PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
mwimmimC.O. 885
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
2
(4) What is the nature and extent of the legal liability of the Government with respect to the purchase of the estates of Agapit and Rivière du Bois?
(5) Generally.
We have taken the papers into our consideration, and in obedience to your commands, have the honour to
Report-
That (1) The letter of the 14th January, 1897, did not create a binding contract enforceable at law.
(2) Yes. We do not think the Government under the Ordinance are bound to accept the view as to price to be offered, given by the Forest Board.
(3) In our opinion, the Government are at liberty to take any course they may deem advisable, but although no binding contract exists, we think that Messrs. Cleoq and Merandon will have good ground for complaint if the assurance given to them in the letter of 14th January, 1897 is not carried out when the money is available, particularly in view of the attitude assumed by the Government in their letter of 19th April, 1899. Of course, if there were any ground for believing that the decision conveyed in the letter of the 14th January, 1897, had been obtained by improper means, the case would assume a different aspect.
(4) In the absence of any binding contract, there is no legal liability.
The Right Honourable J. Chamberlain, M.P.,
&c.
&c.
&c.
We have, &c.,
R. B. FINLAY.
EDWARD CARSON.
4394
No. 127.
(GOLD COAST.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
[Local Military Forces of West African Colonies and Protectorates.]
Royal Courts of Justice, SIR,
January 30, 1902. WE were honoured with your commands signified to us in Mr. Antrobus's letter of the 7th instant stating that he was directed by you to request our considera- tion of certain questions which had arisen with reference to the local military forces of His Majesty's Colonies and Protectorates in West Africa.
That identical laws had been passed in each of the West African Colonies and l'rotectorates, but had not yet been brought into operation, providing for the discipline and regulation of those forces, which, although they would continue to be distinct as being raised in separate Colonies and Protectorates under separate legislative enactments, would in future be called Battalions or Regiments of the West African Frontier Force. Under that arrangement the old West African Frontier Force which was raised by Her late Majesty's Government for service on the Niger would be known as the Northern Nigeria Regiment of the new Force of the same name. That Mr. Antrobus was to transmit to us a copy of the Draft Law which was prepared in the Colonial Office and sent out to each Colony and Protectorate to be enacted. That the Draft was prepared with special reference to the Gold Coast Regiment, but it had been passed with only necessary verbal alterations in the Colonies of Sierra Leone and Lagos as well as the Gold Coast, and in the Protectorates of Northern and Southern Nigeria.
That it was proposed that the battalions raised in each of the above Colonies and Protectorates should be available for service in any other West African Colony or Protectorate, or elsewhere if required, and accordingly it was desirable that the law of a particular Colony or Protectorate in which a battalion was raised should apply to it when serving in another Colony or Protectorate or elsewhere, or if the members of the Force should be sent to the United Kingdom for the purpose of receiving instruction or training. That it was further desirable that under normal conditions the Force should. not be treated as on active service, and that we would observe that under clause 31 of the Draft Law certain provisions would apply to the native non-commissioned officers and privates when they are not on active service. That when they were on active service the Army Act would apply to them under the provisions of clause 30 of the Draft Law, but that it was not desired that the provisions of the Army Act should apply under what it was hoped would be the normal conditions of service.
That Mr. Antrobus was, however, to call our attention to the Report of our predecessors of the 14th of February, 1900, a copy of which was enclosed, which was to the effect that the members of the West African Frontier Force in Northern Nigeria and the civilians attached to it were in Military occupation of a Foreign country within the meaning of section 189 of the Army Act, 1881, and were there- fore on active service within the meaning of that Act. That from that Report it would appear that so long as Northern and Southern Nigeria remained Protectorates any Military Force occupying those territories must be regarded as being in Military Occupation of a Foreign country within the meaning of section 180 of the Army Act, and therefore on active service, and it would follow that the laws passed in those two Protectorates would, so far as regarded any provision declaring that the Forces of the Protectorate were not on active service, be inoperative having regard to the provisions of the Army Act.
That although the provisions of the Colonial Laws Validity Act did not apply to the Protectorate (inasmuch as a Protectorate was not included within the defini- tion of a Colony contained in that Act) you inclined to the view that any legislation in a Protectorate which was repugnant to the provisions of an Imperial Act of Parliament would nevertheless to the extent of such repugnancy be void, and that it would therefore be impossible to enact either by local legislation or by Order in Council under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, a provision to the effect that
(16215-2.) Wt. 103-896, 25, 4/10. D & S.
No. 20.
--