A.—6

26

the Australasian Colonies, and that such prohibition should take effect from and after publication of a notice in the London Times." This is not an entirely accurate report of the resolution, and of course it is the resolution itself which the delegates adopted that must be referred to. The resolution adopted is not only to the effect of what is stated in the report, but contains a further resolution, as follows: —" And the representatives of the various Colonies engage to introduce into their several Legislatures such measures as may be necessary to carry out this object." The only agreement or engagement entered into is the introduction of the necessary measures into the respective Legislatures. It would seem that the representatives were conscious that such legislation would, or, at any rate might, be found necessary. It appears that both in New South "Wales and Victoria the state of the law was such that the prohibition could not legally be made, and that, in fact, as in New Zealand, so in Victoria and New South "Wales, further legislation was necessary. This is apparent from the attempts which the Executive Governments of New South Wales and Victoria have respectively made to carry out the resolution of the Conference. Eeferring to the case of New South "Wales first : —The resolution is that the importation of cattle, sheep, and pigs into New South "Wales .... be prohibited, for a period of two years, from all places beyond the Australasian Colonies. On the 17th day of April, 1873, the Governor of New South "Wales, with the advice of his Executive, made a proclamation professedly under the powers conferred by an Act of the Parliament of that Colony. The provision of the Act under which the Governor professed to act, is recited in the proclamation, and is as follows :— (The Act was passed in 1871.) "It is enacted that the Governor may, by proclamation in the Government Gazette, restrict or absolutely prohibit, for any specified time, the importation or introduction of any stock, fodder, or fittings from any other colony or country in which there is reason to believe any infectious or contagious disease in stock exists." By the interpretation section of the Act, the word " stock " does not include pigs. Nevertheless, no reference is made to this in the proclamation, though it is assumed, in the correspondence referred to me, that the Executive Government of New South "Wales had by that proclamation effected the prohibition which the Conference had resolved to be expedient. I do not know whether the fact that the introduction of "pigs " into New South Wales remained permissible, was a substantial matter or not, but it seems highly probable that it was ; otherwise, why should these animals have been specially mentioned in the resolution ? The Legislature of New South "Wales did not pass, in 1873, any measure on this subject, nor, so far as I can learn, was any measure introduced into that Legislature for the purpose of extending the provisions of the Act of 1871 to pigs. Upon the terms of the proclamation it cannot be said to what animals it extends, the word " stock " only being used: the use of the term is calculated to mislead, and the extent and meaning of it can only be ascertained by reference to the Act under which the proclamation professes to be made. Indeed, the Executive Government of New South "Wales itself seems not to have been aware of the fact that pigs were not included, for the correspondence shows that that Government was under the impression that what was aimed at by the Conference had been attained by the proclamation. However, the inefficiency of the proclamation to carry out the object of the resolution of the Conference is still more apparent, when the terms of the resolution and the Act in question and the proclamation are considered. The resolution declares the expediency of an absolute prohibition of the landing of the animals named, without reference to whether diseased or not, and from all places beyond the Australasian Colonies, without reference to whether disease exists or not. The Conference declared an absolute prohibition necessary. On reference to the provisions of the Act, it will be seen that the power conferred is to prohibit the introduction of stock from places where there is reason to believe that any contagious or infectious disease in stock exists. Clearly, therefore, the Executive Government of New South "Wales had no power to carry out the object of the resolution of the Conference. In order to a legitimate exercise of the power, there must have been, at the time of its exercise, reason to believe that some contagious or infectious disease in stock existed in the country whence the stock to be affected by the proclamation came. The proclamation, after reciting the clause of the Act already referred to, then recites, as a fact, that there is reason to believe that certain named diseases in stock exist in almost every country and colony other than the Australasian Colonies, naming them, including New Zealand amongst the Colonies in which disease did not exist. The proclamation then prohibits the introduction of stock from all countries except the Australasian Colonies and New Zealand. Can such a proclamation be defended ? Surely not. Could any one honestly say that such diseases existed in all parts of the world other than Australasia, and did not exist in Australasia ? It is hardly worth while to point out that the prohibition is more extensive than the fact, as alleged, justifies : the fact alleged is, that such diseases exist in almost all countries, and, therefore, the introduction from all countries is prohibited. However, the proclamation of April, 1873, recites, as a fact, that the diseases there mentioned did not exist in New Zealand ; nevertheless, the Governor of New South "Wales, on the Bth of July, issued a proclamation, professedly under the same Act, prohibiting the introduction of stock from New Zealand. The proclamation is not made on the supposed existence of disease in New Zealand; no outbreak of disease in New Zealand is alleged. Indeed, the only professed ground for the proclamation is that New Zealand had not prohibited the introduction of stock ; moreover, the proclamation is a prohibition only until New Zealand issues a proclamation. It is clear, therefore, that it is not pretended that there was " reason to believe that disease'in stock existed in New Zealand."