CO885-(15-16) — Page 149

39870.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

EPELTIC.O. 885

Wilmin

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

2. We think so. The words of section 4 are wide enough to embrace any kind of income.

3. All sums necessarily expended in carrying out the work allotted to his office.

4. No legal claim can be sustained for a refund in respect of the income tax paid, under these circumstances, in past years.

The Right Honourable Jóseph Chamberlain, M.P.,

&c.

&c.,

&c.

We have, &c.,

R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.

SIR,

No. 112.

(NEWFOUNDLAND.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Validity of the Election (Amendment) Act, 1901.

Royal Courts of Justice,

November 12, 1901. We were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. H. Bertram Cox's letter of the 11th ultimo, stating that he was directed by you to request the favour of our opinion as to the validity of an Act of the Legislature of Newfoundland (1 Edward VII., Cap. XII.) which was assented to by the Governor in the name and on behalf of His Majesty on the 2nd August last, the Attorney-General of the Colony having advised that there was no objection to the Governor giving his assent to it, and that it contained no provisions contrary to the 17th clause of the Royal Instructions of the 28th March, 1876.

That Mr. Cox was to forward for our consideration a confidential despatch from the Governor, dated the 6th of August last, together with the enclosures therein mentioned, and a further confidential despatch from him, dated the 19th August last, transmitting a written protest against the passing of the Act in question, prepared by Mr. A. B. Morine, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Assembly, and a copy of a draft Minute of Council in which his Ministers embodied their reply.

That Mr. Cox was to say that it would appear to you that the mere fact that our predecessors in office advised that Sections 15 and 16 of the "Election (Amendment) Act, 1889" (which was reserved and not assented to), would not by themselves justify the refusal of assent to the Bill made those sections, when forming part (Sections 3 and 4) of the Act now submitted to us, none the less "provisions to which Our assent has once been refused," and that the terms of the Royal Instructions were absolute and did not empower the Governor to discriminate between the provisions of a former Act to which assent had been refused, on the ground that some of those provisions were objectionable and others were not.

That copies of the Report of our predecessors, dated 31st July, 1897, and of the "Election (Amendment) Act, 1889," and of the Royal Instructions and Letters Patent of the 28th March, 1876, were enclosed for our information.

That Mr. Cox was to request us to take the papers into our consideration and to report :-

1. Whether the Act (1 Edward VII, Cap. XII.) should have been reserved under Clause XVII. (8) of the Royal Instructions ?.

2. Whether the Royal Instructions, by virtue of the provisions of Clause I. of the Letters Patent of even date therewith, were incorporated with the latter ?

3. With regard to the answer to the last question, whether an Act which ought to have been, but was not, reserved under the Royal Instructions was invalid, as in the case of an Act which ought to have been, but was not, reserved under an Imperial Act of Parliament ?

4. Whether the Act now submitted to us should be disallowed, or might, having

regard to its substance, be assented to by His Majesty :-

(a.) If the answer to the last question is in the affirmative ?

(b.) If the answer to the last question is in the negative ?

5. Whether assent, if that course was advised, should be by Order in Council or

how otherwise ?

6. Generally.

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

Report-

1. That the Act of 1 Edward VII., Cap. 12, should have been reserved under Clause 17 (8) of the Royal Instructions.

2 and 3. Under the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, Cap. 63, Section 4, the fact that the Royal Instructions are referred to in the Letters Patent does not render void an

No. 149 in Vol. V.

10271-26-11/1901 Wt 352 D & S

6