: - 0' , t9 - - i 2 2 ..= L. E -..; c:-. '-'' . 17,(..) _F., " m co o . c N2 --I > = .... 2 _ = > .(...) 0,°- 0: LI - 00: 0 . 13%2 cc; o, -> _c la: cd o -, := 2 u TO ce 0 i=5‹ , .N .2 . ,S > 0 a: , . < .= .... 0 =¥ , .§. , '''' U , . . ‘,'_'' L8 ro 4.. < . ''ai L3.1 J. W. Mo rn ane i f, _,..) 1 -8 i E u:L.L , t -0 >. ,;., _c _ . 0 ,.,i -t 0_ 0 .,-co s , . o 0 - . 2 '=.,' —. 1 0 ,7. 2 z , . 14'61-2 .: Ili 7, . T)< .1 2_ x . 1- < 0 S 6 ...z 12-> . J. A. McAu liffe 1c7),(P, < --, 0 Uj -.1 (i 'LI to . E u: Ei -8 i -8 , --,>: - c, 1-6 o 3 % 0: .,.., i , p-: 4w t.; . ,,,,, ®. a _ )- .2 v; , 2>:°' 6 - 0 t >n . 1 ''' 11.1. _ 0 E _(.9 ° ,j„ >, -0 (.9 ,,7,, . .' 07, ..t . d) t ,,- .6 _, LI-1 In= n , -) 0 .7, = -J 0 c . ...i c, n ,_ ,,, Li.■ `J.: 0 ‘41 L O "1: --1 0 § e L.) o . . 0 . := ..< o: ce a c -c .- -1 y; Lu ci i '' 'n LO ..< o.>,- 0 c'. o.: 1-- Z o: . CIO 7 N2 t . 7 = C2i Uj 115 -c c —I .. 7 —i 0 U:t. rt, . c . 0 2 E E m 0 = rZ- T, 2 2, Tu ,_ > _, u "b"'-1-1 Ne —5—; .E. 6 . i6 (.D -,-, ± 0 . >- .0 Li: ,Xi -; (-9 `-' > : _ji (..i 3-; 0, c - ; Li 1-' ) 2 ' ( 3 76 ,-, c_;.) - Z - o 22 -7. g-; T =2 2 `; 5'9, ,-f) ,. . — s: - o -, c, ®0 0 - ' ® EL -, -s .< --, } - 6 .: N, , -; Back Row: K. J. White he ad T. J. Ahern 1.::. I:: >:. E 1, 2 1 = = t+ 0 . -0 v 0 0, woliocL°.(..A o r..3 i.E.) 5.. v> 0 . 1 z ...:,-I-i-_i — ,:i 0 >: k , (_60 ..c,L.L.i n . ce 1 i ;4 T. . I:4 7 . P4 ..) % , k. .;.; f)0 .. 1
-o 0 McC. Sew ar d N E W M A N Are We Australian Nationals ? THE relation to each other <strong>of</strong> the countries <strong>of</strong> the British Commonwealth <strong>of</strong> Nations is to-day, in most <strong>of</strong> those countries, a subject <strong>of</strong> great controversy. Only here in Australia, it seems, are people completely unaware <strong>of</strong> a growing challenge to the hitherto-accepted policy <strong>of</strong> imperialism for all countries painted red upon the map. At the recent Imperial Conference, very different tendencies were revealed in the other components <strong>of</strong> the Commonwealth. South Africa, Canada, India, and, above all, Ireland, have flung down the gage, to imperialism, and stand for the maintenance <strong>of</strong> their respective national individualities and independence. Australia, apart from England, is practically the last home <strong>of</strong> the imperially-minded. A key that opens the door to these matters is the subject <strong>of</strong> British nationality. A few months ago it was declared in Britain by Sir Berriedale Keith, that according to law, there are no nationals in Australia, but only British subjects, who are also British nationals—the two terms being synonymous. A "British subject"—this constitutional authority defines as a subject <strong>of</strong> the British King, not necessarily, however, a subject <strong>of</strong> Great Britain. These complications apparently arise out <strong>of</strong> the constitution <strong>of</strong> the British Commonwealth <strong>of</strong> Nations, which incorporates a number <strong>of</strong> free nations, owing allegiance only to the Crown. Under this arrangement, all <strong>of</strong> us—Australians, Canadians, Indians, South Africans—are subjects <strong>of</strong> the British King. From this assumption leads a pretty train <strong>of</strong> inconsistencies and absurdities. The plain meaning <strong>of</strong> words, apart from all legal phraseology, tells us that a British subject is a subject <strong>of</strong> Great Britain. Therefore, we Australians are all subjects <strong>of</strong> Great Britain. While the good Pr<strong>of</strong>essor denies this, he affirms that we are British nationals, and furthermore, that we are not Australian nationals. Thus would he seem to deprive us <strong>of</strong> the right to be members <strong>of</strong> our own country. In South Africa the unsoundness <strong>of</strong> this position is keenly sensed, for the Premier, General Hertzog, plans to introduce legislation clearly defining his fellow countrymen, not as British subjects, but as subjects or nationals <strong>of</strong> the Union <strong>of</strong> South Africa. A large section <strong>of</strong> British thought in South Africa immediately interpreted this proposed move as an act <strong>of</strong> disloyalty to England, and there is agitation at present to preserve the "right" <strong>of</strong> South Africans to be British subjects. It will remain to be seen whether these South African imperialists can shake the South African nationalists now in power, who hope to establish the right <strong>of</strong> their countrymen to be, not British subjects, but South Africans. Here in Australia little notice appears to have been taken <strong>of</strong> Sir Berriedale's state, ments. There was one voice raised in Western Australia, in the form <strong>of</strong> a vigorous protest written to the London "Morning Post" by Mr. Edgar Crampton. In challenging the Pr<strong>of</strong>essor's views quoted in the same columns, Mr. Crampton cited himself as an example <strong>of</strong> an Australian national. "I, my parents, and two <strong>of</strong> my grandparents were born in Australia, and have never set foot in any other land. I am loyal to, I am proud <strong>of</strong>, and I will help to defend, my own country—Australia—and my fellow countrymen and women— Australians. I do not feel patriotically obliged to say the same about Great Britain, whose troubles, I feel, are her own, and very little concern <strong>of</strong> mine .. . "I am loyal to our King, but the King's loyal subjects in any other <strong>of</strong> his Dominions (including Great Britain), are not fellowcountrymen <strong>of</strong> mine . . . Their interests may directly oppose mine ; their foreign relations may be—and <strong>of</strong>ten are—a train <strong>of</strong> gunpowder laid to Australia's doorstep "Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Keith, in effect, denies to an Australian the right to be truly loyal to the 11
- Page 1: NEWMAN 1937
- Page 4 and 5: Contents Page 3 "Praise is Devotion
- Page 6: Foreword Tradition demands that the
- Page 9 and 10: ege NEWMAN ENIOR students returned
- Page 11 and 12: 7 3 NEWMAN St. Mary's Hall (Miss Ma
- Page 13 and 14: NEWMAN "Praise is Devotion Fit for
- Page 15 and 16: NEWMAN His Grace the Archbishop (19
- Page 17: sr',
- Page 21 and 22: N E W M A N THERE must always be a
- Page 23 and 24: FO OTBALL. 0 Front Row: N. R. Go d
- Page 25 and 26: N E W M A N TT is not the age of co
- Page 27 and 28: N E W M A N His hair was shaggy, hi
- Page 29 and 30: N E W M A N Albert Power Debating S
- Page 31 and 32: N E W M A N 4-1 OR the second time
- Page 34 and 35: N. R. Go d by. LL N cr, = E = ce
- Page 36 and 37: 24 innings proved to be the tit-bit
- Page 38 and 39: 26 Ormond.—First Innings. S. Stee
- Page 40 and 41: I. Gentlemen at Leisure. 2. "Get Se
- Page 42 and 43: 28 N E W M A N McLennan, E. A. Ryan
- Page 44 and 45: 30 NEWMAN ONE undertakes a review o
- Page 46 and 47: 32 NEWMAN THE revived interest in t
- Page 48 and 49: SECOND XVIII. Dowling (Captain), M.
- Page 50 and 51: 34 NEWMAN Foreword. "Taboo" has bee
- Page 52 and 53: 36 NEWMAN Charlie thinks it is a bi
- Page 54 and 55: 38 Freshman : "Is Father Murphy rea
- Page 56 and 57: 40 Bagley, G. J., 1932-35: Queensla
- Page 58 and 59: 42 Fallon, Robert, 1929: Science ma
- Page 60 and 61: 44 Lewis, D. L., 1918-21, 23: Pitts
- Page 62 and 63: 46 NEWMAN O'Loughlin, Paul, 1928-30
- Page 64 and 65: 48 N E W M A N Academical Honours L
- Page 66 and 67: 50 NEWMAN The College Rector: Very
- Page 68:
ST. PATRICK'S COLLEGE BALLARAT. One