Senator Johnson raised a point on Section 2 on the Second Reading as to what would happen if, by any chance, either House of the Oireachtas—I presume he intended to put it in its widest terms—were to make a standing order with which a newly-elected member would feel bound in conscience to refuse to comply. It is admitted that under the Constitution the Houses of the Oireachtas have power to make their own Standing Orders. If, however, a standing order were made which would conflict with the spirit of the Constitution by preventing a member, who was otherwise properly elected, from taking his seat— I do not think that that position could arise at all in regard to the Dáil, for which the Government is primarily responsible—but if it did arise in the Seanad, then I think a constitutional issue of very grave magnitude would be raised and that would have to be solved by whatever means and in whatever way seemed best at the time. I have not any doubt that the Executive Council elected by the Dáil would be able to resolve the crux in a satisfactory manner. However, I think that the whole question raised by Senator Johnson could be properly and safely left to the good sense of either House of the Oireachtas.
In connection with the whole of this matter we have to remember that one of the principles laid down for those engaged in the task of drafting Bills for the Oireachtas is that it must be assumed that the bodies or persons who are to exercise the functions in connection with the Bill when it becomes law will act reasonably. Otherwise, I submit it would be quite impossible to draft a Bill at all. To refer in this connection to Article 20 of the Constitution, to which the point raised by Senator Johnson is related, I should like to point out that when that Article gave power to the Houses of the Oireachtas to make their own Rules and Standing Orders it did not expressly seek to prevent either House from making absurd Standing Orders, Standing Orders which would be objectionable to members on conscientious grounds or Standing Orders which would be in conflict with the Constitution. The Article assumed that the Houses would carry out the duty of regulating their own procedure in a reasonable and intelligent way. When we bear these facts in mind, I suggest that the whole issue raised by Senator Johnson is disposed of satisfactorily. For the reassurance of members of the House, I may say that the Bill now before the Seanad was drafted after consultation with the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach and that it represents, in the view of those interested, the best possible measure which could be introduced. The point raised by Senator Johnson was discussed between the Attorney-General and the Parliamentary draftsman, and they could see no other practical way of meeting the situation that has arisen in consequence of the amendment of the Constitution deleting the Oath therefrom.
