British Privy Council Considers Appeal Against Palestine Supreme Court

(Jewish Telegraphic Agency)

The Privy Council, the highest court of England, considered yesterday the legal side of the question of water shortage in Jerusalem, a troublesome question in the history of the Holy City.

The dispute which arose between the government of Palestine and the inhabitants of the village Urta, in the vicinity of Jerusalem, passed through the Palestine Supreme Court. In June, 1925, the water shortage in Jerusalem became acute and the governor of Jerusalem was authorized by the Palestine Government in a special ordinance, to bring water to the City from the springs and wells of Urta. The villagers refused to recognize the Government Ordinance, declaring that they needed the water for themselves, their cattle and their orchards. The Palestine Arab Executive, the body which leads the opposition against the Zionist movement, encouraged the villagers. The matter was brought to the Palestine Supreme Court which, in its decision, found the Government Ordinance invalid because it contradicted the Palestine Constitution and Article 2 of the Palestine Mandate, which obliges the Mandatory power to “safeguard the civil and religious rights of the inhabitants of Palestine.”

The Privy Council, considering the appeal against the decision of the Palestine Supreme Court, reserved judgment in the matter.

The Council, which consisted of the Lord Chancellor and Lords Dunedin and Parmoor, heard the appeal of the District Governor of Jerusalem, of the Jaffa district, and the president of the Jerusalem Water Supply Commission.

Attorney General Sir Douglas Hogg stated that the case raises a grave issue because the Palestine Supreme Court declared null and void a government ordinance which authorized the governor of Jerusalem and the other appellant to bring water from the Urta springs as interfering with Urta’s water supply.

“It is an important constitutional issue whether the Palestine Court can declare null and void a legislative order because it thinks that the order offends against one of the principles of good government, specified in the Mandate. I submit that there is nothing in the ordinance which is inconsistent with the Mandate, or interfering with the civil rights of the population.”

Mr. Deruyther, representing the Urta villagers, complained that the Palestine posed to establish a tribunal other than that which was specified by the Mandate to deal with the civil rights of the population.

Lord Dunedin stated that “there was much talk about civil rights,” but he doubted “if there are any. By right of the conquest of Palestine the old rights of the people disappeared. The country was conquered by the Allies who said to the League of Nations: ‘You may make this arrangement, but in respect of the rights of the Allies.’ The Allies were the people from whom the whole thing sprang, by their right of conquest.”