CO885-(7-8) — Page 385

589

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

EPIC.O.885

7

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

*

40

his country they have an appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada as well as an appeal from the Supreme Court of every individual State, so that I think that as the Minister of Justice in Canada only represents the Federal Government it might not be so satisfactory to the other Colonies as he seems to think it is to the Federal Government themselves. He speaks probably for Ontario, and the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council may have been perfectly satisfactory to Ontario. He has referred only to those decisions which have dealt with that part of Canada. Now these are very few and far between. Many decisions have come up from the various Courts of the States between the Atlantic and the Pacific. Newfound- land is not a member of the Union yet. In conjunction with Sir James Prendergast, I hope we may yet be joined to the Federation of Canada, or joined to the Federation of the Australhair Colonics. If you do that we would have to have our appeals direct from the Colony here, and not, as he feared, by appeal to the Commonwealth of Canada or Australia. We in our Colony have no alien, no native population 'such as Mr. Rose Innes has referred to, and our laws there are pretty well what the laws of England are. Very few questions of any difficulty come up, and therefore we have not that dissatisfaction except upon the lines that I have indicated. But when I came here I understood we were to discuss the question as to whether we were to have a separate Court-an Imperial Court of Appeal, not whether we would take the House of Lords, or whether we would take the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But it seems from 'what has been said that we are to depart from that and consider the question whether we would take the House of Lords as the ultimate Court of Appeal from the Colonies, or whether we shall continue to have the Privy Council strengthened by such additions as may be made to-day after consideration. Now what these addi- tions may be, I do not at present presume to say, but I certainly do not think that it is going to be very much strengthened if the appointments to the Privy Council are going to be upon the lines that have been followed in the past, that is by appointing a Chief Justice from various Colonies such as Australia, or Canada, or South Africa and asking these gentlemen to sit at the same time upon the Benches of their Local Courts. I think that has been found by experience to work in such a way that it has not given that respect to the Privy Council, nor respect to the Bench of which they are members as was expected. It is a sort of divided allegiance. It makes a man sit in a case in a' Colonial Court and then come to England and sit upon that case again, after it has been decided in his own Court. He may have dissented: he may, or may not have participated in the Judgment and he might, because he has taken part in that Judgment, abstain from taking part in the discussion before the Privy Council.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: They always do.

Mr. Justice EMERSON: But, at the same time, I think it is a position that the Chief Justice or any Judge would take. He would consider that he should not be present when the matter was considered, lest in any way he might sway the Judges who had to consider it. Whether we consider the matter from the point of view of the establishment of an Imperial Court of Appeal, or, as the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Chamberlain, has said, from the point of view of strengthening the position of the Privy Council, I am not prepared at the present moment to give an opinion. I agree to a large extent with what has fallen from the Representative from Australia. that it would be better if we could get some half-way house between the House of Lords and the Privy Council, and have an Imperial Court of Appeal, which would be truly representative of the whole Empire. What that Court would be composed of I am not at present moment prepared to say.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: An intermediate Court you mean, so that two still

remain.

Mr. Justice EMERSON: No; in substitution of either.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: Ah! in substitution.

The Right Hon. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Do I understand, Mr. Emerson, that if the Judicial Committee remains the authority for Colonial Appeals you would not think it necessary to strengthen it, say, by the appointment of a Canadian Judge; that so far as Newfoundland is concerned, they would not think it would have greater authority ?

41

Mr. Justice EMERSON, not think it would give it greater authority because the Chief Justier of Nowhandlord was en it, or greater respect because the Chief Justice of Newfoundland va on it. No; h the Colony I think they would prefer to live the Lord Cheswell g, the Master of the Hells, the Lord Chief Justice of England, and other legal huvlaries of Engla: d up a such á Trilaual as that, but the strongest men certainly. It may be in thọ • Colonies, such as Mr. Rose Innes has referred to-those Coloniks when there is a dumilde bow, the French-Canadian law, the Roman-Dutch law, or where English by pure and shaple is not administered--they may have the assistance of ilu se experts in these las të guide them in those Lafters when those questions arise—questions to be affected by that bow. If a question arises in the Court of a Colony such as Newfoundland, it is decided there by the Judges upon the saze principles as the Judges of the Comt of Appeal will deride it if it is sent home, and we de vol think that » Judge from thai Colony is going to assist them in the construction of a local statute. Tho may be Colonies where such assistance, would be very valuable to their Lordships in the Court of Appeal in England," whatever that Court of Appeal may be, bet I do think that either a separate Cout of Appeal for the Colonies should be established or that the Privy Council should be remodelled upon some such lines as Mr. Rose Innes point out. It would give more satisfaction if they would give the reasons for the judgments they deliver. "I am not

any way impugning the accuracy of the judgments.

in

The LORD CHANCELLOR: The mode in which the Judgments are delivered.

Mr. Justice EMERSON: Yes. For instance, my Lord, suppose there were three Judges of the Lower Court, the Colonial Court, who unanimously give a Judgment; there were five sat in the Court of Appeal, here and there were two dissentient voices. Three Judges in the Court below and two here; there would be dive Judges who had given Judgment one way and tha. Judges giving Judgment the other way, and the Judgment of the Court below would still be reversed by the Judgment of the three Judges.

The LORD CHANCELLOR : That anomaly does exist in our system at present; it is not absolutely infrequent with us.

Mr. Justice EMERSON: That is not a satisfactory condition.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not so sure!

Mr. Justice EMERSON: I beg your Lordship's pardon, I mean from the point of view of a litigant in the Colony. If a minority of the Lower Court sits in the Court of Appeal; if the Court of Appeal stated the reasons for their Judgment it is always a satisfaction to the litigant.

Sir JOHN EDGE: India, I understand, is satisfied with the Privy Council so long as she is represented on the Privy Council; I am not instructed to make any other suggestion for Colonial representation on the Privy Council.

Sir WILLIAM JAMES SMITII: My Lord Chancellor, I think perhaps I appear here on a somewhat different footing from those gentlemen who have already spoken in this Conference. I have been instructed recently by the Secretary of State to attend this Conference. I have had no opportunity of consulting the Colonies I am supposed to represent, which are scattered all over the world. So far as my own experience of the Colonies has gone, extending now over nearly twenty years, I think that there has not only been no demand, but that there is no desire to alter the present Appellate Tribunal from the Crown Colonies. Colonies certainly desire a change. One is probably a change of procedure, and the On one or two points the other is some change in the constitution of the Court. With regard to the first point, undoubtedly it is felt that a long time docs elapse between the ranking of the appeal and the time when the decision of the Appellate Tribunal reaches the Colony. I hope

·I am understood not to be making any aspersion whatever upon the Privy Council, because I agree with those gentlemen who have suggested that the amendment might come in the form of amended procedure. For instance, the Colony of British Guiana; the Order in Council giving leave to appeal to the King in Council might be given six months ago. The procedure there is, within fourteen days after Judgment has

[882]

G