYDNEY. April 22

The TTi c h Court to-day refused the application of t ho New South Wales Government for permission to appeal to the Privy Council against, the decision that the Financial Agreement Enforcement Bill is valid-

Tho Court also refused the application of the Stat3 Government for an injunction to restrain the bank;; from paying funds of the New South Wales Government to the Commonwealth. Onlv Mr. Justice Evatt was in favour cf granting the first application. The Chief Justice, Sir Frank Gavan Duffy, and Mr. Justice Evatt were in favour of granting the second application, but Justices Starke, Rich, Dixon and McTiernan opposed it. The Court ordered the State Government to P*V the costs of the applications.

The refusal of (lie Court to order a restoration of banking facilities for the State Government brings the Lang Administration face to face with an immediate crisis. The Governor, Sir Philip Game, may ask the Premier to carry out the provisions of tho Audit Act.

Mr. Lang may ask that the position be. left as it is until he can consult Parlia-

liament next week. In tho meantime no endowment, payments ara being made and thero is a possibility that that department may be closed. This would affect 450 permanent and temporary employees. FEDERAL ACTION. STATE'S OBLIGATIONS. COMPULSION TO BE APPLIED. (Received April 23. 12.25 a.m.) MELBOURNE, April 22. The Prime Minister, Mr. J. A. Lyons, commenting on the High Court's rejection of the New South Wales Government's applications, said the Federal Government now was pushing ahead with its policy of compelling Mr. Lang to meet his obligations. First the Government would compel Mr. Lang to make available the income tax files which so far had been inaccessible. PREMIER'S ATTITUDE. FEDERAL LAW DEFIED. GOVERNOR CAN INTERVENE. LONDON. April 14. "Mr. Lang'3 illegalities lay upon the Governor of New South Wales, the right, »nd indeed the obligation, to consider seriously whether, it is possible, consistently with his dut'y to the Crown, to let Mr. Lang continue in the Premiership," said Professor Berriedale Keith, a constitutional authority, in an interview.

The professor said Mr. Lang's steps to defeat the effect of the High Court's judgment declaring the Financial Agreement Enforcement Act valid, were obviously and unquestionably illegal. The Commonwealth Parliament's, legislation, when within <he ambit of. its authority, was especially made effective by the Commonwealth Constitution Act upon all people of every State. Accordingly, it was binding on Mr. Lang and on every British subject of New South Wales, whose duty, when the High Corn t pronounced the Act to be legal, was to give it full effect. Defiance is disloyalty to the Constitution and to the citizens generally. "Deliberate Defiance" Charged. V Mr. Lang's action is nothing less than an effort, to overthrow the Commonwealth Constitution. Therefore it is both unconstitutional and illegal," continued Professor Keith. "Mr. Lang, prior to the judgment, had a good claim, apd was acting within the ambit of his legal authority. " The judgment rendered his position merely deliberate defiance of the law of the' couitry, arid doubtless the Commonwealth will have Ihe support of all elements loyal to the Constitution in the Bteps it may consider necessary to defeat Mr. Lang's illegalities. No doubt the good sense of the people of New South Wales will come to the rescue by inducing Mr. Lang to reconsider his position and accept as binding the laws of his country, as finally declared valid by the High Court. State Governor's Authority. "Nevertheless, Mr. Lang .s defiance raises a new issue regarding the authority of "the Governor, who hitherto has not been confronted by Mr. Lang's actual defiance of the law and Mr. Lang, however unwise or imprudent, might have held that he was acting in concordance to the law. But his present position is indefensible as compatible with his obligations.

" Although the Governor's powers have been greatly diminished in recent years hy constitutional usage," the professor added, " it has not yet been laid down that the Governor is either entitled or bound to acquiesce in the actions of a Government, which arc contrary to law,' and considerations which hitherto have induced the Governor to refrain from action Cease to have I lie same binding force."