The morning call., 1891-03-20
A BLOW TO ROYAL PEERoGATIvE.

1t is hardly probable that readers of THE
CALL devoted much attention yesterday to
ths brief dispatch from st. Johns, New
foundland, announcing that the Supreme
Court of that colony had decided the case of
Baird VS.. Walker in favor of The plaintiff.
And yet the decision is one which marks an
epoch in political science, and deals fatal
blow to the doctrine of royal prerOg9tive.
Tie facts are these: Some years ago the
British Government concluded 4 treaty with
Fraace, Conceding to French citizens an eX-
elusive right to can Holsters on a certain
specified portion OF the coast of Newfound-
land. simultaneously with this treaty the
French Government granted a bounty to
lobster Gamers. With the help OF the
bounty, French Gamers secured mo-
ropoiy of an admirable site for their bu>i-
ness, drove other Gamers out OF the
European markets, and deprived the New
fuundland Gamers Of their livelihood The
latter rebelled against the wrong. One
Baird, a British subject residing IN New
foundland, established a cannery on the
territory allotted to the French. The cap
tain OF British man-of-war landed marines,
disabled his cannery and stopped his work.
For this Baird sued the captain for damages,
and the Supreme Court of the colony has
decided in his favor.
The ground taken by the court is novel
and striking. The Chief Justice held that
the treaty-makng power of the crown was
a limited power, and could not affect the
rights OF subjects until the provisions Of the
treaty had been embodied in an act Of Par
Lament. A treaty made by the crown IN
time Of peace did not authorize an officer to
do an act which, in the absence Of treaty,
would be a tort. In other words, the rights
OF British subjects cannot be impaired by any
arrangement between their sovereign and
foreign sovereign; nothing can affect them
but a law made by themselves through their
representatives in the Legislature. This is
sound doctrine, and will be no novelty to
Americans, but it is rather startling as COM
ing from British court, speaking as an ex-
pounder of the Constitution of England. In
this country no treaty can go into effect I'M
til it has been ratified by the Senate, and has
thus become, in a sense, the act OF the peo-
pie. In Great Britain the crown. through
its Ministers, has always enjoyed the exclG-
sive right of concluding treaties without the
consent or advice Of Parliament. 1t is now
settled, if the Newfoundland decision stands
the test of an appeal to the Priyy Council,
that such treaties, though binding on the
until he has asseutel to them through his
representatives in Parliament.
The ineden: affords fresh illustration of
the embarrassmeRts to which the attempt
to combine imperial authority with the
authority of colonial governments must
lead. Newfoundland is self-governing
colony 1t has Legislative Council and
Assembly which make laws. 1t collects its
own revenue and disburses il. Ii its auton-
umy is not a delusion. it surely possesses the
power of protecting its citizens in the occu-
patton of land lcgitimately acquired within
the colony. But i. now appears that the de-
cision in the case Of Baird VS.. Walker is to
be followed by the introduction into Parlia-
ment Of coercion act to enforce the agree
ment with France. As nobody in England
knows or cares anything about Newlound-
land it Will probably pass, and then, by the
authority OF power on the other side of the
ocean, party Of foreigners will be confirmed
in the exclusive occupation of one OF the best
lobster stations on the coast. 1t is no Won
H. Observation-Disclosures, ora aurrrv