INPERATIVE LEGISLATION.

Evening Star, Issue 12626, 4 October 1905, Page 8

INPERATIVE LEGISLATION.

v TO THIS BDITOB. Sir, —Would it be treason to point oat that we watte much time in passing inoperative lows? The Shipping and Seamen Art, 1903, as an illustration. We seem to forget, notwithstanding our Imperial demonstrations, that much of oar legislation, and this Act in particulars, is ultra vires of a colonial and of a 'foreign State. The idea of ourselves—a weak, defenceless State dictating to on mother and protectress is too ridiculous. We are harassing the large shipping interests of the United Kingdom. There is an Imperial statute of 1865—Colonial Laws Validity Act —which says (second clause): " Any colonial law which is or shall be in any respect repugnant to the provisions of an Act of ParKampnt extending to the colony to which sueh i law may rotate, or repugnant to any order or regulation made under authority of such Act of Parliament, or having in the colony ; the force and effect of such Act, shall. be read subject to such Act, order, or regulation, and shall, to the extent of such repugI nancy, but not otherwise, be and remain ab--1 solutery void and inoperative." Were members of Cabinet aware of this when sanctioning the Shipping and Seamen Act, 1903, for parliamentary discussion? The British shipowner is aware of the fact, and notwith- | standing the sanction of Royal 'Assent it is null and void. The Aliens Act, also, may be null and void for the same reason.—l am, etc, FJL October 4.