COLONIAL SUGAR CO.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8608, 19 December 1913, Page 7

COLONIAL SUGAR CO.

APPEAL CASE JUDGMENT OF THE LORD CHANCELLOR. By Telegraph—Press Aasoaialioo—Copyright (Received December 18, 10.5 p.m.) LONDON, December 18. In tke appeal case, Attorney-Gen-eral of the Commonwealth versus the Colonial Sugar Company, Lord Haldane (Lord Chancellor) in his judgment stated that the Royal Commissions Acts were ultra vires so fur as they purported to enable a Royal Commission to compel answers and production of documents. It would bo sufficient to tnako a declaration to that effect, with liberty to apply to the High Court to enforce it by injunction or otherwise. His Lordship stated that the question at the root of the controversy', However, remains—“ Were, the Commissions Acts iiitra vires 7” The burden of proof rests on those affirming that the Acts are within the Commonwealth Parliament’s powers. In His Lordship's opinion the authority over the individual sought to be established by tho Commissions Acts, or the new offences created thereby, or the drastic powers conferred thereby, cannot bo said to bo incidental to any power at present existing by statute or at common law. English law gives Royal Commissions no titlo to compel answers from witnesses. Until the Commonwealth Parliament has entrusted tho Royal Commission with a statutory duty to inquire into a specific subject, legislation regarding which has been assigned to Parliament by the Federal Constitution, that Parliament cannot confer such powers as the Acts contain on the footing that they are incidental to inquiries which it may some day direct. His Lordship, therefore, advises His Majesty that such declaration should bo made, that such liberty to apply should be granted, and that-tho order of the High Court should he varied accordingly. As the respondents have substantially succeeded, the appellants must pay the costs of this appeal. “Tho Times,” in a leading article on the judgment, says that it -does not know whether all colonial lawyers agree that the Royal Commissions Acts are ultra vires, but they see in the Privy Council’s decision a sign that that tribunal is not shirking its responsibility. The ingenious argument was based upon the suggestion that tho information sought might be useful for the purpose of constitutional alterations, but there was force in Sir Samuel Griffiths’ rejoinder that- such a construction would virtually delete some of tho most important constitutional restrictions. Conflicts between the Federal and State legislation in the United States were fierce and heated. Australia was fortunate in being able to settle her conflicting claims through the agency of tho Privy Couacil. Having arrived at this conclusion, their Lordships do not think that the Commissions Acts, in the form in whioir they stand, can, without amendment, bo brought within tho powers of the Commonwealth Legislature. Their Lordshps hesitate to differ from tho High Court judges, particularly Judges Griffiths and Barton, who have a special knowledge of tho Australian Constitution, but the question they had to decide depends simply upon the interpretation of tho Act of Parliament. Their Lordships’ opinion is that without re-drafting the Commissions Acts it is impossible to uso them as a justification for tho steps contemplated by the Sugar Commission in order, to make the inquiry effective. Their Lordships thought the conclusion of Justices Isaacs, and Higgins entitled to weight, namely that it was impossible to pronounce in advance that questions not prove relevant to matters which all the judges held to bo proper subjects of inquiry. If tho company were compelled to answer certain questions, particularly relating to its business, it would bo a serious interference with liberty, but their Lordships were neither at liberty nor were they competent to express an opinion, regarding the policy of doing [Tho appeal was against a conyic tion by Mr Payten, S.M., in the firs, instance, and against the subsequent decision of tho Australian higher courtsj for failing without reasonable excuse to attend the Sugar Commission. Sir Nonnand MacLaurin, a director, was summoned to attend, and ho* failed. He was prosecuted, under section 5 of the Royal Commissions Act, 1902, No 12, and fined £25 and costs £320 J