CO885-(15-16) — Page 185

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O. 885

Reference :-

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

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

(2) Does not arise.

(3) We consider that there has been a grave miscarriage of justice. Captain Cornwall's employers may take such steps with regard to him as appear to them to be called for under the circumstances. It may also be possible that the representatives of the deceased native would be entitled to claim compensation from Captain Cornwall in civil proceedings, but we have not the materials before us to form any opinion upon this view.

We have, &c.,

The Right Hon. J. Chamberlain, M.P.,

&c.,

&c.,

&c.

R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.

10190.

SIR,

No. 133.

(QUEENSLAND.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Effect upon the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of July 16, 1894, of the Entry of Queensland into the Commonwealth of Australia.]

Royal Courts of Justice,

March 11, 1902.

We were honoured with your commands signified to us by Mr. Antrobus in his letter of the 12th ultimo, stating that he was directed to request that we would favour you with our Report on certain questions which had arisen in connection with the Treaty of the 16th July, 1894, between this country and Japan, to which the Government of Queensland adhered subject to the provisions of the Protocol of the 16th March, 1897.

That on the 1st January, 1901, when the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act came into operation, the Commonwealth Parliament was invested, by Section 51 (29), with power to legislate on the external affairs of Queensland as on those of the other Australian Colonies. That it appeared to you that, assuming that the Commonwealth Government took over the foreign relations of the States, it did so subject to existing obligations, and that the Treaty between Japan and Queensland was, therefore, still binding on His Majesty so far as Queensland was concerned; but that the Attorney- General of the Commonwealth had advised that the Treaty had been terminated as between Japan and Queensland by the change of the latter's status which took place when the Commonwealth of Australia was established.

That if the Treaty were still in force so far as Queensland was concerned, it might be desirable that twelve months' notice should be given by His Majesty's Government with a view to its termination, as provided in the Protocol of the 16th March, 1897. That the question therefore arose whether, if such notice had to be given, it should be given at the request of, and on behalf of, the Commonwealth Government, which now controlled the foreign relations of all Australia, or at the request, and on behalf, of the Government of Queensland.

That the Parliament of the Commonwealth had recently passed, and the Governor- General had assented to, an Act imposing certain restrictions on immigration into Australia. That that Act applied to Queensland among the other States of the Common- wealth, and that it was necessary to consider it in connection with the provisions of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty if the latter was still in force as regards Queensland. That in your opinion the Act was in no way contrary to the terms of Articles I. and III. of the Treaty, as those Articles must, in accordance with established rule, be read as conferring no right to treatment other than that granted to native subjects or to citizens of the most favoured nation. That as the Act was general in its terms, and applied equally to citizens of every country, there would seem to be no conflict between it and the Treaty.

That in order, however, to set those questions at rest, Mr. Antrobus was to request that we should take the matter into our consideration and Report-

(1) Whether the Treaty of the 16th July, 1894, between this country and Japan, to which Queensland adhered subject to the provisions of the Protocol of the 16th March, 1897, was terminated as regards Queensland by the change of the latter's status consequent on the coming into force of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900, or whether it was still binding as far as Queensland was concerned?

(2) If the latter was the case-

(a) Whether the notice required for the termination of the Treaty in relation to Queensland should be given at the request, and on behalf, of the Government of the Commonwealth, or of the Government of the State.

(b) Whether the Immigration Restriction Act in any way conflicted with the provisions of the Treaty ?

11341-25-3/1902 Wt 351 D & 8 Б

2