The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1919. WHAT IS LAW?

New Zealand Tablet, 30 October 1919, Page 25

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1919. WHAT IS LAW?

E haVe alread y made the bold assertion tnat our statesmen do not seem to have WMf* any idea of what a law s ' and that the y are complete failures, as might 'be exra3*jj&^!l P* when it comes to the question of Jt9) making a law. In conjunction with what * we have already written, each reader will find in his own experience abundant proof of the truth of our contention; and the probability is that as time goes on. we shall unfortunately be able to add to our store of knowledge under that head. Now the idea of law is not an impossible or unattainable one. Our fathers knew how to make laws, and the farther back we go we are likely to find that the better they knew. It is many centuries ago since Justinian codified such admirable laws as are expressed in the phrase: Quae rerum naturae prohibentur, nulla lege confirmata sunt— Things forbidden by the natural law cannot be confirmed by any law. It was many centuries before that when Moses brought down from the mountain such laws as "Thou shalt not bear false witness," and "Thou shalt not steal"; and even with such perfect models before them, and aided by the light they throw on life, our legislators are utterly incapable of imitating either the simplicity or the common sense of such generalisations. Judging from some specimens of laws and regulations that have been sent to us recently, the surest way to have some inkling of their meaning is to burn them at once. To read them is fatal and futile: you begin by thinking you are being told, for example, that it is an offence against the public good to do or say a certain thing, absolutely and without exception, and when you meet someone else who has wrestled with the text he will point out to you that the offence only exists when you do it, and that other people can do as they like. - Not only is the natural law disregarded, but even geography is ignored. The law may speak of things not to be done in Ireland, but in its application you are told that certain parts of the counties of Down and Armagh' are no longer in Ireland. And you will probably "endorse Mr. : Squeers, as far as modern law is concerned, and repeat sadly: "The Law is a Hass."

t to Still, there is a tradition remaining that men at one time could make laws. When you? read in the first page of an old book -that Justitia est constaais, et perpetua ■ voluntas jus *siium; : cuique tribuendi— Justice .-is the constant and perpetual will * of r giving to everyone his own—you remember that there was a time - when the law was not a "hass" by any means. And if you are wise you will go back to those old days in order to find out (what law really ; was and what it still ought to be; and when you have found out that, haply your • disgust with the modern initiations and falsifications may be fruitful of final good. Let us see if we cannot reconstruct the old ideal of law from which we have so far departed. It was regarded = as a thing' of elementary clearness that law ought to be a function of right reason and starting thence it was from the beginning defined as a "rule of direction," or a "settled principle of'action," or a "measure of action." The underlying notion was always that of a principle founded on right reason, following which we should be led to pursue certain lines of conduct and to avoid others. Though proceeding from reason, law must also have some reference to will for if it is a rule of action it is a rule that binds our wills to follow it. v In all old laws the function of reason was always present, for until modern times it, was self-evident to men of common sense that the will that binds a subject independently of reason is so far from being a law that it is a principle of confusion and destruction: magis iniquitas quam lex iniquity rather than law. Further, the ancients recognised that a law must be inspired by the common good: to moderns it was left to discover that the selfish interests, say of a gang of Orangemen, were the aim and raison, d'etre of law. To our blind guides it was also left to discover that they had power to insist that what they think is the common good is more likely to be right than what really clever and intelligent persons thought, or even than what God Himself thought best for the common weal. The result of which is that most modern laws are not laws at all, because they are annulled and abrogated by the Law of God and the Natural Law and also that the only logical sanction that can be alleged in their support is the detestable principle that Might is Right. We call that principle "Prussianism" now, but how many of our Governments are free from it? Again, our wiser ancestors recognised that man is bound by four principal kinds of law v —the Eternal, the Natural, the Human, . and the Divine. And among them all there were not in a score of centuries so many persons so bereft of reason as we shall find even in a little country like this as to hold that the Human Law, made by Lloyd George or Billy Hughes, as the case might be, is supreme and above all the laws of God and Nature. Probably we shall be told that this is one of the signs of modern Progress. It is, God help us! We quoted a phrase from an old pagan legislator at the beginning of this article. As Christians we must add just two words to amplify it and make it read: "Things forbidden by the laws of God. or of Nature cannot be confirmed by any law" ; and behold we have a guide, of unimpeachable authority, far above that of Sir Robert Stout and his State Conscience, which very „ frequently reduces many modern laws to scraps of paper for people who believe in God and in the eternal destiny of man, and hold that the fundamental principles of right and wrong matter more than expediency and the favor of voters. , -.„.-.--.-'-' '".'■...* •'.-■" '. r The natural conclusion from all this is that the world has gone astray. Its safety lies in turning its back, not on the past but on the present, and also on the future until such time as we are fit to look at it. Because Tom, Dick, and Harry, say that a thing is right does not make it right. Because a crowd of people who are in no way qualified to judge on the matter say that we ought to have a State Conscience does not make the saying any less idiotic. Because three-fifths , of the inhabitants of New Zealand are persuaded that it is good for them to allow a ' Servile State to take away the liberty God gave them does not empower the State

to commit outrages under .the name of laws. No! iWe have, to. go .back - a long time ,to-day. V,. We have to , get it well into our heads that right and wrong .are things that the opinions of ; men, cannot change. We must be convinced that God is above Prime Ministers and Chief Justices, and that ..what they say or : domatters/ very little, in comparison with what He has said we r must do. In the past we shall 1 find the principles ;we have lost. And when we have found principles we may be able to find, men who can make laws that are laws ; and then we may again turn our faces to the future’ and set about destroying the thing that has been called Progress.