CO885-(15-16) — Page 411

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

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

.885

1 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

8

The

such waters for shelter, repairs, wood, or water on any part of the coast. consequences of a literal construction on this point would be so absurd that we think it would be held that the provision applies only to entry for purposes which. are unlawful and forbidden, and that the Treaty by implication recognizes the 'exist- ence of such rights on the coasts which are subject to the Treaty as to fishing.

III. As regards light dues we do not think that the imposition of light dues upon American vessels while vessels of the Colony are exempt wholly or in part, constitutes an infraction of the fishing rights under the Treaty. These dues are payable by all vessels of whatever nationality other than those belonging to the Colony, and we cannot see that what the Americans regard as the vexatious action of the Colony in refusing supplies of bait can afford any justification for their refusal to pay light dues as heretofore.

IV. It appears to us quite clear that the American vessels are bound to observe regulations as to the nets or other apparatus which may be used for the purpose of fishing. Such regulations are intended for the protection of the fisheries, and the Treaty in no way exempts them from the obligation to comply with such pro- visions sa long as they are in their nature reasonable and not framed to the prejudice of inhabitants of the United States as compared with Newfoundlanders.

V. Engagement of Newfoundlanders to fish.-There is nothing in the Convention of 1818 which entitles inhabitants of the United Sates to employ Newfoundlanders to fish in the Newfoundland waters, subject to the Treaty, though engaged outside the Colonial jurisdiction, and still less to send them ashore to fetch their own boats and gear. Newfoundlanders acting in this way contrary to the law of the Colony may be arrested and dealt with according to its provisions.

We observe that arrest on board an American vessel is not contemplated. We think that we have dealt with the various questions raised in the letter of reference, and have little to add by way of general observations.

As the right conferred by the Treaty can be taken advantage of only by inhabi- tants of the United States, we think that any Newfoundlanders who fish in the territorial waters, subject to the Treaty, on behalf of the inhabitants of the United States, are not within the protection of its provisions. As regards any acts com- mitted within the territorial waters they are subject to the law of the Colony to which they belong, and any fishing by persons other than inhabitants of the United States may be prevented. Nor have American vessels any right to purchase fish within the limits of Newfoundland.

We do not enter into the questions of policy which are raised by the various points submitted to us.

The Right Honourable

Alfred Lyttelton, M.P.,

&c.,

&c.

&c.,

We have, &c.,

R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.

41771

SIR,

R

No. 24.

(WESTERN PACIFIC.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Validity of Marriages Solemnised in Pitcairn Islanı.]

Royal Courts of Justice,

November 23, 1905.

WE were honoured by your commands, signified to us by Mr. Bertram Cox in his letter of the 31st October last, stating that he was directed by you to lay before us a letter of the 6th September from the Board of Trade, with its enclosures, relating to a marriage ceremony performed on board a merchant vessel by the master at Pitcairn Island, and to request the favour of our report upon the validity of this mar- riage and generally upon the law now regulating the solemnization of marriages in this island, and other questions connected therewith.

That he was to refer to the reports of the 4th March and the 5th April, 1898,* by our predecessors in office, from which it would be seen that Pitcairn was a British Settlement and has been brought within the jurisdiction of the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific under Articles 4 and 6 of the Pacific Order in Council, 1893.

That the mutineers of the "Bounty" took with them to Pitcairn the law of England in force at the time of settlement so far as applicable to their circumstances, and by the law of England the master of a merchant vessel has no authority, either under the common law or by statute, to solemnize marriages on board his vessel.

That there was, moreover, no marriage law of purely local origin, and that there was no mention of marriage in the "Laws and Regulations of Pitcairn Island" as summarised (in 1882) on pages 7 and 8 of the publication [C. 9148]. That it was, therefore, not easy to understand how the Acting Superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office arrived at the conclusion that the marriage was solemnized according to the lex loci.

That it would appear that the only ground upon which this marriage could be valid would be that it was a "marriage of necessity," as described with reference to Pitcairn in the case of Reg. .. Millis, by Lord Campbell (10 Cl. and Fin. at page 786), but that you were inclined to the view that the doctrine of necessity was not new applicable to Pitcairn, inasmuch as facilities existed for the regular and lawful solemnization of marriage in the island, it being open for the resident principal elder or other head of the denomination known as Seventh Day Adventists to which the islanders be- longed, to obtain registration as a minister for celebrating marriages in the island under Clauses 118-129 of the Pacific Order in Council, 1893.

That it was also conceived that Clause 127 of the Pacific Order in Council, 1893, has no application in the present case, for it appeared impossible that either of the parties to this marriage could bonâ fide have believed at the time that the master of a passing merchant vessel was a "duly registered ininister" within the meaning of that clause.

That the Pacific Order in Council provided for the celebration of marriages within the limits of that Order by ministers of religion, but it was submitted that purely civil marriage under the Foreign Marriage Act, 1892, was not thereby excluded within these limits, at all events as regards places outside His Majesty's dominions such as the Gilbert and Ellice Islands and the Solomon Islands.

That it would also appear from Section 11 (2) (c) of the Foreign Marriages Act that the same holds good as regards places forming part of His Majesty's dominions and that it would be possible to appoint a civil marriage officer in Pitcairn under that Act. That the construction of the enactment referred to, however, seemed to be far from clear.

That assuming the suggestions in the preceding paragraph to be correct, you presumed that all that was required to give effect to the Foreign Marriage Act and

25 W 2615 1,06 D&S 5

• Nes. 165 and 166 in Vol. V.

23093

1