CO129-534-9 Law of Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 1-4-1931 - 20-4-1932 — Page 64

-6-

64

powers obtained from two authori ti es which might at

any time be found to be conflicting. It would on

that view in certain circumstances be conceivable that

a court might act legally in defiance of the limitat-

ions imposed upon it by its own constitution. The

competence of a court is derived from its sovereign.

Judicial functions are a portion of sovereignty.

Unless it receives the jurisdiction from the sovereign,

a court is without power to act. An acquiescence by

the sovereign in a usurpation by the court of any

portion of sovereign power would not amount to a

sufficient authority. Jurisdiction cannot depend

on any form of ratification.

I note in passing that the contention of the

learned Attorney General has the support of Sir

William Blackstone who, in his "Commentaries on the

laws of England" 1857 Ed., volume IV, at p.62, in a

chapter he aded "Of offences against the law of nations"

states his opinion in these words "In arbitrary

states this law, (i.e. intemational law) wherever it

contradicts or is not provided for by the municipal

law of the country, is enforced by the royal power:

but since in England no royal power can introduce a

new law, or suspend the execution of the old, therefore

the law of nations (wherever any question arises which

is properly the object of its jurisdiction) is here

adopted in its full extent by the common law, and

is held to be a part of the law of the land; and

those acts of Parliament which have from time to time

been made to enforce this universal law,

or to

facilitate the execution of its decisions, are not