CHAP. V] TREATY RELATIONS 1103 
Quite apart from this obligation, which exists whether 
legislation is passed or not, is the question whether the mere 
making of a treaty can alter the rights and obligations of 
British subjects. It appears clear in theory that the Crown 
can cede territory, and thus change the allegiance and the 
legal rights of its subjects ; 1 but if it.does not take this step 
it appears equally clear that the mere making of a treaty 
is inadequate to create any new legal rights or duties under 
municipal law. There is no precisely definite case appearing 
on the matter, but for all practical purposes the action of 
the Government in connexion with the case of Baird v. 
Walker * may be regarded as deciding the matter. In that 
case Sir Baldwin Walker, under the authority of a modus 
vivendi with the French Republic,concluded by Her Majesty’s 
Government, took steps which involved interference with 
the property of Mr. Baird on the Treaty Shore of Newfound- 
land. Mr. Baird brought an action in the Newfoundland 
Court against Sir Baldwin Walker, whose defence was that 
his act was an act of state into which the Colonial Court had 
no power of inquiry. The Colonial Court? declined to accept 
this defence as adequate, and the matter then went on 
appeal to the Privy Council. The Judicial Committee 
decided that the decision of the Colonial Court was correct. 
They expressly disclaimed any intention of passing judge- 
ment as to whether the treaty was or was not sufficient 
justification for the action of Sir Baldwin Walker. What 
they did decide was, that if the treaty was set up as the 
justification for his action, it was formally to be pleaded 
in defence, and that it was no answer to Mr. Baird’s claim 
to say that the act complained of, which was prima facie 
a breach of Mr. Baird’s legal rights, was an act of state. It 
* See Forsyth, Cases and Opinions on Constitutional Law, pp. 182-6; 
the Heligoland debate, 1890, Hansard, ccexlvii, 764; 1 App. Cas. 352. 
* [1892] A. C. 491. Cf. Damodhar Gordhan v. Deoram Kanji, 1 App. Cas. 
352; Parlement Belge, 4 P. D. 129; 5 P. D. 197. Cases like in re 
Californian Fig Syrup Company's Trade Mark, 40 Ch. D, 620, show that 
a treaty cannot overrule a statute, but leaves the position as regards 
the common law unaffected. Cf, in re Carter Medicine Company's Trade 
Mark, W. N. [1892] 106. 2 1897 Newfoundland Decisions, 490. 
no