2
2. Whether the grant made to the Company in 1881, and the other alienations of sen bottom mentioned in the Colonial Attorney-General's report were legal, and if not, whether they should now be validated by legislation.
3. Whether the grant now asked for by the Company can legally be made without legislation, and if not whether such legislation should be special or general in character.
4. And generally.
In obedience to your commands we have taken the papers into our consideration, and have the honour to
34581.
No. 241A.
(SOUTH AFRICA.)
LAW OFFICERS TO FOREIGN OFFICE.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
「།། །།
C.O.885
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
Report-
•
That, 1. We think that it would be held that the Coinmon Law of England as to foreshore and open seas within the territorial limits applies to the Straits Settlements, subject to modifications required by local customs such as are alluded to by the Attorney- General at Singapore. We may refer in this connection to the case of the Attorney- General of the Straits Settlements . Wemyss, 13 App. Cas. 192.
2 and 3. The question whether these alienations could be impeached would turn on the question whether there is any substantial interference with public rights. The property of the Crown in the foreshore, and in the soil of territorial waters, is subject to the rights of the public, but it does not follow that every reclamation of the foreshore, or of territorial waters, would constitute a public muisance.
We are hardly in a position to advise on the question whether there has been, or would be, such an interference with public rights in this case, but having regard to the view taken by the Attorney-General at Singapore, it would appear that the question is certainly not free from doubt, and we recommend that the proposed grant should be made and the past grants validated by Ordinance.
4. We have nothing to add.
We have, &c.,
The Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain, M.P., &c.,
&c.,
&c.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.
Royal Courts of Justice,
November 28, 1899.
MY LORD,
We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Sir Thomas Sanderson's letter of the 17th instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship Colonial to transmit to us the accompanying papers, which were sent to us in connection with the question of issuing a notification or warning in this country against trading with Ditto, the enemy during the continuance of the state of war at present existing between December 1 ; Her Majesty and the two South African Republics.
Office
November 23;
November 27,
Ditto.
That we advised in the eighth paragraph of our Report of the 26th ultimo* that it 1889. would be desirable to warn Her Majesty's subjects by Proclamation against trade with the Transvaal or Orange Free State.
That on the present occasion a Proclamation against trading with the enemy had been issued by the Government of Cape Colony (Document B); it warned all fler Majesty's subjects not to carry on any trade with, or supply any goods, wares, or merchandise to either of the enemy Republics, or to any subject thereof in the said Republics, and further warned all persons that whoever in contravention of the law should commit any of the aforesaid acts, would be duly prosecuted, and would be liable on conviction to such punishment as the law provided.
That the Returns of exports furnished by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs showed that merchandise other than contraband of war was now freely exported from this country with ultimate destination to the territory of the South African Republic and the Orange Free State and in view of the above-mentioned advice given in our Report of the 26th ultimo* the question arose whether such trade was lawful or unlawful and whether it should be specially prohibited, and by what ¡nstrument and in what terms.
That the Proclamation issued in Cape Colony prohibited all trade with or supply of goods to the enemy's territory by British subjects, and, indeed, as would seem from the last paragraph of the Proclamation, by any persons within the Colony.
That as
But that the Proclamation did not explain or define the term "trade." regarded the terms of any similar Proclamation issued in this country it would be necessary to consider also how far British subjects could or should be debarred from supporting trade with the enemy's territory by carrying that trade (1) for British consignors; and (2), for foreign neutral consignors on British ships.
That it appeared from the fourth paragraph of our Report (Document A) that the point was not yet covered by authority.
Sir Thomas Sanderson requested that we would favour your lordship with opinion-
our
(a.) As to the terms of the notification or warning to be issued in this country, and how far, if at all, it should deal with the carriage of the enemy's trade by British ships.
(b.) As to the form of the notification or warning, that is, whether it should be given by Order in Council, by Royal Proclamation, or merely by a notice issued by the Board of Trade or by the Commissioners of Customs.
* No. 235B.
8814-95-3/1900
Wt 43 D & 55 (B)
2