21

A.—6.

I agree with you in thinking that no public advantage can be derived from continuing this correspondence. I gladly accept and reciprocate your assurance of friendly co-operation in promoting the interests of both Colonies ; and I earnestly hope that, in the future, no occasion may arise, on either side, upon which a departure from the usual proper and constitutional form of communication between the Governments of Victoria and New Zealand may become necessary or excusable I enclose Mr. Vogel's Memorandum on your letter, and also the opinion of the Attorney-General of this Colony* on the whole subject. I have, &c, William H. Keynolds, The Chief Secretary, Victoria. (in the absence of the Colonial Secretary). Enclosure. Memobattdtjm for the Hon. the Colonial Seceetaet, New Zealand, by the Hon. the Premier, New Zealand. In returning you the letter of the Chief Secretary of Victoria, of the sth of May, referred to me by you, I can only express regret that that gentleman has been betrayed into the use of expressions which, on consideration, I have no doubt he will regret. I agree, generally, with the Chief Secretary's proposition "to restrict communications upon intercolonial matters to the proper Ministers of the respective Colonies;" but there still remains the right to consider that any official act, obviously illegal, of the Governor of a Colony affecting another Colony is a matter of Imperial concern. By accident, I discovered that the legality of the action taken by the Governor of Victoria was challenged by a correspondent in one of the newspapers of that Colony, and I was subsequently advised that the proclamation was illegal, and obviously so; and, in consequance, deeming the matter one of Imperial concern, I moved His Excellency Sir James Fergusson's attention to it, who at once communicated with the Governor of Victoria on the subject. I understand the Chief Secretary to argue that if a Governor is to be communicated with in this manner, he is asked to take the advice of Ministers and law officers not his own. This seems to mo rather a far-fetched view. The real question depends upon whether or not the action complained of is legal or illegal; in either case, the Governor is able to consult his own Government. I am free to admit that if there is reasonable room to doubt the alleged illegality, it would be better to make the subject one of discussion between the Governments; but when the illegality is beyond all question, as in the present case, it seems to me fairly a matter of choice by the Government suffering injury as to which course promises the most ready redress. It is hardly necessary now to discuss the question of the legality of the proclamation, for although the Chief Secretary upheld it, in the Memorandum of which Sir James Fergusson complained, it was subsequently revoked, and, I believe, the Chief Secretary informed a deputation, which waited upon him on the subject, that fresh legislation was required to enable such a proclamation to be made. I observe that the Chief Secretary, in his letter under consideration, states that he has the power " within the law, to issue a proclamation more effectually carrying out the agreement of the Conference." Ido not think that this Government have any objection to offer to such a proclamation, if it be within the law. Events have shown that the action proposed by the resolution carried at the Conference was unnecessary, and have justified the course taken by our Parliament. One, if not two other Colonies have abandoned the prohibition in respect to the northern part of the Australian continent, so that the whole prohibition appears now to be useless. But if the Chief Secretary thinks otherwise, I am not aware that this Government have any objection to offer to a legal proclamation. I have further to observe that there has been an assumption throughout that New Zealand failed to carry out the resolution adopted at the Conference. This is not the case, for it will be observed by the resolution of the Conference (a copy of which I appendf) that the representatives of the various Colonies only engaged " to introduce into their several Legislatures such measures as might be necessary to carry out this object." The Government of New Zealand did this, and supported the measure. This Colony thus literally followed the resolution. Two at least of the other Colonies—New South "Wales and Victoria—did not. Instead of doing so, they issued proclamations which, as I am advised, were illegal. The law gave to the Governor of Victoria the power to prohibit the introduction of cattle from places where disease was known to exist. Professing to exercise this power, but not pretending that disease in stock existed in all the countries of the world but the Australian Colonies and New Zealand, the proclamation prohibited the introduction of stock from all countries but from the colonies excepted. It is nothing to us that that was obviously an excessive use of the power possessed, excepting that it shows that the Colony of Victoria, instead of complying with the resolution of the Conference to obtain legislative powers, if necessary, preferred to issue an invalid and consequently an ineffective proclamation. But what New Zealand has to complain of is, that though it is admitted in the proclamation prohibiting importation from other countries, that New Zealand is free from disease, yet importation was prohibited from New Zealand by another proclamation, made in the exercise of a power which could only be legitimately exercised if disease existed. The terms of the first proclamation made clear the vice of the second. The recital, too, that the proclamation was issued because New Zealand did not carry out an agreement, was not only an absurd foundation for the proclamation in a legal point of view; but offensive to a Colony that invariably does carry out its engagements. It is to be observed, also, that the doubtful nature of the original proclamation makes the matter essentially an Imperial one. For Great Britain, its dependencies, and foreign countries are wronged * Vide post, p. 25. \ Vide ante, p. 1.