CO885-(15-16) — Page 397

38922

14

latter section of the words and the Bills so reserved" which occur in Section 12 of 13 and 14 Victoria Cap. 59!

2. Whether the Aborigines Act, 1897, is legally in operation in Western Australia, and, if not, upon what grounds it is invalid?

3. If it is invalid what steps should be taken to bring it into operation with retrospective effect to 3rd February, 1898, when it received the assent of Her late Majesty in Council?

4. Generally.

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

Report-

1. That in our opinion the provisions of the 5th and 6th Victoria, Chapter 76, Section 33, as to the signification of the Royal Assent to reserved Bills apply to Bills passed by the present Legislature of Western Australia. No significance can be attached to the omission of the words "and the Bills so reserved" from Section 2 (a) of 53 and 54 Victoria, Chapter 26, especially as the prior words of the section only repeal the prior Acts so far as they are repugnant to the scheduled Bill in which there is nothing affecting the reservation.

2. We do not think the Aborigines Act, 1897, is legally valid as the assent of Her Majesty has not been signified in accordance with the terms of 5 and 6 Victoria, Chapter 76, Section 33. The Proclamation under Section 13 of the Aborigines Act, 1897, is not a Proclamation such as is required by Section 33 of 5 and 6 Victoria, Chapter 76.

3. We think an Act should be passed by the Legislature of Western Australia validating all that has been done since 1897, and re-enacting the provisions of the Act of that year.

4. We have nothing to add.

The Right Honourable

Alfred Lyttelton, M.P.

&c., &c., &c.

We have, &c.,

R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.

}

SIR,

No. 19.

(SOUTH AFRICA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Position of the Transvaal under the Modus Vivendi with Mozambique.]

Royal Courts of Justice,

October 31, 1905.

WE were honoured with your commands, signified in Mr. Graham's letter of the 20th instant, stating that, with reference to our report of the 11th August last,* he was directed by you to transmit to us a copy of a despatch from the High Commis sioner for South Africa raising a further question as to the position of the Government of the Transvaal under the modus vivendi between the Colony and Mozambique.

That Mr. Graham was to explain that the Railway Conference mentioned by Lord Selborne was a Conference attended by representatives from Mozambique and from all the British South African Colonies except Rhodesia. That the practical effect of Article 4 of the modus vivendi was to secure differential through rates in favour of the Lourenço Marques-Johannesburg route and that the Conference recommended that the differentiation should be reduced. That the representatives of Mozambique did not concur in the recommendation and that up to the present the Portuguese Govern- ment had not accepted it.

That in our previous report we stated that if Cape Colony or Natal were to reduce their local rates up to the border of the Orange River Colony or Transvaal so as to enable through freight to be re-booked and thus secure a lower total through rate than that which obtained on the Lourenço Marques-Johannesburg line, the Government of the Transvaal would be under an obligation to concur with the Portuguese Govern- ment in modifying the tariff on the Lourenço Marques-Johannesburg line so as to pre- serve the existing relation between the through tariffs. That the necessity for such a modification would be obviated if the local rates from the Cape and Natal frontiers to Johannesburg were raised so as to compensate for the reduction up to the frontiers of the Colonies.

That you apprehended the effect of this report to be that in one way or the other the Government of the Transvaal was bound to preserve the existing relation between the through tariffs and that you did not see that it would be possible for it to act on the suggestion made in Lord Selborne's present despatch and to set aside its obliga- tion by importing what was, for the purpose of the interpretation of the modus vivendi, a side issue, viz., the attitude of Portugal towards the recommendations of the Railway Conference. That you would, however, be glad to have our opinion upon the matter.

That Mr. Graham was, therefore, to request us to take this matter into our con- sideration and to report :-

1. Whether the Central South African Railways would be justified in declining to raise the local rate from Charlestown to Johannesburg and in informing the Portu- guese authorities, if they pressed the other alternative, that inasmuch as the difficulty. was due to their refusal to accept the solution suggested at the recent Railway Conference, it was not fair that the Transvaal and Orange River Colony revenues should suffer, and that the loss involved by the desired reduction must fall entirely on the Portuguese section of the line?

In obedience to your commands we have taken the matter into our consideration and have the honour to

Report

1. That we think not. The refusal of the Portuguese authorities to accept the solution suggested by the recent Railway Conference cannot affect the obligations under the modus vivendi so long as it remains in force.

2.

We have nothing to add.

The Right Honourable

ALFRED LYTTELTON, M.P.,

&c., &c.,

&c.

• No. 14.

25 Wt 2646 11/05 D8

5 23908

We have, &c.,

R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O.

Reference :-

.885

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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