THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, MARCH 24, 1934 MR. DE VALERA AND SENATE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21758, 24 March 1934, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, MARCH 24, 1934 MR. DE VALERA AND SENATE

o_ After many threats, Mr. de Valera has taken the final step of introducing a bill for the abolition of the Senate of the Irish Free State. It is the sequel to a number of quarrels. After some of them there have been proposals, more or less definite, for the' amendment of the Senate's powers, and suggestions that its abolition would be attempted. Now the gauntlet is down, and apparently the struggle between Mr. de Valera, at his back a a favourable majority, and the Senate, is in definite prospect. The final cause of quarrel has been the rejection of the Blue Shirts Bill.. Whether the Senate was justified in killing, or at least delaying, the measure, whether it displayed good tactics in doing'so, are questions which cannot be answered dogmatically, at this distance! and in the light of present knowledge. But there is some reason to suspect that the Senate is taking no care to avoid being provocative.* Under existing constitutional provisions the failure of the upper chamber to pass a measure approved by the Bail means a delay of 18 months before it can become law over the head of the Senate. Apparently also the insertion of vital amendments which the Dail cannot accept has similar consequences. The Government, for instance,x has been forced to accept an amendment to the Defence Forces Bill limiting its operation to June 30. Here the Senate was able to." put the Dail in a cleft stick. If it disapproved the alteration, and the bill became a cause of irreconcilable dispute, the delay provided for iri the Constitution would be in* evitable. As was 'indicated in the cable messages, the Government could not contemplate this, because it would mean that authority for the maintenance of the armed forces of the State would lapse. The Senate chose this ground on which to be recalcitrant shrewdly.

Though there is no constitutional provision to that effect, the Free State Parliament has been required each year to legislate so that an army, and apparently a police force, can be maintained and paid. In Great Britain the necessity for passing the Army Act annually is a specific constitutional safeguard, dating back to the days when the Crown and Parliament were in con-' flict.pThe forces of the Free jState are maintained 'under the Defence Forces (Temporary Provision) Act, 1923, which, purely as a matter of practice and not of principle, has been renewed from year to year, being made terminable on each occasion in default of further legislation. During the Cosgrave regime there were protests against this method,' and suggestions that a permanent Army Act should be placed on the Statute Book. There seemed some difficulty, however, in deciding whether the.forces were really armed police, what their exact functions were, and how a permanent army should be constituted. In default of agreement on these points the system of Riding over from year to year was pursued, and Mr. de Yalera has made no change. The Senate, by refusing to pass the annual bill at all, might have produced an awkward if not a perilous situation. .Without going; to such lengths,. it has managed to convey to Mr. de Yalera that it is by no means an impotent body. He can defy its opposition so long as he has time and patience to wait for 18 months, so that its veto over ;any\ measure may become ineffective. "When there is urgent legislation he, or any other head of a Government, must remember the existence of the Senate. The Defence Forces Bill was really urgent because of circumstances which cotfld not be evaded. No doubt Mr. de Yalera regards the Blue Shirts Bill a» of first urgency too. It is his attack on a movement said to be growing far too quickly for his political comfort. Delayed for 18 months, his bill would be ineffective to check it as it is certainly designed to do. But if it has invited this move for its own destruction, the Senate has succeeded in producing delay. The Blue Shirts Bill cannot proceed for at least 18 months. The abolition measure should be susceptible to at least an equal measure of delay. Actually the Seriate has been in conflict with Mr. de Valera a number of times. It has not been able to do anything with his various financial measures because the Senate cannot reject a certified money bill. Neither can it amend one, but can return such a measure to the Dail with recommendations if it thinks there should be alteration. It has, however, exercised its power to delay on several notable occasions. The oath of allegiance was abolished over the veto of the Senate. It did its best to defeat this most contentious measure, but Was finally beaten by the over-riding authority of the Dail. The present Government has also been in conflict with some of the local aiithorities over the collection of rates. Legislation was therefore introduced to make the local body electoral roll, at present limited'to ratepayers, into " an adult franchise roll. The Senate promptly rejected the bill, and thus held it up for 18. months. Following these events Mr. de Valera proceeded to draft a measure for the curtailment of the Senate's power. The principal proposal was that the right of veto, or delay, should be reduced from 18 months to three irionthsi. The Senate promptly referred the measure to a committee of both Houses, and thus secured a preliminary delay to its passage.

Mr. ,de Valera • hasy now lost all patience, and proposes to carry the attack more directly to His opponent. What the outcome wijl be it is difficult to foresee. A well-informed com* mentator recently wrote of Mr. de Valera's possible intentions : "If and when he introduces a bill for the abolition of the Senate, an election may be considered imminent, for the certain rejection of such a measure by -its proposed victims would undoubtedly be the signal for a final and decisive struggle, in which he would, it victorious, be able to remove the last obstacle to the full development of his policy." It is possible, therefore, that he is not inspired, as an opponent suggested, simply by bad temper. He may have decided that this is the psychological moment for an appeal to the country with the people versus the Senate as his battle-cvy.