but it is a question whehter such an Ord. would not
be bad for conflict, having regard to the Preroga-
tive of the Crown in Coinage matters. S. of S. presumes
therefore that T.L. would wish to carry out the
ohange by an amending 0. in C.
I think it would have been a tall order to de-
monetize our own subsidiary coins on the ground, that
they are chopped, but as there turn out to be none
in circulation it does not matter.
Ale
8.2.16
An Ord. could of course prohibit
and peralize the chopping of Mexican dollars in future, but such prohibition could scarcely be made
retrospective ).
is kvadry
of any amendment of the Orvic
Jacque that it shed is some b
nobly crore.
Binc
and
kr. Collins P.S. shows the difficalling that
cot armis with reward to an ord
When
11
a com has already ban
"dealt with" wia
not
in the case
prohibited by loco fin thei
"chopped") I do not think
canpassar law ax
fost facts
"prohibiting" that manner
of
dealnej with that corin Therefore, a retrospection order
t'agra
nothing such
厶
Сала
an is contemplatid
by $461 of the Dine, I acyle
muust to
an
357
that there
ameeding; Onic to demonetize
these chopped dollars.
[Incidentally I may down that of the futur
chopping of taxican Tollers were
dealt with by cra
من ها
British dolins chessefing and 1595,
on the model of ther
such a provon
as bsc 3/21 of the latter
nor affeces to to superflur.
༥
You have the "protestition by law
the 3/11
wita
Lad
Aly Tongard of
in
Corvi Julk that probilation
cases to be legal tender by visitin
of $461 of the Ornic ]
as there do me from
ous
2.1. Dr. 7/2/6
9.2
ass in circulatione it Disturbances,
cament caud much of a
of any to dan miligo this com's. Whe Gov.
may propone to sachange theer for Br. dollars, though in the screenslands that is
not at all receway. Fond to Treas, say my after that if they agree we should by glad if they would tatts Earg chefe to get an owl to carry out
Page 360Page 361