893.
The statement of these general principles of construction affords, we think, an answer to most of the objections urged by the committee, some of which appear frivolous; nevertheless, it may be more satisfactory to notice each of them.
1. If the preamble stood alone this probably might be its strict construction, but this is immaterial, except as a criticism on bad drafting.
2. The clauses and the schedule (which is itself "enabling"), taken together, clearly give power to impose a fee on the native custom of marriage provided the marriage be registered.
3. The portion of the schedule referred to, in itself a substantive enactment, is not void
4. No particular form of schedule is "required," and the schedule is not void.
5. It becomes unnecessary to answer this question.
6. Yes.
7. Yes.
8. Legally all its provisions could be carried into effect, but if the announcement of the Secretary for Native Affairs is correctly reported, we think that its application to pre-existing marriages would be a breach of faith.
9. We think that the power conferred on the Lieutenant-Governor by the law of in such manner" and in such conditions, and subject to such restric- imposing fees tions, as to the Lieutenant-Governor may seem fit, enables him to restrict the levying of fees to marriages subsequent to the Act.
10. We think that no order of the Secretary of State for the Colonies would add to the
power of the Lieutenant-Governor. 11. Yes.
12. If the whole of the schedule were abandoned we do not see what there would be in the clauses called "enabling" to enforce.
13. This question appears frivolous. The extent of the Governor's discretion is defined in clause 1.
14. We have said that we think he has power to abandon a portion of the schedule To the rest of the questions in the sense in which we have explained" abandonment."
we answer that if the words quoted and the schedule had stood alone, the Lieutenant- Governor would have had the power to levy fees on the registration of marriages.
15. It becomes unnecessary to answer this question.
The Right Hon. Earl Granville, K.G., &c.
&c.
&c.
We have, &c. (Signed) R. P. COLLIER.
J. D. COLERIDGE,
No. 626.
(ВАНАМАВ.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
MY LORD,
Temple, January 17, 1870. We are honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Sir F. Rogers' letter of the 5th instant, stating that with reference to our Report of the 4th October,* in the case of the steamer "Salvador," he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us a copy of a Despatch from the Governor of the Bahamas, pointing out the diffi. for penalties, culties likely to arise in proceeding against the master of the "Salvador and Sir F. Rogers was pleased to request that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion as to the instruction to be sent to Sir J. Walker in reply to his Despatch.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to
Report
That under the extreme difficulty of obtaining proofs which appears from the Report of the Attorney General for the islands, coupled with the circumstance that the master of the "Salvador is beyond British jurisdiction, your Lordship may, we think, properly instruct the Governor of the Bahamas to direct the proceedings in this case for penalties to be suspended, as suggested by the Attorney General, until the appeal in the cause of forfeiture is decided.
The Right Hon. the Earl Granville, K.G.
0.16270.-971, 25.-5/86,
• No. 604,
We have, &c. (Signed)
R. P. COLLIER.
J. D. COLERIDGE. TRAVERS TWISS.
www.c.o.
885
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE |DE REPRODUCED TMJ TUGRAPHIC-
2.