CO885-(13-15) — Page 146

í

23,426.

2

offences may be committed covers the full extent of the territorial waters, and that the right of search covers the same ground.

The fact of the enactment of this new Act, with the power of search expressly set forth, would lead, I think, to the conclusion that the searching of the French vessels on suspicion and their subsequent seizure, was not, at the time when it was done, strictly legal under the municipal laws of the Colony. It would not have been contrary to international law, any more than it is now, for an express enactment of the Colonial Legislature as to search to have been in existence; but as the law of the Colony then stood, in my judgment, speaking with submission, I think the vessels were illegally searched.

Whether, however, if the Government took up the ground that it is within inter- national law to enact the right to search vessels in the territorial waters, there is any further question with the French Government, seeing that a proper court of judicature in the Colony, upon appeal, considered that the enactments at the time were adequate for the purpose, is a matter for consideration.

The claim for compensation, however, in M. Jusserand's last letter, is based less on the alleged illegality of the search than on the fact that Mr. Justice Little had pronounced the forfeiture ordered by the magisterial court as "ultra vires."

November 29, 1889.

(Signed) CHARLES J. FOLLÉTT.

No. 163

167

(BRITISH GUJANA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

MY LORD,

We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Wingfield's

Royal Courts of Justice, Decomber 3, 1889. letter of the 14th ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to

us copy of a despatch from the Governor of British Guiana, and to request that we No. 355, would favour your Lordship with our opinion upon the case enclosed, with reference to 250et. 1889. certain questions which had arisen as to the rights and privileges of the Combined Court of the Colony.

That Mr. Wingfield was to point out that the power conferred by Order in Council upon the Combined Court to discuss the items of the annual estimate of Colonial expenditure were limited to the continuance of the Civil List Ordinance.

We have taken the matter into our consideration, and in obedience to your Lordship's commands, have the honour to-

Report

(1.) That we are of opinion that it is not necessary to the validity of an Ordinance passed by the Court of Policy, for the purpose of giving effect to a resolution of the Combined Court, that the resolution should be recito in the preamble of the Ordinance', or in the section giving effect to such resolution.

For such

(2.) and (3.) We are of opinion that, in the case in which an Ordinance has been passed giving effect to a resolution whereby the salary of a public officer has been permanently fixed, the Combined Court cannot bind the Court of Policy by a resolution rescinding the resolution to which the previous Ordinance gave effect. rescission a repealing Ordinance would require to be passed by the Court of Policy,

(4.) Unless such a repealing Ordinance as is referred to in the question provided for the payment of compensation to the officers so prejudiced, the Government would not, in our opinion, be justified in allowing it to pass.

(5.) The addition of the proposed words to Mr. Barr's proposed resolution would not make the resolution operative, but we see no objection to a resolution with such addition being passed, as it would only amount to an expression of the views of the Combined Court.

The Right Hon. Lord Knutsford,

&c.

&c.

&c.

We have, &c..

(Signed)

RICHARD E. WEBSTER, EDWARD CLARKE.

5

▲ 57014.-40. 25, -12, P

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

गय

C.O.

Reference :-

885

13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO