122 PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [PART 11 
regard to the restrictions contained in the Act of 1894. 
The view adopted by the Secretary to the Law Department 
was accepted by the Government of the Commonwealth in 
a dispatch from the Prime Minister of June 15, 1908.2 
The reply of His Majesty’s Government was given in 
a dispatch of September 18, 19083 and subsequently to the 
date of that dispatch the provisions of the draft Common- 
wealth Navigation Bill were in 1910 so amended as to 
remove the objections taken by the Imperial Government 
to its provisions. No such claim appears ever to have been 
made by the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia 
with regard to copyright, and it is admitted that the Colonial 
Laws Validity Act applies to Commonwealth laws.t 
Of course it must not be lightly assumed that an Act is 
repugnant to an Imperial Act, and unless it is clear that 
the Imperial Act does extend it will be assumed not so to 
extend.5 
It is a matter of contention in each case what Acts are 
in force by necessary intendment in the Colonies. It 
has been decided in the case of New Zealand Loan and 
Mercantile Agency Co. v. Morrison that the Joint Stock 
! Pari. Pap., Cd. 3023, p. 61. Contrast Quick and Garvan, Constitution 
of the Commonwealth, pp. 351, 352, 656. 
' Parl. Pap., Cd. 4355, p. 7. Cf. also Gen. Botha’s view in Cd. 5745, 
p. 423. 
 Ibid., p. 20. In the case of Canada the position is different, as the 
Act of 1894 is subsequent to the British North America Act. But also it is 
clear that after 1867 it was still held that the Act of 1854 as to registered 
vessels applied to Canada as well as that of 1869 regarding coasting vessels, 
for the Acts Nos. 128 and 129 of 1873 were both enacted not under any 
supposed power to repeal Imperial Acts, but under the Act mentioned as 
set out in the Acts in question ; so in 1908 (c. 64) as regards the coasting 
trade. For older views as to power to alter Imperial Acts, see Lewis, Essay 
on the Government of Dependencies, pp. 91, 92.  - 
* See Quick and Garran, Constitution of the Commonwealth, pp. 351, 352, 
The rule applies of course to the Canadian Provinces (cf. I’ Union S. Jacques 
de Montréal v. Bélisle, 6 P. C. 31); and also to the Union Provinces; for it 
is a rule of common law as well as statutory. 
® Penley v. The Beacon Assurance Co., 10 Gr. 422. 
[1898] A. C. 349.