R
2
That it would be noted that the provisions of the Western Australia Constitution Act, 1890, were, for the most part, similar as regarded the point in question to those of the Act 18 & 19 Vict. Cap. 51, but that Section 2 of the Act 25 & 26 Viet. Cap. 11 did not apply to Western Australia, but apart from any express enactment Section 32 above cited would apparently not apply to enactments by the present Legislature.
That I was requested to advise :-
•
(1.) Whether the provisions of Section 31 of 5 & 6 Vict. Cap. 76, as to the classes of Bills needing reservation, and Section 32 of 13 & 14 Vict. Cap. 59 were (notwith- standing the repeal above mentioned and Section 5 of the Western Australia Constitution Act, 1890) still appligible to Bills passed by the present Legislature of the Colony?
(2.) If so, should Act No. 2 have been reserved, notwithstanding that it only corrected such errors as above mentioned, and should Act No. 5 also have been reserved? (3.) If those Acts, or either of them, should have been reserved, should any action which might have taken place under them before they could receive the Royal Assent as required be validated by Imperial Legislation ? and
(4.) If the provisions mentioned in Question 1 were applicable to legislative measures passed by the present Legislature of Western Australia, was it not desirable and proper in view of the doubts and difficulties raised by the existence of those provisions that they should be repealed the question what Bills should be reservel being left to be dealt with by His Majesty's Instructions to the Governor of the Colony ? I have taken the papers into my consideration, and, in obedience to your commands,
have the honour to
Report-
That I answer the first question in the affirmative.
2. I think that No. 2 should have been reserved. Though it only corrects errors in the boundaries of the electoral districts it falls within the class of Bills which must be reserved as altering such districts. Act No. 5 should also have been reserved.
3 & 4. I beg to refer to the answers given to the 5th and 6th questions in Mr. Cox's letter of the 15th instant with reference to two Acts passed in New South Wales.
The Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,.
&c.,
&c.,
&c.
• Se No. 74.
I have, &c.,
R. B. FINLAY.
8732.
SIR,
No. 77.
(MAURITIUS.)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL TO COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice,
9th March, 1901. I was honoured with your commands signified in Mr. Bertram Cox's letter of the 19th ultimo, stating that he was directed by you to inform me that the Officer adminis tering the Government of Mauritius had requested that my opinion might be obtained on the following point.
What meaning was to be given to the word "Officer" in the definition of the words "Public Officer in Article of the Mauritius Widows and Orphans' Pension Fund Ordinance 2 of 1886, and whether railway porters, pointsmen, labourers employed by different departments whose wages were at a rate equivalent to an annual rate not less than the minimum prescribed in that Ordinance should be considered as "Officers" and 'compelled to contribute to the Widows and Orphans' Pension Fund.
That the view which you were disposed to take was that as the object of the Ordinance was to provide that every person who was in continuous and practically permanent (though not pensionable) employment, and in receipt of a fixed annual rate of salary whether paid monthly or not, should be a member of the fund, and that as the only employés who were not to be members of the fund were those whose annual salary was less than Rs. 240 a year, or who being employed and paid merely by the day were not in continuous employment, and could not therefore be regarded as Government Officers, the correct interpretation was that such porters and pointsmen were bound under the Ordinance to contribute.
That Mr. Bertram Cox was to request me to advise you as to the proper interpre- tation of the Ordinance in respect to the matters referred to, and to enclose for my information the following documents:-
1. Case prepared by the Acting Procureur-General, 9th October, 1900.
2. Case prepared by, the Auditor-General, 9th October, 1900.
3. Mauritius Ordinance No. 2 of 1886.
4. Mauritius Ordinance No. 8 of 1893.
5. Copy, Chairman, Board of Directors, to Colonial Secretary, 9th April, 1900.
6. Copy to same, 16th May, 1900.
7. Copy, same to same, 18th June, 1900.
8. Copy, General Manager of Railways to the Colonial Secretary, 23rd June, 1900.
I have taken the matter into my consideration, and in obedience to your commands, have the honour to
Report- -
That, I am of opinion that any person who is in continuous and practically permanent employment in the service of the Government, or of any of the departments mentioned in Section 1 of Ordinance No. 8 of 1893, and in receipt of an annual salary of the specified amount as distinguished from daily or weekly wages, which is paid at monthly or longer intervals, is within the Ordinance.
There appears to be some conflict of fact as to whether the porters and pointsmen in question comply with the definition above suggested. Upon this question of fact I am of course not in a position to decide. If they satisfy this definition they are, in my opinion, public officers for the purpose of the Ordinance.
I have, &c..
R. B. FINLAY.
The Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain. M.P.,
&c.,
&c.,
&c.
8418-23-9 1901 Wt 324
D&S
Б
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TTILL CO. 885
15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO