CO885-(13-15) — Page 278

10253.

JC.O. 88

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE

No. 11. (NEWFOUNDLAND.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

MY LORD,

Royal Courts of Justice, We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Wingfield's

May 18, 1892. letter of the 2nd instant stating that he was directed by your Lordship to request that we would favour you with or opinion with respect to a Bill which was then before the Legislature of Newfoundland, and which contained provisions declaring retrospectively the legality of the collection by the Colonial Government of certain fees and duties in respect of which actions were pending against the Colonial Government, and further indemnifying the Government and its officers against all actions and proceedings for or in respect of such fees and duties.

That as regarded the fees in question, they were imposed in the year 1890 as the condition for the issue of licenses under the Colonial Act 52 Vict. c. 6. (commonly known as the Bait Act, 1889), to purchase bait fishes in the ports of Newfoundland.

That the Act was brought into operation by the Governor's Proclamation on the 8th of April 1890, and that the license fees were imposed under instructions issued by the Colonial Government on the 9th of April 1890.

That the Bait Act contained no express provision authorising the imposition of license fees, and that it would be seen from the enclosed copy of the judgment in the case of the "Howard Holbrook "in the Supreme Court of the Colony on circuit that the judge there held that the Act did not confer on the Crown or its officers any right to enact or receive such fees.

That as regarded the duties to which the retrospective provisions of the Bill in ques- tion referred, they were duties which had been levied on goods imported from Canada under section 13 of the Newfoundland Revenue Act, 1891 (54 Vict. c. 3.). That it would be observed that in that section the operative words “there shall be raised, levied, collected, and paid," had been accidentally omitted.

That your Lordship had no official information as to the grounds on which the right of the Colonial Government to levy the duties was disputed, but that it was understood that the omission of the operative words was relied on; and that it was inferred, from the explanation given by the Colonial Attorney General in the Governor's telegram of the 28th of April last, that it was contended that, as the Canadian fishermen, though they had the privilege of taking cod fish, were not allowed to take all kinds of fish on the coasts of Newfoundland, the section did not apply to Canadian imports.

That Mr. Wingfield was to enclose an extract from a telegram from the Governor General of Canada and copies of telegraphic correspondence with the Governor of New- foundland. That it would be seen from the telegrain from Sir Terence O'Brien of 27th April that it was proposed to re-enact the Revenue Act, 1871, which expired on the 11th June 1892, amending section 13, by inserting operative words and substituting "cod fish" for "fish," and adding the retrospective provisions both as to duties and license fees above referred to. hat the reference to the Bait Act of 1888 (51 Vict. c. 9.) in the resolution relating to license fees set out in the telegram appeared to be erroneous as that Act was repealed by the Act of 1889, and the licenses for which the fees were imposed in 1890 were issued under the Act of 1889, but that that error would doubtless be corrected before the Bill was passed.

That with reference to the telegram from Newfoundland of the 25th of April, Mr. Wingfield was to explain that the letter of 15th April 1890 from the Colonial Secretary of Newfoundland to the private secretary to the Governor, a copy of which was coni- municated to the Canadian Government, stated the purport of the instructions issued by the Governor of Newfoundland on the 9th April 1890, under which the licenses were issued and the fees exacted; and that the statement that "Her Majesty's Government saw no objection" was misleading, as the question of the legality of the exaction of the license fees was not brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government.

That Mr. Wingfield was to observe that the proposed provisions relating to license fees, apart from any objection on account of its retrospective character, had no direct connexion with the subject matter of the Bill in which it was proposed to be inserted.

0 70451.-18. 25.-5,92.

i