PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
'' ' ' '।
C.O.885
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
2
and the opinion of the Law Officers, dated the 14th June, 1888, in the case of Abdul Kerim Grant, did not lay down any general principle apart from the facts of the particular
case,
There are many parts of the British Dominions in which polygamous marriages are lawful, and for the purposes of nationality it seems to us impossible to treat the issue of such marriages, who are legitimate by the law of the domicile of their parents, as illegitimate.
These considerations do not, however, dispose of the question whether these persons are British subjects within the meaning of the Treaty between this country and Siam. If it he contended by the Siamese Government that, according to Siamese law, these persons are Siamese subjects, in such a conflict of laws its impossible to say that the question can be disposed of merely by reference to the municipal law of either country. Such questions must be decided ratlier with reference to those principles of fairness and good sense which must govern the relations of two nations.
The question is one between the Government of Siam and Her Majesty's Govern- ment, and should, in our opinion, he decided in each case in accordance with that discretion, which, in their opinion of the 4th November, 1861, the Law Officers considered should be applied to the decision of a somewhat analogous question arising with the United States.
We are not in a position to advise whether these persons ought, as between Her Majesty's Government and that of Siam, to be treated as British subjects.
A great deal must depend upon the permanence of the settlement made in Siam by the fathers or grandfathers of such persons; and we can only say that cach case must be determined on its own merits, and with reference to what is fair as between the two Governments claiming the allegiance of the person.
Royal Courts of Justice,
July 31, 1897.
We have, &c.,
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY,
16656.
SIR,
No. 149.
(NEWFOUNDLAND.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, July 31, 1897.
We were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. Wingfield's letter of the 28th instant, stating that he was directed to invite our attention to a Bill recently passed by the Legislature of Newfoundland, intituled “An Act to amend the Election Act. 1889, and the Acts in Amendment thereof,” and especially to Clauses 13, 14 and 15
of the Bill,
That Mr. Wingfield was to transmit for our assistance :—
The Elections Act, 1889.
Despatch from the Governor, dated 17th May 1897, commenting on the Bill. Despatch from the Governor, dated 2nd June 1897, forwarding the Bill with the Report of the Attorney-fieneral upon it, and a protest from members of the Opposition in the Assembly.
Aster from Mr. Morine, one of such members, to the Secretary of State, dated 6th April, forwarding their protests,
Another despatch, dated 2nd June 1897, forwarding a Minute of Council, being the reply of his Ministers to the protest of the Opposition.
Mr. Wingfield was to state that the Elections Act of 1889, which was based the
upon Imperial Act of 1883. appeared not to have been generally understood in the Colony, and that after the General Election of 1893 petitions under the Act were presented against a majority of the members of the House of Assembly, including every member of the Ministry who had been returned to that House. That these petitions were tried in the Supreme Court, and that Mr. Wingfield was to enclose with his letter the judginent of. Mr. Justice Winter upon one of these cases (North American 169, page 80), which showed how public money was expended for the purpose of obtaining votes. That nearly every member petitioned against was unseated.
That a fresh General Election was impending, and that it was alleged that the effect of the present Bill would be to facilitate the commission of similar corrupt acts, especially by the expenditure of public money, without entailing similar penalties, or avoiding the election, and that Clause 29, which required the unanimous decision of three judges, was framed with the same object in view, and that the repeal of Section 177 of the Act of 1889 (Clause 35), which declared that in matters not provided for, English law should apply. tended to a similar result.
That you were, of course, extremely reluctant to interfere with the Legislative Acts of a self-governing Colony, but if there was ground for regarding the above allegations as established in substance, you would feel great difficulty in advising Her Majesty to give her assent to the measure by the requisite Order in Council.
That Mr. Wingfield was to add that there was no audit of the public accounts of the Colony, and that he was to request us to be good enough to consider the documents transmitted to us, and to favour you with our opinion whether Clauses 13, 14, 15 of the Bill taken together, or the Bill as a whole, would have the effect of facilitating the commission of corrupt practices at elections, such as the Act of 1889 was passed to prevent, and especially the expenditure of public money under the control of the Government for the purpose of obtaining votes, so that you would be justified in offering no advice to Her Majesty in respect to it.
That you would also feel obliged for any general observations which we might find ourselves able to make for your assistance in the mutter.
In obedience to your commands we have the honour to
Report-
•
That, in our opinion the passing into law of this Bill would facilitate the commission of corrupt practices at elections with impunity.
The 14th section appears to us most objectionable. We cannot understand the contention that it would have no operation in the case of payments proved to be corrupt. On the contrary, it appears to us that its only effect would be to extend immunity to corrupt payments made with the public moneys through the channels indicated in the
14497-25-897 Wt 20260 D & S 3
2