Committee Reports > List of Committees > Seanad > 1924 > Committee on Courts of Justice Bill,1923 > Report - question raised by Amendment 39 to the Courts of Justice Bill, 1923 (Report Stage)

SEANAD EIREANN.

Tuarasgabhail ón gCoiste a ceapadh chun breithniú do dhéanamh ar an gceist d’eirigh as leasú 39 do Bhille na gCúirteanna Breithiúnais, 1923 (Céim Tuarasgabhala).

Report of the Committee appointed to consider the question raised by amendment 39 to the Courts of Justice Bill, 1923 (Report Stage).

1. Do ceapadh an Coiste seo leis an Seanad ar an 6adh Márta, 1924, agus siad so leanas atá ar an gCoiste:—An Tiarna Lann Abhaidh, Séamus Dubhglas, Somhairle Brún agus Seán O Fearghail.

2. Do tháinig an Coiste le chéile ar an 7adh agus ar an 18adh Marta, 1924, agus tuairiscíonn siad mar leanas.

GLENAVY

Cathaoirleach an Choiste.

19adh Márta, 1924.

1. A message from His Excellency the Governor-General, bearing date the 23rd day of September, 1923, was duly delivered to the Dáil, and reads as follows :—

“On the advice of the Executive Council and for the purpose of Article 37 of the Constitution, I have to recommend that for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of Courts of Justice according to the Constitution and for the better administration of justice authority be granted (a) for the charge upon the Central Fund of the remuneration and pensions of the Judges of the High Court, the Supreme Court and the Circuit Court, (b) the payment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas of Temporary Assistant Circuit Judges, the remuneration and pensions of Justices, Deputy Justices and Temporary Assistant Justices of the District Court, and any other expenses incurred in carrying such Act into effect.”

Subsequent to the receipt of this message and before the Courts of Justice Bill was considered in Committee of the Dáil, a resolution phrased in the terms of the message was adopted by the Dáil and Section 71 of the Bill, which incorporated the terms of this message and resolution, in so far as they provided for the payment of the salaries of the District Justices out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas, was subsequently passed through all its stages by the Dáil. In the Committee Stage of this Bill in the Seanad, an amendment to Section 71, providing that these salaries were to be paid by making them a charge upon the Central Fund, was duly carried, but on the Report Stage the question was raised on behalf of the Government as to the powers of the Seanad, under the circumstances, to make the amendment; and the general question as to the powers of the Seanad in this respect was thereupon referred to your Committee for their consideration and report. We accordingly have met, and after full and careful consideration beg to report as follows:—

2. First, we are absolutely satisfied that there was nothing in the terms of the message itself which precluded the Seanad from making the amendment in question. The extent and authority of any such message is expressly defined by Article 37 of the Constitution in the following terms:—

“37. Money shall not be appropriated by vote, resolution or law, unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same Session been recommended by a message from the representative of the Crown acting on the advice of the Executive Council.”

It is plain from the language of this Article that the sole and only function of every such message is to recommend the purpose of the appropriation, and consequently, in so far as in this particular case it goes on to direct the appropriation and the manner in which it is to be made, we are clearly of opinion that it exceeded its authority and had as regards these further matters no control or effect upon the action of either the Dáil or the Seanad.

3. Secondly, we are of opinion that the position of the Seanad was in no way altered or affected by the subsequent resolution of the Dáil. We have failed to find in the Constitution or elsewhere the slightest authority for the proposition that the adoption by the Dáil of any such resolution binds or controls the action of the Seanad. Such a proposition is in direct conflict with Article 61 of the Constitution, by which it is enacted that

“All revenues of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) from whatever source arising, shall, subject to such exception as may be provided by law, form one fund, and shall be appropriated for the purposes of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by law.”

This Article plainly provides that no appropriation of any of the revenues of the Free State can be made, or the manner of such appropriation prescribed, otherwise than by law, while Article 12 makes it equally certain that the sole and exclusive power of making laws is vested in the Oireachtas.

4. Thirdly, there being nothing, therefore, in the terms of the message or of the resolution as adopted by the Dáil to restrict the powers of the Seanad, the question submitted for our consideration is narrowed down to this:—Can the Seanad amend an appropriation clause in a Bill other than a Money Bill? Again, the answer is to be found in the Constitution, which by Article 38 provides that every Bill initiated and passed by the Dáil may, unless it be a Money Bill, be amended in the Seanad, and the Dáil shall consider any such amendment. The sole and only restriction to be found in the Constitution upon this unlimited right on the part of the Seanad to amend any Bill other than a Money Bill is in the case of an amendment which involves the appropriation of any part of the revenues of the Free State, as no such amendment can be made unless and until the purpose of such appropriation has been recommended by a message from the Governor-General under Article 37, a condition precedent which is equally binding upon both Houses of the Oireachtas. As this condition was admittedly fulfilled by the message in the case of the particular amendment which has given rise to this question, we have no hesitation in answering it in the affirmative.