R
2
List of Papers.
(A.) India Office
(B.) Inclosure 1.
Government of India
(C.) Inclosure 2.
Major Newmarch
(D.) Inclosure 3.
Ditto ...
(E.) Inclosure 4.
8235
7, 1904.
March 17,
November 2, 1903.
No. 741 November 10,
No. 5.
(NEWFOUNDLAND.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
[Arbitration between the Newfoundland Government and the Reid Company respecting the Telegraph Service.]
July
(No. 702
No. 24 January
7, 1904.
No. 287
April 5, " May
13' "
November 3,
11
8, 1893.
SIR,
3.
8, 1899.
April 14, 1873. November 29, 1899.
April
30, 1886.
Legal Adviser, India Office
(F.) Inclosure 5. Correspondence, 1893–94.
(G.) Memorandum by Mr. Hurst
(H.) Law Officers' Report [Borneo]
(1.) Foreign Office Circular [Library No. 2343]
(J.) Ottoman Order in Council [Confidential 7171*]
(K.) Treaty with Muscat [Library No. 560]
(L.) Treaty with Siam [Treaty No. 16, 1900. Library No. 1096] (M.) Treaty with Zanzibar [" Africa No. 1 (1887)." Library
No. 782]
(N.) Foreign Marriages Bill [House of Commons Bill 97 of 1904]. (0.) Naturalization Act, 1870 [33 & 34 Vict., cap. 14]. (P.) Capitulations (Ottoman dominions). Hertslet's "State Papers," vol. i., p. 747. [Confidential Library No. 86], 1675.
(Q.) Law Officers' Report [Turkey]
1.
Report.
...
June July August
August
18, 1904.†
We do not think that our predecessors in their Report of the 8th June, 1893,‡ laid down that British-protected persons abroad were not entitled as of right to protection, and, in our opinion, British-protected persons are so entitled.
When the whole control of foreign relations has been assumed by His Majesty's What measure Government it appears to us that the duty of protection follows.
of protection can be given must depend upon the extent of the jurisdiction enjoyed by His Majesty's Government in the country where the protection is desired. If that jurisdiction is confined to those who are, in the strict technical sense of our municipal law, British subjects, it cannot be exercised in respect of protected persons.
2. We see nothing in the Capitulations to prevent the Secretary of State from placing British-protected persons on the same footing in the Ottoman dominions as British subjects in the matter of protection and jurisdiction, and we think that the Ottoman Order in Council of 1899, in its definition of “British subject," plainly asserts this right which, so far as we know, has not been disputed by the Porte.
3. We think that the right asserted in the Order in Council to treat protected persons in the Ottoman dominions as on the same foating with British subjects should be adhered to.
Royal Courts of Justice,
March 7, 1905.
We were honoured by your commands, signified to us by Mr. Bertram Cox in his letter of the 3rd instant, stating that he was directed by you to lay before us a copy of a telegram received from the Governor of Newfoundland on the 2nd instant, and to request the favour of our report upon the questions raised therein arising out of the arbitration between the Newfoundland Government and the Reid Com- pany in respect of the telegraph service.
That he was to say that your department was not possessed of any further in- formation as to the facts than that contained in the telegram submitted to us.
We have taken the matter into our consideration and in obedience to your com- mands have the honour to
Report-
That we can see nothing in the facts stated in the telegram received on the 2nd instant by the Colonial Secretary from Sir William MacGregor which would enable the Government of Newfoundland to have the decision of the arbitrators re- viewed or the award set aside. In the absence of a special stipulation to this effect, it was not necessary that the award should state the points of law decided or what evidence was received or rejected. There is nothing to show that the arbitrators were not unanimous in their decision of questions of law and, indeed, as the award is signed by all three arbitrators, the presumption is that they were unanimous.
As the question of amount was for the decision of the arbitrators, there is nothing in the fact that the award appears to be excessive which would enable the Government of Newfoundland to have it reviewed.
In the absence of any suggestion of misconduct on the part of the arbitrators or that they have included in their award matters which were not referred to them, we cannot see how the award can be resisted. We should add that this report pro- ceeds exclusively upon the very meagre statement of facts contained in the telegram.
We have, &c.,
The Right Honourable
Alfred Lyttelton,
&c.,
&c.,
&c.
R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.
Royal Courts of Justice,
February 17, 1905.
R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.
↑ No. 233 in Vol. VI.
No. 37A in Vol. V.
25 W't
405 D & S
5
109 10
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
!!
Reference :-
C.O.885
16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO