15

A.—6

that he allowed himself, because of action taken by a neighbouring Colony, to bo forced into action of which he disapproved. It is to be regretted that, in dealing with another Colony, Victoria should not have sufficiently the courage of its opinions to avoid being forced into action of which it disapproves. The Chief Secretary virtually admits, also, that the action taken was premature ; since it appears to have been adopted upon an unverified newspaper telegram, which subsequently proved to be incorrect. The action taken by your Excellency was in accordance with advice I had the honor to offer you. It arose in this manner. I observed in the Argus a letter signed "David G-aunson," dated " Eldon Chambers, 25th October,"* in which the writer pointed out the absurdity of the proclamation issued by the Governor of Victoria. I referred the matter to the law officer, who forwarded me an opinion, of which a copy is appended. Upon receipt of that opinion, I brought under the notice of your Excellency the fact that the Governor of a neighbouring Colony had issued a proclamation affecting New t Zealand, which proclamation was obviously illegal; and your Excellency, in consequence, addressed the Grovernor of Victoria upon the subject. It is quite true, as is observed by the Chief Secretary of Victoria, that the Governments of the two Colonies have been in the habit of communicating (and I think it is right they should do so) on subjects of interest to the Colonies ; but the matter now in question seemed to me not to be classible with the matters with which the Governments had ordinarily dealt. This was the case of a proclamation so obviously illegal, that it is scarcely possible to suppose the Governor of Victoria could have read it before signing it. It has been clearly laid down by the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the Governor of a Colony is bound by the advice of his Ministers, only to the extent to which he can obey the law while following that advice. Correspondence between the two Governments, upon such a matter, would not have answered any purpose. Whether or not it was just or expedient for Victoria to exclude stock from New Zealand, the proclamation prohibiting the importation was, on its face, obviously illegal: the Governor of Victoria ought not to have signed it, and his duty was to cancel it at the earliest possible moment. I am decidedly of opinion that it is the duty of the Governor of a Colony to exercise some discretion when asked to sign proclamations affecting the interests of other colonies or countries. Therefore it was that I thought it desirable your Excellency should bring the matter directly under the notice of the Governor of Victoria. As the proclamation has now been cancelled, I do not think it necessary that further action should be taken, except that perhaps it is desirable your Excellency should place the Governor of Victoria in possession of a copy of this Memorandum, so that he may understand the nature of your Excellency's previous action March 11th, 1874. Julius Vogel. Opinion of the Assistant Law Officer, New Zealand. 15th November, 1873. I hate had a copy made of the proclamation prohibiting the introduction, from New Zealand into Victoria, of the animals there mentioned. The Act on which it purports to be founded is correctly quoted in the recital to the proclamation, and it will be seen that the power of prohibition can only be exercised in respect of a country or place in which disease amongst animals named is known to exist. The subsequent recitals do not state this fact expressly, or by implication; but after stating the agreement of the Conference as to the prohibition against landing of cattle, &c, coming from places beyond the Australasian Colonies, for a given period, after notice in the Times, and that New Zealand had not given this notice, the proclamation declares that the animals named shall not be introduced into Victoria until the Government of New Zealand shall have published the notice referred to ! The prohibited animals are cattle, sheep, and pigs, and all meat, skins, &c, hay, fodder, &c. I think the proclamation is bad. The conclusion is by no means justified by the premises, and until a foundation be laid for the proclamation, by showing the existence of disease in New Zealand, I think it is without the authority of law. The Hon. Mr. Vogel. W. S. Reid. His Excellency Sir G-. F. Bowen to His Excellency Sir James Fekgttsson, Bart. Sin, — Government Offices, Melbourne, 18th March, 1874. I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's Despatch of the 20th February ultimo, and I am now requested by my Eesponsible Advisers to forward to you the accompanying Ministerial Memorandum (13th March, 1874,) respecting it. * The following is the letter referred to above : — (To the Editor of the Argus.) Sib, —The Supplement to last Friday's Gazette contains an order prohibiting the importation into Victoria of stock from New Zealand. From sheer curiosity to learn what law authorized the making of such order, I carefully read it. over, and discovered, to my utter surprise, that though the Act under which the order purports to be made gives the Governor in Council power to make an order prohibiting the importation of stock, &c, from any country in which disease in stock is known to exist, yet the order in question does not proceed upon that ground, but is expressed to be made in consequence of the violation by New Zealand of some arrangement, concerning stock, arrived at by the last Intercolonial Conference. Of course, the Act of Parliament docs not permit of an order, prohibiting the importation of stock, being made on that ground ; and, ergo, the order is utterly illegal. Our Government might (so far as the lawfulness of the order in question is concerned) just as well set out that the reason is, that they could not agree with the New Zealand Government over the postal contract. Yours truly, Eldon Chambers, Melbourne, 25th October, 1873. David Gatotoh.