10
Factory. 3mponents int,, !1e .them to for fining, and then !t to its de,stina. )uld not afford 'y where there sible transport e asked, " Why or four fac ictory will n ot illing factorie„ England and into four, the, times greater tajor transport )Ver, would LLCh S: (,e q h'g Overage , water e cannot split irts . Nor cunt from Ianothot, endent. Oao rr small filling be complete),, four tinges ccg t of .factories najor couutl;v from Qlleeil,3- ve mentioned Wagga and 1 be necessary es. The (h- arve the right ere there i; s is possible (+; a real prof! -tell atel, )ort At be it will Caleb, continue tkr^ at truly ti Production, een in power, rat Honorable no idle claim, Ave 11,9(1 f a- Bend in Vie- Salisbury ill Perth; at St. lcoinbe, i tit ill IIob;lrt} find at sucb St. Mary's Filling Factor, [9 JUNE, 1955.] Newspaper Articles. 1613 country towns as Kalgoorlie, Rutherford, WAgga, Ballarat, Bendigo, Echuca, Murray Bridge, Tamworth and Mildura. 1 here is talk about decentralization. This is a department which is decentralized, and the fact that war-time factories have been sold or leased to private enterprise, in the main, means that when they are re- established they must be re-established in like places. I direct the attention of the House to that fact and say that we are fully concerned with that aspect. We believe that this is not a large factory. We know that it is not a number one priority bombing target, but that trans- port is. Therefore, it is essential that when we move approximately 200,000 tons of steel components per annum for filling we must have appropriate rail and other transport facilities. I pass over that aspect. I do not think that there is any need for me to traverse in detail the matters that have been dealt with luring the debate. I have spoken with regard to the works, and the architects, and I have said something about decen- tralization and the dangers to Sydney. On reflection, I think that the House will agree that the Government has made a 'rerv wise decision and a very wise choice. Question resolved in the negative. NEWSPAPER ARTICLES. REPORT OF COMM ITTEE OF PRIVILEGES. Mr. MENZIES (Kooyong - Prime Minister) 1-5.7j.-I move- That the House agrees with the committee n 0its report. this is a very remarkable occasion in Inc ny ways, Mr. Speaker, quite without precedents, so far as I know, in the history of this Parliament. Some time ago the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan) directed the attention of the House to a publication which had been made about him. The House referred the matter to the Committee of Privileges. Subsequently, further publications were made, and the House referred those also to the -ame committee, and the commit- tee has made an investigation. The in- vesti.ratinn involved, in nartieular, three people, one the honorable member for Reid, upon whom most defamatory at taets 1',d been made; secondly, a man as',, r,1 Fitzpatrick, who was. so it was said. the instigator of these attacks; and thirdly, the man who wrote them named Browne. The committee investigated these matters. As I understand the matter, the committee was not simply con- cerned with whether a member of Par- liament had been defamed, because to be defamed is, perhaps, one of the privileges of being in this place, and a defamatory attack would not of itself, as I understand it, attract the operation of a committee of privileges or the action of the Parlia- ment itself. But in this case it wee stated that the attacks made by these two people were designed to silence the honor able member for Reid on some matter., in this Parliament. In other words, these attacks were designed to prevent him from carrying out his duty to his con- stituents, and that is where privilege comes in. That is where the whole rela- tionship between the Parliament and those outside the Parliament calls for examination. That is a. great and a grave problem, and not one to be dealt with lightly, or without the most careful consideration. Therefore, this House re- ferred the matter to a committee of privileges, which included representatives of all parties in this house, and the members of that committee are, as all honorable members will agree, regarded as level-headed people. They had before them, not only the honorable member himself, but also Mr. Fitzpatrick, who, understand, is an identity of Bankstown. and Mr. Browne, and if honorable mem- hers will refresh their minds by looking at the report of the committee they will see that the matter has been approached, I would venture to say, quite in a scientific and formal manner. Para- graph 7 of the report reads- Your Committee determined that its investi gatione ahou 'd. if possible, reveal- 1. Whether the articles referred to con ctituted a breach of the Privileges of this House . . . And, of course, they would if they were found to represent an attempt to prevent a member of the House from performing his parliamentary duty- 2. Whether the charges made against the honorable Member for Reid, as a Member of the House , were of ans enb'tance, and 3. Whether the newspaper arti"les, in various references to the House, its Committees and its Members, con -stituted a contempt of the House,

NEWSPAPER ARTICLES....Newspaper Articles. [9 JUNE, 1955.1 Newspaper Articles. this from the evidence given before the com-cuittee by the people most intimately concerned. Sir, if the

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    9

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: NEWSPAPER ARTICLES....Newspaper Articles. [9 JUNE, 1955.1 Newspaper Articles. this from the evidence given before the com-cuittee by the people most intimately concerned. Sir, if the

Factory.

3mponents int,,!1e .them to forfining, and then!t to its de,stina.)uld not afford'y where theresible transport

e asked, " Whyor four fac

ictory will notilling factorie„England andinto four, the,times greater

tajor transport)Ver, wouldLLCh S: (,e q h'g

Overage , watere cannot splitirts . Nor cuntfrom Ianothot,endent. Oaorr small fillingbe complete),,four tinges ccg

t of .factoriesnajor couutl;vfrom Qlleeil,3-

ve mentionedWagga and

1 be necessaryes. The (h-arve the rightere there i; sis possible (+;a real prof!

-tell atel,)ort At beit will Caleb,continue tkr^at truly ti

Production,een in power,

rat Honorableno idle claim,

Ave 11,9(1 fa-

Bend in Vie-Salisbury illPerth; at St.lcoinbe, i tit

ill IIob;lrt}find at sucb

St. Mary's Filling Factor, [9 JUNE, 1955.] Newspaper Articles. 1613

country towns as Kalgoorlie, Rutherford,WAgga, Ballarat, Bendigo, Echuca,

Murray Bridge, Tamworth and Mildura.

1 here is talk about decentralization. This

is a department which is decentralized,and the fact that war-time factories havebeen sold or leased to private enterprise,in the main, means that when they are re-established they must be re-establishedin like places. I direct the attention ofthe House to that fact and say that weare fully concerned with that aspect. Webelieve that this is not a large factory.We know that it is not a number onepriority bombing target, but that trans-port is. Therefore, it is essential thatwhen we move approximately 200,000tons of steel components per annum forfilling we must have appropriate rail andother transport facilities. I pass overthat aspect. I do not think that thereis any need for me to traverse in detailthe matters that have been dealt withluring the debate. I have spoken withregard to the works, and the architects,and I have said something about decen-tralization and the dangers to Sydney.On reflection, I think that the House willagree that the Government has made a'rerv wise decision and a very wise choice.

Question resolved in the negative.

NEWSPAPER ARTICLES.REPORT OF COMM ITTEE OF PRIVILEGES.

Mr. MENZIES (Kooyong - PrimeMinister) 1-5.7j.-I move-

That the House agrees with the committeen0its report.

this is a very remarkable occasion inInc ny ways, Mr. Speaker, quite withoutprecedents, so far as I know, in the historyof this Parliament. Some time ago thehonorable member for Reid (Mr.Morgan) directed the attention of theHouse to a publication which had beenmade about him. The House referredthe matter to the Committee of Privileges.Subsequently, further publications weremade, and the House referred those alsoto the -ame committee, and the commit-tee has made an investigation. The in-vesti.ratinn involved, in nartieular, threepeople, one the honorable member forReid, upon whom most defamatoryat taets 1',d been made; secondly, a manas',, r,1 Fitzpatrick, who was. so it wassaid. the instigator of these attacks; and

thirdly, the man who wrote them namedBrowne. The committee investigatedthese matters. As I understand thematter, the committee was not simply con-cerned with whether a member of Par-liament had been defamed, because to bedefamed is, perhaps, one of the privilegesof being in this place, and a defamatoryattack would not of itself, as I understandit, attract the operation of a committeeof privileges or the action of the Parlia-ment itself. But in this case it weestated that the attacks made by these twopeople were designed to silence the honorable member for Reid on some matter.,in this Parliament. In other words, theseattacks were designed to prevent himfrom carrying out his duty to his con-stituents, and that is where privilegecomes in. That is where the whole rela-tionship between the Parliament andthose outside the Parliament calls forexamination. That is a. great and agrave problem, and not one to be dealtwith lightly, or without the most carefulconsideration. Therefore, this House re-ferred the matter to a committee ofprivileges, which included representativesof all parties in this house, and themembers of that committee are, as allhonorable members will agree, regardedas level-headed people. They had beforethem, not only the honorable memberhimself, but also Mr. Fitzpatrick, who,understand, is an identity of Bankstown.and Mr. Browne, and if honorable mem-hers will refresh their minds by lookingat the report of the committee they willsee that the matter has been approached,I would venture to say, quite in ascientific and formal manner. Para-graph 7 of the report reads-

Your Committee determined that its investigatione ahou 'd. if possible, reveal-

1. Whether the articles referred to conctituted a breach of the Privileges ofthis House . . .

And, of course, they would if they werefound to represent an attempt to preventa member of the House from performinghis parliamentary duty-

2. Whether the charges made against thehonorable Member for Reid, as aMember of the House , were of ansenb'tance, and

3. Whether the newspaper arti"les, invarious references to the House, itsCommittees and its Members, con

-stituted acontempt of the House,

Page 2: NEWSPAPER ARTICLES....Newspaper Articles. [9 JUNE, 1955.1 Newspaper Articles. this from the evidence given before the com-cuittee by the people most intimately concerned. Sir, if the

1614 Newspaper Articles. + REPRESENTATIVES.] Newspaper Articles.

I need not worry about the third line ofinvestigation, because the committee, withfirst-class good sense , came to the con-clusion that although there was contemptof the House, and indeed of the com-mittee itself, involved in some of theremarks, the House should not undulyconcern itself about that. If I may ven-ture to say so, that seems to have been avery sensible decision to reach. Thenthe committee goes on to discuss theseother matters-

Your Committee was firmly convinced bythe evidence that a breach of Privilege hadoccurred in that an attempt had been madethrough the newspaper articles to influenceand intimidate a member, , . .

[ emphasize the word " intimidate ", be-cause, after all, all newspaper articlesare designed to influence us-the honorable Member for Reid , in his conductin the House.

The committee then proceeded to set outin the report some questions and answersfrom the examination which was made.[ do not need to read them, because honor-.ble members have read them, and theyire in the hands of the press and of thepublic, but I must say that, with the mostremarkable naivete, Mr. Fitzpatrick, wemight say in the homely phrase, camelean. He said. " Of course this waslesigned to intimidate the member forReid. That was the idea in printing it ".there is no argument about this. He,vas asked, " To prevent him sayingthings in Parliament? ", and he answered," Yes ", If frankness could excuse anoffence, then indeed this offence would berapidly excused, because rarely in myexperience has a man been so completelyforthcoming in admitting what is calledthe object of the exercise, He employedthis nian Browne at £30 a week becausehe thought that Browne was the kind ofman who would-again to use the phraseexpressed in the evidence quoted in the^eport -" Get stuck into " the honorablemember. No doubt he selected this manbecause this man di'as an expert in de-`amatory attacks, an expert in what hasbeen called " character assassination ".Ube committee has, under those cireuni-stances, unanimously reported to the[louse that there is a breach of privilege,not an accidental one, as I point out,hut a breach of privilege deliberately

bta. lienz4es,

performed, organized and carried on ove'a term. I do not remember any prrvious instance of this kind, nor indeedis there any prior experience in thi,House of an all-party committee of thkHouse having to make a report in suclterms.

When it came to the honorable men,her for Reid, against whom the mo.grievous charges had been made andpursued-most grievous charges-theetwo people who had, in the one case promoted them, and in the other casewritten them and pursuued them, bein^,asked whether they had any proof o:'these charges, said, " No ". Here i iis in the report:--" Have you any, o'had you any facts before you,any proof, before you when youwrote these attacks?" The answer

is "No ". Here is the high-watemark of cynicism. "Do not wornabort proof, do not worry about fact,

tear his reputation away, and if yolcan get a big enough circulation for ityou may hope to destroy him." Thisis the high-water mark of wicked cynicism. And the committee, therefore.found, as I would imagine, on the evido nee, no difficulty in i caking a finding--

That Mr, R. E. Fitzpatrick and Mr. TBrowne have been guilty of a serious bread,of privilege by publi,liing articles intendeuto influence and intimidate a member, tilthonorable member for Reid, in his conduct itthe Rouse, and in de'.iberately attempting tcimpute conduct as a mernber against tilthonorable member for Reid, for the expreecpurpose of discrediting and silencing him. Thecommittee re^ommends that the House shouldtake appropriate action.

Well, sir, at this stare, it is not forme to nominate the appropriate actionbut I want to say that I think, with thisdocument before us, that the first thingthe House should do is to agree withthe committee in its report, unless, con*trary to my belief, there are people inthe House who want to have a re-heartug of this matter, setting the corntnittee's investigation on one side. I do

not want to have a re-hearing. The

committee was appointed by this House;it is trusted by this House; it has madea rei;ort to this House; and the bestevidence to support its findings is tohe found in these remarkable eztreet=

troll

mittcone

S:will,repcsidemenbeaatitheit 1tthinof Iandlieudispnotiup .atmotHotabohayheabee:thesubandJfnut

othao

Le:lie

1

OFtwihis

anTIirrnintorh:at

rf1t,oasvi

Page 3: NEWSPAPER ARTICLES....Newspaper Articles. [9 JUNE, 1955.1 Newspaper Articles. this from the evidence given before the com-cuittee by the people most intimately concerned. Sir, if the

aper Articles,

d carried on overaember any prekind, nor indeedperience in this!ommittee of thi1a report in sect

honorable .melt,whom the znos,been made ands charges-then,the one case pro.the other case.nod them, being

Ld any proof o!No ". Here iiave you any, c,"s before you,you on you

Iue answerthe high-waterDo not worry

)rry aboutay, and if you

;irculation for itroy him." Thil

of wicked cyniaittee, therefore,give, on the evi.aping a findil^^^;-,trick and Fir. F,t a serious iircact

articles hit 1111111to a member, t1

in his conduct it,te]y attempting tc'mher again,t flitd, for the cxpreFcsilencing hill. Th(

t the House 5Lou1d

e. 1 11"1 fill

)pro p._ate action

think=, with 1 hipit the first things to agree withport, unless, con,re are people in

have a re,-1101 r

etting the 1010

1 one side. 1 dore-hearing, Tfied by this Roost;use, it has mad,

and tic hosts findings is tolarkable ecdrilot:

no=

Newspaper Articles. [9 JUNE, 1955.1 Newspaper Articles. this

from the evidence given before the com-cuittee by the people most intimatelyconcerned.

Sir, if the House, as I suppose itwill, agrees with the committee in itsreport, I will then suggest for the con-sideration of the House that these twomen, Fitzpatrick and Browne, shouldbe given the benefit of what we callnatural justice in these matters. Beforethe House proceeds to decide ghat penaltyit will impose, it should give them, firstthing to-morrow morning , an opportunityof being present at the bar of the House,and speaking to the House before theHouse passes sentence on them. If we candispose of this matter so that they havenotice of this opportunity and can comeup here and be in this place, one by one,at the bar of the House , to-morrowmorning at ten o'clock , then before thisHouse determines what is to be doneabout these remarkable people, it willhave the opportunity of seeing them andhearing them , not on whether there hasbeen a breach of privilege , because ifthe House passes the motion I have justsubmitted, that will be concluded, but inorder that they may have the opportunityof saying whatever they want to say inmitigation of what this Parliament mightotherwise think a proper punishment forso scandalous a piece of conduct.

Mr. Holt rising in his place,

Mr. SPEAKER.-Order! If theLeader of the Opposition desires to speak,he has precedence.

Dr. .WATT (Barton-Leader of theOpposition ) [5.21].-1 desire to raisetwo or three points. I do not wish todiscuss the question this afternoon, andt reserve any comment I have to makeantil the time these two persons appear.Their attitude to the House will be ofimportance, perhaps of great importance,and it will be open to honorable membersto look at every aspect of the case. Ithink that is the attitude I should adoptat the present time.

I would have been in the House whenthe Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) roseto speak had I not been discussing someaspects of this matter with my executivewhen he submitted the motion. I alsoluariest to the Prime Minister that in

the order for attendance as to time, somearrangement should be made so that theattendance will take place at a time whichis physically possible, so that we candeal with all aspects of the case then.

Mr. HOLT (Higgins-Minister forLabour and National Service andMinister for Immigration) [ 5.22].-]wish to speak very briefly to this matter.not as a member of the Government somuch as a member of this Parliament.and one who, I hope , values the im-portance of Parliament and has someknowledge of the long historical processwhich has brought it to its presentsituation . While it is important, as thePrime Minister ( Mr. Menzies) hasemphasized to this House, that we shoulddeal with this matter promptly, I thinkit is also important that we should bringhome to the public who places us herethe vital importance of this institutionand of the need for preservation of therights and privileges of members whoare here to represent the people ofAustralia.,

This is the principal instrument ofour democracy and as people of thiscountry, we live and stand by the processof democracy . It is the instrument bywhich governments are made and bywhich, when they fail to command thesupport of a majority of members of theHouse, they are destroyed. It is theinstrument by which the laws of the landare promulgated that are given effect bygovernments. The people, recognizingthe importance of the need for membersof the Parliament to be free to carry out.without fear or prospect of favour.thr-duties which are imposed upon them,have given to members of the Parliamentcertain privileges which do not apply tothe community as a whole. One of theseis the privilege of being able to speakfrankly and fearlessly in this place with-out damage, should remarks be madewhich outside the Parliament, might beheld to be defamatory of particular per-sons . We as members are expected tcdischarge that obligation with a fullrecognition of our responsibilities andwith complete fairness to the people concerned. But it is a vital principle tobe preserved that the members of thisParliament should feel themselves free

INNINNEM

Page 4: NEWSPAPER ARTICLES....Newspaper Articles. [9 JUNE, 1955.1 Newspaper Articles. this from the evidence given before the com-cuittee by the people most intimately concerned. Sir, if the

1616 Newspaper Articles. I fi EP It E S EN TA T I V E S. ] Newspaper Articles.

to discharge that responsibility withoutfear of damage to themselves, or theirreputations, by people outside. On thematter ui repatatluu, as the Prime Minis-ter has stated, if we were concernedmerely with a matter of defamation, itwould not give rise to the procedure ofinquiry into a breach of privilege. But,where the effect of what is clone is tointimidate a member of this Parliamentin an effort to prevent him from dis-charging his responsibilities, clearly thematter is of the utmost seriousness and ofvery great importance to this Parliamentas an institution.

As one who has been a member of thisRouse for some years, I say that for manymembers of the Parliament there is ordealenough in standing in this public place, infull view of the press and under publicnotice, and seeking to put, as fearlesslyand as ably as one can, the views that

Mr. JOSHUA (Ballarat-Leader ofthe Anti-Communist Labour party)L5.261.-1 wish to speak very brietty onthis matter. The honorable member forReid (Mr. Morgan), while suffering avery grievous wrong, has appealed to theinstitutions of this House. lie exhibitedgreat courage and a great respect forthis House in taking that action. Tinintegrity of the members of the Cominit-tee of Privileges is beyond doubt. Ifhonorable members have ever had causeto complain about the integrity of mem-bers of that committee, they have hadmany opportunities to make such com-plaints; but they have not done so. Apt;recognize the right of the committee todeal with matters such as this. Tbtcommittee has reported on this matter,and we must support the eonr mittee ifwe are not to abandon completely theproper conduct of the democratic in.stirn-tions of this country. The motion barthe unanimous support of the party thatI lead.

Mr. ALLAN FRASER (Eden-hionaro)(5.-391.-I do not know why the Ministerfor Labour and National Service ( -Vr.Holt) thought it necessary to supportand add to the remarks made by thePrime Minister (Mr. Menzies), whoseemed to cover the ground completely.The Minister for Labour and i\atiuuttlService thought fit to emphasize thrgravity of an attempt by an organizatto.outside this Parliament-a newspaper-to intimidate a member of the ParliaruEin the performance of his public du',y.That is a very grave matter indeed. Ncmember of the Parliament would Naarany view other than that the matter ofwhich the Committee of Privileges barnow adjudicated is an exceedingly gra t`eone and requires the attention of thinHouse. I am astonished that the Minister for Labour and National Serviceshould have thoncht it necessary toemphasize the matter at such lcn^th. asif it were something completely nunre-cedenterl in tie history of the Parliament,T nd 1re flip House on thiG "natter

becansp T wish to point out that the greatnewspapers of Australia. from rlav to.rlay, from month to month and fromvon„ to v^ar m1 noon Glum Or „ 1:+ir'dlPricig. nn»ctnotiv pndewn111' to j'16111'

that T alp sure will be unanimously given. rl-to rpn,,,hem of the Pal'llar "+ 'n th`

Mr. Holt.

one holds . That is no small ordeal at anytime for a relatively inexperienced mem-ber of the Parliament . If, in additionto these normal burdens of concern forthe responsibility that a member mustdischarge, there is to be any threat ofintimidation directed at members for themanner in which their public duties arecarried out, clearly this institution of Par-liament could not function satisfactorily.I question whether , in the history of theinstitution of Parliament , there has everbeen a more brazen or arrogant attemptto intimidate a member of the Parliamentfrom carrying out the duties that he isexpected to discharge , or to prevent him,if that could he done , from saying thingsthat he felt should be said in the publicinterest . I merely add to the remarks ofthe Prime Minister the observations thatI have made in order to emphasize Myview , which I believe is shared by honor-able members on both sides of the House.As the Prime Minister stated , we havebefore us the unanimous decision of theCommittee of Privileges. I add, thatthe committee is representative of allparties in this House and its decision istherefore a decision of all sectionsand all parties in this chamber.The committee has made a decision,and it is for us as a House of the Parlia-ment to acknowledge the importance ofthat decision and to give it the snpnort

perde,beiTitattweAnof

fir,

thepr(res

Wi

"el

on

ge;

Winathe

in1

pohe

Page 5: NEWSPAPER ARTICLES....Newspaper Articles. [9 JUNE, 1955.1 Newspaper Articles. this from the evidence given before the com-cuittee by the people most intimately concerned. Sir, if the

iper Articles.

arat Leader ofLabour part` )

k very brieu", oncable utetub5'r for,voile suffering ais appealed to theIse. Ile exhil,itedgreat respect forthat action. Theis of the Conimlit-eyond doubt. Ifre ever had routintegrity of tiiec,l-e, they have had

make such rocnuot rl -e so. Wethe mittcee to

eh as this. The;d on this Tu'+tterthe coniruittee if

m completely thedemocratic inticu-

The motion bal.t of the party that

;R (-Eden-Itlonero)v why the 1lliniateronal Service ( Nlr.sessary to snnhpurlarks made by ther. Menzies), whoground completely.bour and \,Iti,malto eurphasir.r ticby an organi/atloL

,nt-a newspnn Iw,_.r of the Parlitunr'niof h' uublice dory.anat. indeed. X eiament would lt,a v^'that the matter on

e of Privileges Ill'sn exeeedinelwe attention of thisJaed that the Al i'acs-I National Sern'icn

it it 11e e Psea r'' to

r at such 1PnL,1h. aPr cnmTnlPtPly 111-le-y of the Parliana^"Inl-.se oil this Iusirter

nt out that tbc' "'ratralia, from ,1^- toa month anrt f-IT'rn°innc P'i' rv,l;""'Al

de vo,,r to 1'11'.1111

ParliamP"c " ^h,

Newspaper Articles. [9 JUNE, 19,55. 1 Japan. 1617

performance of their duties. They en-deavour particularly to. intimidate mem-bers of the' Parliamentary Labour part3•.There could have no more vigorousattempts at intimidation than those thatwere directed against members of theAtl.=tralian Labour party over the issueof bank nationalization.

Dr. V ATT.-Au d the Communistreferendum.

Mr. ALLAN FI.ASEP.-Or over theissue of the Communist Party DissolutionNot 19; fl, By means of leadin articles,ipecit'I articles, cartoons and glaring head-lines the newspapers attempted tofrighten members of the Opposition andto prevent them from voting and speak-ing as they thought they should do.Every member of the Parliament knowsthat, but Government supporters arealways silent about those matters inregard to o'reat issues that suit theirown political purposes. I do not accuse

the Minister of hypocrisy, but I considerthat, though he has directed his attentionon this occasion to a serious breach ofprivilege, he has shut his eyes to therepeated breaches of privilege committedby the great newspapers of this countryagainst members of the Parliament whoathey attempt to intimidate upon issuesthat suit the interests of the Govern-ment parties.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Mr. MENzIES) proposed-That Raymond E. Fitzpatrick and Frank C.

Browne be notified that at 10 a.un. to-morrowthe Home will hear them at the liar beforeproceeding to decide ii'hnt action it will take inrespect of their breaches of privilege.

Dr. Ev+TT.-I take it that both menWill be dealt with separately.

Mr. MENZIES.-That is my idea.Dr. FvATT.-Both men should be heard

-eparately.?ilr. MrNZIES.-If I may say so, I

entirely agree with the right honorable

gentleman. The two men cannot be dealtwith together. I have included theirname, in the one motion only because

they h-th must receive notice of theintention of the House. I would pro-

pose that they he heard separately andhE dealt with separately.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

JAPAN.Debate resumed from the 28th Septem-

ber, 1954 (vide page 1629), on motion

by Mr. MENZIES-

That the 'following paper be printed:-Japan and the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade - Dlini,terialStatement.

Mr. DUTFL`IE (Wilmot) [5.35].-InSeptember last year, the Prime Minister(Mr. Menzies) made a speech in thisHouse, in reply to a request by thehonorable member for Melbourne (Mr.Calwell), on the Government's attitudetowards the request of Japan for achnis-sion to the General A reennent on Tariffsand Trade. In order to refresh theminds of honorable members I shall quotefrom that speech. Negotiations by Japanhad then been going on for two years forits admission into the agreement. ThePrime Minister said-

These tariff negotiations are a neees arkpreliminary to the adutision of a new member.and at the ninth session contracting partieswill be asked to decide whether tariff nen tia-tions with Japan are to he progranutied andi,'lmether any special conditions are to beatached to Japanese accession. .

He went on to say that any country wish-ing to trade with Japan could do so,pending its admission to the generalagreement. Ile continued-

Japan figures largely in our overseai- trade,and it is important for us to see that ourtrade with it i not unduly frustrated parti-cularly because of the significance of Japan'spurchases in the wool market. While theGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade con-tinues to be the instrument regulating somuch of world trade there are undouhtedhadvantages in Japan becoming a memhr'r andbeing suhlect to the General Agreement onTariff= and Trade rules.

I emphasize that last phrase. The right

honorable gentleman added-Nevertlheless, Japanese accession prevent>

problems for Australia and for other contract-ing parties, too. As an original contracting

party, Australia would not necessarily beobliged to apply the agreement to Jan an eventhough Japan's accession was approved by amajority of contracting hartie,. The Aus

tralian Government must first he .satisfie'l thatits own trading and industrial interests are, wlerlnately safeguarded. In the meantime, thereview of the General Agreement on Tariffsamd Trade will have taken place, and one oftn,, factnrs which will influence nor nilima.tedecision will pe the nature of flip ehang^s in

t1'e ap*I^ral agreement which will emerge fromthat review.

Page 6: NEWSPAPER ARTICLES....Newspaper Articles. [9 JUNE, 1955.1 Newspaper Articles. this from the evidence given before the com-cuittee by the people most intimately concerned. Sir, if the

sswers to Questions.

tal report will be

r MASCOT AERODROyg

.ed the Minister forn notice-;re tenders called by theght to operate the hireairport?

I tenders close?ions was the successful:o operate?lot yet been called, Whenitend to invite them?-The right to operateat Sydney airport isue of licence -plates by

ale apartment ofDrigii.__.y these platesar different operators,ave since sold theirent holder who, as a

3 plates that have beendepartment . In these

ders for the hire-carlied, nor is it proposedtime as the New South

t of Transport issues

H ADMINISTRATIVI,

TOOWOOMDA.

eked the Minister fore-mts been finalized for thenronwealth administrativeiba, Queensland?I being given to the reat Commonwealth Healthfor this purpose after theerred the general hos.omba(, be near future'Mans a ,ebeing considered,officers of his departmentwith the Toowoomba City

y as the Coll, ronwealtlto the new civic centre?,onmmonwealth administraa sufficient accommodationhe various Commonwealthare at present occupyingr different buildings?

iHES.-The answers totuber's questions are as

s for remodelling and es-health laboratory building.formal practice. It is notle existing street facade,ing, will be altered in any

extent the building will

Newspaper Articles. [10 JUNE, 1955.] Newspaper Articles. 1625

Friday, 10 June, 1955. Mr. SPEAKER.-Have you anything

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. Archie Cameron)took the chair at 10 a.m., and readprayers.

NEWSPAPER ARTICLES.REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF

PRIVILEGES.

Pursuant to the resolution passed bythe House on the 9th June-

That Raymond E. Fitzpatrick and FrankC. Browne be notified that at 10 a.m. to-morrow the House will hear them at thebar before proceeding to decide what actionit will take in respect of their breaches ofprivilege.

The Serjeant-at-Arms having informedJMr. Speaker that Raymond EdwardFitzpatrick and Frank Courtney BrowneWere in attendance on the House,

Mr. SPEAKER.-Inform RaymondEdward Fitzpatrick that the House willnow hear him.

111r. Raymond Edward P+itzpatrickhaving appeared at the bar of the House,

Mr. SPEAKER.-Raymond EdwardFitzpatrick, the House has adjudgedyou guilty of a serious breach of privilegeby publishing articles intended to in-fluence and intimidate a member, thehonorable member for Reid (Mr.Morgan), in his conduct in the Houseand in deliberately attempting to im-pute corrupt conduct as a memberagainst the honorable member for Reidfor the express purpose of discreditingand silencing him. Have you anythingto say in extenuation of your offencebefore the House determines what actionit will take? You may now speak.

Mr. FITZPATRICIC.-I would like toapply for permission for Mr. Mason, mycounsel, to act on my behalf.

Mr. SPEAKER.-The resolution ofthe House entitles you to speak per-sonally, not your counsel.

Dr. EvATT.-Mr Speaker

Mr. FITZPATRICK.-I would like toapologize to the House for what I did.When the article was published in thenewspaper I had no idea that it was

against parliamentary privilege. I

humbly apologize.

further to say?

Mr. FITZPATRICE:.-N0.Mr. SPEAKER.-Raymond Edward

Fitzpatrick, you will withdraw from thechamber while the House deliberates.

Mr. Fitzpatrick having withdrawn,

Mr. MENZIES:I suggest we hear theother person charged.

Mr. SPEAKER.-Serjeant-at-Arms,inform Frank Courtney Browne that theHouse will now hear him.

Dlr. Frank Courtney Browne havingappeared at the bar of the House,

Mr. SPEAKER.-Frank CourtneyBrowne, the House has adjudged youguilty of a serious breach of privilege bypublishing articles intended to influenceand intimidate a member, the honor-able member for Reid, in his conduct inthe House and in deliberately attempt-ing to impute corrupt conduct as amember against the honorable memberfor Reid for the express purpose of dis-crediting and silencing him. Have youanything to say in extenuation of youroffence before the House determineswhat action it will take? You may nowspeak.

Mr. BRowNE.-Mr. Speaker and honor-able members, I have sometbing to sayin extenuation and mitigation of myoffences, but it must remain a slightlyimpersonal plea, because I have beenconvicted of an offence which, accordingto Australian justice, has not been fullyproved. I base that on this: It is con-sidered the right

Mr. SPEAKER.-You will take yourhands off the bar.

Mr. BROwNE.-It is considered the.right of every Australian citizen chargedwith an offence that he, first, must becharged; and secondly, he must have legalrepresentation. That is denied to meeven here. He must have the case againsthim proved, and he need not answer in-criminating questions. Then there is thefact that he must have the right to cross-examine his accuser. And lastly, he musthave the right to anneal. There is alsoanother inherent right which is alwaysobserved in every court in this Common-wealth, and every court where there is any

Page 7: NEWSPAPER ARTICLES....Newspaper Articles. [9 JUNE, 1955.1 Newspaper Articles. this from the evidence given before the com-cuittee by the people most intimately concerned. Sir, if the

1626 Newspaper Articles. [REPRESENTATIVES.] Newspaper Articles.

reasonable conception of justice-that heshall present his case in an atmospherewhich shall not have had the effect ofprejudging him before he comes in.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask youhow what has happened to me this weeksquares up with that. First,'I have beenconvicted and never charged. Secondly,at no time have I had legal representa-tion. Thirdly, the case against me hasnot been properly proved. Fourthly, Ihave never had the right to cross-examinemy accuser. And fifthly, I have no rightto appeal. As far as the last is concerned,it is the inherent right for a man to havehis case taken in an atmosphere that doesnot allow him to enter the court-roomwith the hatred, not only of spectatorsbut of practically every one in the court-room, including the, jury, stirred upagainst him to a point where, if this wasa community of another type, I doubtvery much whether lie would get into thecourt at all; he would be lynched on theway in.

I come to that last point. Last night,the right honorable the 'Prime Minister,the greatest orator in the history of thiscountry-and you can put Alfred Deakinin, too-and, I suggest, one of the mostvindictive men in the history of thiscountry, rose and, in the way that onlylie can do, poured scorn on me. It hasbeen done before, I know that, but neverquite under these circumstances. In

effect, last night he acted as a stagemanager, and the purpose of his stagemanagement was one thing and one thingonly-"Bring Browne in here to grovelfor mercy, and if he does not grovel formercy, put him in for life ".

Sir, I am not asking for any rightsfor myself. I know very well that I havemade personal enemies of members onboth sides of this House in the course ofdoing what I believe to be right, no matterwhat other people think about it. There

is no question about the attitude of theright honorable the Prime Minister, sir,towards me-none whatever. There is noquestion about the attitude of my erst-while great and good friend, the righthonorable the Treasurer, towards me.There is no question, sir, about the atti-tude of some of the members on theOpposition side of the House. I have

been facetious at least about some ofthem.; I have been more than facetiousabout some of them. But that is by tluby.

I am not asking merely for myself. 1am not standing here as Frank Browne,What happens to Frank Browne in thisassembly does not matter very much. Heis an obscure and inconspicuous figurein the community-not a newspaperbaron, sir, not a man who can commanda mighty organ with which really tointimidate a member if he tried. No, Icannot do that. I produce an obscuresuburban newspaper of four shkts offoolscap a week, so I am not a very bigfigure. You might say that I am aworker-a phrase, that is frequentlybandied aboutwhich I think I canclaim to be classed as. So that I amasking not for myself, sir, but for thosewho may follow me, that this House doesnot seek to impose very strict punishment,but that it will delegate my trial to abody, a legal tribunal, in which I willhave my rights, and if I am then shownto be guilty-well, the hardest gaol inthe land is too good for me. And therewould be no appeal. I would not pleadmitigation. I am prepared to take mychance under those circumstances. AllI ask for is that the general public beshown, sir, that you do not bring peoplehere to Canberra to deprive them of theirrights, that the law-makers do not setthemselves above the law, and do notplace their good name better than thatof the constituents they represent. Surelythat is not too much to ask, sir.

I say that, if this Parliament estab-lishes a precedent and takes the right ofpunishment into its own hands, the rightsthat have been fought for since 1215, andeven before, are seriously endangered.The right of free speech is endangered.You talk about intimidation, sir., Youvisit exemplary punishment-or, for thatmatter, the degree of punishment does notmatter to me-and what happens? Therewi11 not be a journalist in the land, not anewspaper proprietor in the land, whowill feel free, because once you establisha precedent you might say, " Oh, yes,Browne did an awful thing ". But youwill not wait for some one else to do an

Page 8: NEWSPAPER ARTICLES....Newspaper Articles. [9 JUNE, 1955.1 Newspaper Articles. this from the evidence given before the com-cuittee by the people most intimately concerned. Sir, if the

paper Articles,

st about some ofore than facetiou,But that is by tl!ee

rely for myself. 1as Frank Browne,

nk Browne in thister very much. Reteonspicuous figurenot a newspaperwho can commanr]

-I which really toif he tried . No, l)roduce an obseurr,of sheets ofam a very bigsay that I am ahat is frequentirh I think I canas. So that I au)

sir, but for tho; ehat this House dotey strict punishment,sate my trial to ail, in which I willIf I am then shownhe hardest gaol iufor me . And thereI would not plead

repared ' to take m^circumstances. Al]e general public bedo not bring peopleePrive them of their-makers do not sete law, and do notne b,-°r than thatey rl, sent. Surelyo ask, sir.

s Parliament estab-d takes the right ofwn hands, the rights- for since 1215, andriously endangered,eech is endangered.nidation, sir. , Youhment-or, for thatpunishment does notat happens ? There;t in the, land, not ain the land, whoonce you establish

ht say, "Oh, yes,thing ". But youone else to do an

Newspaper Articles. [10 JUNE, 1955.] Newspaper Articles. 1627

awful thing. You will get a border-line case and inevitably in a border-line case you get somebody who says," Throw him to the lions; crucify him ",and they crucify him. That has been thelesson of tyranny in every country. Thereis not a 'thing that. Hitler did that hecould not justify-not a thing. ReadMein Kampf and you will wonder howhe ever went to war and, when he did goto war, how we could ever reconcile itwith our consciences to fight.

The law of this country has ample pro-vision for any punishment that I have

earned. I ask that this House will nottake a final step of inflicting punishment,because with any move in that direction,however tempered-if it consists of anapology-the principle has gone. Sir, it

establishes the fact that here is not onlya court, but a court which absolves itselfof every idea that we have had inculcated

into us on the score of natural justicewhen a person is charged with an offence-in fact, a court that is prepared to con-met him without charging him. Even

the Star Chamber, that body which isbandied around every time somebodywants to justify himself as a true bluedemocrat, did not go that far. I say this,and I say it quite sincerely: That whatyou do to me is of no moment, perhaps,in a physical sense to anybody but me-

no moment whatever. But you are ex-

porting locomotives and other things to

those countries that are strugglingtowards democracy in South-Fast Aria.If you export the locomotives and youneglect to export some of the elementalprinciples of justice which they knownothing about, well, it will all be in vain.Your Colombo plan will be nullified.Everything you give them they will mis-use, including the rights of legislative

bodies.

Now, sir, I do appeal to you. It is nota question of the merits of the case, andit is not a question of the rights of thecase. I know that you have unlimitedrights. If I were tried for murder andconvicted after due trial, I suppose Icould look forward to being out in aboutfifteen years, if I were good. But, sir,I do not know what I can look forward

to here. You may say, in effect, "Put

him away and shut him up ", and whatwelcome news that would be to some ofthe members present ! Sir, if you fallback on your rights-and your rights are300-year old rights-to deal with mehere, you will have forfeited any right--not you personally, but every memberhere-to stand at next election time on thestump and sing hymns about liberty,equality and fraternity.

Mr. SPEAKER. - Have you con-cluded ?

Mr. BIrOWvNE.-Yes.

Mr. SPEAKER. - Frank CourtneyBrowne, you will withdraw from thechamber while the House deliberates

Mr. Browne having withdrawn,Mr. MErazlES.-Mr. Speaker, 1 propose

that, these addresses having been madeto us, you suspend the sitting for halfan hour so that we may take them intoaccount.

Sitting suspended from 10.19 to 11.10 a.m.

Mr. MENZIES (Kooyong - PrimeMinister) [11.10].-I propose to, submittwo motions to the House in due course,but in making such remarks as I desireto address to honorable members, I shallspeak about both motions together,because the circumstances are common toboth. It is necessary on this occasion,which is without precedent in the Par-liament, to refer to the foundations of therights of the Parliament to protect itselfand its members. Section 49 of the Aus-tralian Constitution reads-

The powers, privileges, and immunities ofthe Senate and of the House of Representatives,and of the members and the committees ofeach House, shall be such as are declaredby the Parliament, and until declared shallbe those of the Commons House of Parliamentof the United Kingdom, and of its membersand committees, at the establishment of theCommonwealth.

Therefore, the right of this House todeclare and protect its privileges is clearand is founded on the Constitution itself.The Commons House of Parliament, at,Westminster, has for centuries exercised

its powers to protect itself and its inem-hers on the very sound principle that,unless the Parliament itself remains aninstitution in which members are free tospeak, it ceases to perform one of the

Page 9: NEWSPAPER ARTICLES....Newspaper Articles. [9 JUNE, 1955.1 Newspaper Articles. this from the evidence given before the com-cuittee by the people most intimately concerned. Sir, if the

1628 Newspaper Articles. [REPRESENTATIVES.) Newspaper Articles.

greatest of the functions of the Parlia-ment, which is the free expression ofopinion and the free debating of ideasconcerning the public good.

A right to punish for contempt is notpeculiar to the Parliament. The courts oflaw have a .right to punish for contemptsof court. Indeed, I remind honorablemembers that, in the case of a contemptof court committed in the face of thecourt, the judge who is at the time pre-siding over the proceedings deals withthe matter himself there and then andhas power instantly to commit for con-tempt the person guilty of it. I mentionthat very well-known fact merely topoint out that some of the remarks abouttrials to which we listened this morningare entirely misconceived. In the caseto which I have referred, the court is ajudge, if one likes, in its own cause.Parliament, if one likes, is the judgeir, its own cause, because no oneexcept the Parliament can protectthe Parliament. The case with whichwe are now dealing is a perfectillustration of the differences that mustbe kept clearly in mind not only by itshere in this place of privilege, but alsoby people outside this chamber. Criticismof the Parliament, of course, is welljustified by experience and well warrantedin point of right. Violent criticism andattacks, perhaps of it highly personalsort. on individual members of Parlia-ment are not unknown. No parliamenthas ever taken action to prevent thosethings, and I do not think any parlia-ment will ever do so. The freedomknown as the freedom of criticism issomething that neither the Governmentnor, I suppose, any member of this Houseproposes to touch.

If this were merely a case of criticism,even of violent criticism, and if the matterbad followed what one might call thepattern of controversial journalism, itwould never have engaged the attention ofthe Committee of Privileges, or if it haddone so, would never have been made thesubject of a finding by the committee inthe terms in which a finding has beenmade. This happens to be a case inwhich the committee has found, in sub-stance, a conspiracy to blackmail a mem-ber of the Parliament into silence. Let

Mr. Menzies. -

us be perfectly clear about this matter.If these tactics had succeeded, and if thehonorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan)had not invoked the consideration of theHouse on this matter but had beensilenced and forced to conceal what, nodoubt, would be his views, this conspiracywould have succeeded. A member of theParliament would have been silenced.Something that, perhaps, ought to havebeen made known and ought to have beendiscussed would not have been madeknown and would not have been dis-cussed. Here we have something that iscompletely outside the realm of criticismas we understand the term. It is a con-spiracy to black-mail a member intosilence. If that objective can be achieved,that member's capacity to represent hiselectors has, to that degree, been des-troyed; he has been silenced. And, then,one has only to silence enough people bythose methods to reduce this Parliamentto impotence . I have emphasized thatmatter because, in some minds, there isalways a little disposition to be scepticalabout the Parliament as if it were anodd place in which only odd people wereto be found. I am proud to say that thisinstitution is the representative body ofthe nation . It is the flower of Australiandemocracy , and the degree to which thisHouse preserves the freedom of its mem-bers to speak and to think will be themeasure of its service to democracy.

I have described very briefly the matterwith which we are dealing. May I invitehonorable members to refresh their mindson the contents of the report of the Com-mittee of Privileges ? Nothing thatappears in that report is qualified oraffected, to the faintest degree, by theremarks that we heard from this manBrowne at the bar of the House thismorning. Far from seeking to qualify orto retract anything , he gave us an exhibi-',ion of unparalleled arrogance and impertinence , and exhibited his contempt forthe Parliament even more vividly thanhis writings and reports might have done.Here is the central fact in this matter:An attack designed to silence the honor-able member for Reid has been publishedand republished repeatedly in a journalowned for this purpose by Fitzpatrick andedited for this purpose by a freelance

jouinctheall

apthiatiI'mpr

arini

Page 10: NEWSPAPER ARTICLES....Newspaper Articles. [9 JUNE, 1955.1 Newspaper Articles. this from the evidence given before the com-cuittee by the people most intimately concerned. Sir, if the

spaper Articles,

about this matter.icceeded, and if theReid (Mr. Morgan)onsideration of theter but had beeno conceal what, nosws, this conspiracyA member of the

ave been silenced,aps, ought to haveought to have beenhave been made

of have been dis-something that is

realm of criticismterm. It is a con-1 a member intoive can be achieved,ty to,-nresent his

deg( been des-lencecs. And, then,e enough people by.ce this Parliamente emphasized thatme minds, there istion to be sceptical

as if it were auly odd people wereDud to say that this°esentative body oflower of Australianagree to which thisreedom of its mem-think will be the

to democracy.

y briefly the matterling. May I inviterefresh their mindsreport of the Corn-

i ? Nothing that)rt i ualified orest , ee, by therd from this manof the House thisPeking to qualify orgave us an exhibi-

rogance and imper,l his contempt formore vividly thanis might have done.set in this matter :silence the honor-

has been publishedtedly in a journalby Fitzpatrick and

fse by a freelance

Newspaper Articles. [10 JUNE, 1955.] Newspaper Articles. 1629

journalist named Browne. This wasmerely an incident in his life, and forthe services that he rendered in writingall this material he was paid. Thatappears to be his business. One of thethings that was said in the course of theattack was that they had the proofs and,indeed, they would come to Canberra toproduce them. The committee, in para-graph 11 of its report, has said unani-mously-

No evidence was brought before your com-mittee to substantiate the charges in the

Bankstown Observer against the honorable

member for Reid. When questioned on the

final section of the article appearing in the

Observer of the 5th May, 1955, viz.-" We

will go to Canberra and we will take with usproof of the charges against Morgan ", Mr.Browne replied that he did not have the proofwith him nor did he possess the proof at the

time the article was written. Mr. Fitzpatrick,

when asked "Have you any personal evidenceof any charges against Mr. Morgan ", replied

No ".

So, you see, here are charges preferred-I am not, nor is the House, sitting injudgment on issues between individuals-but here we have charges designed to closethe mouth of a member of Parliament.They are made, in the one case, withcomplete knowledge that lie had nomaterial to substantiate them, and in thecase of the other, the hired pen of malice,he has no proof, he had no proof, be couldnot care less. It was a job of work to bedone for £30 each week.

Sir, I do not want to labour this matter.I feel, and so do my colleagues, verystrongly on the matter. It would be agreat blunder to think that conduct of thiskind, so deliberately designed, so sustainedin its execution, because it is still goingon, could be allowed to pass with a merereprimand, or abandoned in the presenceof a muttered apology. It is high timethat the position of Parliament, inrelation to these matters, was understood,1 have tried to make it clear, as I under-stand it, and I hope I have clone so, butruder these circumstances, a reprimandwould be ridiculous. A fine is not withinour power. The historic remedy, adoptedrepeatedly over the course of history bythe House of Commons, and, indeed, byone or two parliaments at least in Aus-tralia, is the remedy of committing to

prison, and under those circumstances, Imove, first of all in the case of Fitz-patrick-

1. That Raymond Edward Fitzpatrick, beingguilty of a serious breach of privilege, be forhis offence committed to the custody of theperson for the time being performing the dutiesof Chief Commissioner of Police at Canberra inthe Australian Capital Territory or to thecustody of the keeper of the gaol at suchplace as Mr. Speaker from time to timedirects and that he be kept in custody untilthe tenth -day of September, 1955, or untilearlier prorogation or dissolution, unless thisHouse shall sooner order his discharge.

2. That Mr. Speaker direct John AtholPettifer, Esquire, the Serjeant-at-Arms, withthe assistance of such Peace 01ficers of theCommonwealth as . he requires, to take the,said Raymond Edward Fitzpatrick into custodyin order to his being committed to and keptin custody as provided by this resolution.

3. That Mr. Speaker issue his warrant-accordingly.

Dr. EVATT.-Is the Prime Minister(Mr. Menzies) moving, so far, in onecase only?

Mr. MENZIES.-I am proposing tomove precisely similar resolutions in thecase of Browne, but if the right honor-able gentleman would like me to movethem now, and it is permissible, I shalldo so.

Dr. EVATT.-I think they should be dis-cussed together. The right honorablegentleman has discussed them together.Will he move the resolutions?

Mr. MENZIES.-I am happy to dothat. I hope it will be in order.

Mr. SPEAKER.-I do not mind. Wehave done it before.

Mr. MENZIES.-They are in pre-cisely the same terms as in the case ofFitzpatrick. I move-

1. That Frank Courtney Browne, beingguilty of a serious breach of privilege, be forhis offence committed to the custody of theperson for the time being performing theduties of Chief Commissioner of Police atCanberra in the Australian Capital Territoryor to the custody of the keeper of the gaolat such place as Mr. Speaker from time totime directs and that lie be kept in custodyuntil the tenth clay of September, 1955, oruntil earlier prorogation or dissolution, unlessthis House shall sooner order his discharge.

2. That Mr. Speaker direct John AtholPettifer, Esquire, the Serjeant-at-Arms, withthe assistance of such Peace Officers of theCommonwealth as he requiree, to take thesaid Frank Courtney Browne into custody inorder to his being committed to and kept incustody as provided by this resolution.