(By Our London Correspondent)
The question whether the Supreme Court of Palestine can declare an order of the Legislature null and void on the ground that the order, in the court’s opinion, offends against one of the principles of good government specified in the Mandate, was discussed here today by the Priry Council, consisting of the Lord Chancellor and Lords Dunedin and Parmoor, which heard an appeal by the District Governor of the Jerusalem-Jaffa district and the President of the Jerusalem Water Supply Commission, form an order of the Supreme Court of Palestine on June 25th last, granting an injunction against the authorities at Jerusalem from interfering with the water at Urtas Springs, by which it was desired to supplement the ordinary supply from Solomon’s Pool, owing to a water shortage in Jerusalem.
The Attorney-General, Sir Douglas Hogg, K.C., explained that the case raised grave issues, as the Supreme Court granted the injunction against the Governor and the other appellant on the ground that the ordinance authorizing them to interefere with this water supply was invalid and void.
The respondent, Suleiman Murra and the Rev. Issa Bandak, for themselves and the inhabitants of Urtas, said there was no right to bring this matter to the Privy Council, that all ordinances in Palestine were void because the Order in Council which purported to authorize the High Commissioner to promulgate ordinances had no effect, and that the ordinance which specially applied was void as inconsistent with the terms of the mandate under which this country was administering or supervising the affairs of Palestine.
The position of England, the Attorney General further stated, was that of a mandatory to the League of Nations, and there was a provision that if this country acted in a way inconsistent with its authority under the mandate, other countries could bring that before the conference at The Hague. That has already been done in one instance in which he (the Attorney-General) had represented his country. (The case of Mavromatis against the Ruttenberg concession).
The Urtas Springs at present watered a thousand sheep and donkeys and cattle, and it was early last year that the Governor, apprehensive of a servere position arising in Jerusalem from failure of water, authorized Jerusalem to go to these springs.
His ordinance prohibited the taking of water which would interfere with drinking or domestic use of the people of Urtas and the watering of their cattle and trees, and provided that if it ever interfered with their growing crops there was to be compensation. One of the judges who granted the injunction seemed to think that there should be compensation in every case. But there were no other interferences. The rest were prohibitions of interference.
Sir Douglas said that the question referred to above, i. e., whether a Court of Palestine could declare an order of the Legislature null and void. etc, was very important from a constitutional point of view. The court said it overruled the ordinance because it was inconsistent with the Mandate in failing to safeguard the civil rights of the inhabitants, and took from the courts disputes for damages under the Urtas ordinance, referring them to an arbitrator appointed by the High Commissioner, whose final award excluded the courts.
The Attorney-General submitted there was nothing in the Ordinance inconsistent with the Mandate or interfering with civil rights.
After listening to further arguments from the Attorney General and Mr. De G. Ruyther, who represented the respondents. the Privy Council reserved judgment.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
