1104 ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATION [PART V 
may be noted that counsel did not attempt to argue that 
any treaty could alter the law, only that treaties of peace, or 
treaties akin to such treaties, could do so. 
The decision of the Privy Council left it open for Her 
Majesty’s Government to defend the action of Sir Baldwin 
Walker on the ground of the treaty. It is significant that 
they did not do so, but that they took steps to pay compensa- 
tion to all those whose lobster factories had been interfered 
with by Sir Baldwin Walker. 
The same question of the effect of a treaty in overriding 
the law of the country has been discussed in other cases, 
both by the Privy Council and by Colonial Courts; the 
general tendency is to consider that the making of a treaty 
is not sufficient to alter the ordinary rights of British subjects. 
For example, in the case of Tsewu v. Registrar of Deeds}! 
decided by the Transvaal Supreme Court in 1905, it was 
held that, whatever was the force of the Conventions between 
the Transvaal Republic and Her Majesty’s Government in 
1881 and 1884, they were not sufficient to make it part of the 
law of the Transvaal that land held by natives should not 
be registered in their names, but in the name of a Govern- 
ment officer. In 1902 Mr. Deakin intimated clearly that 
in his opinion an Imperial Treaty could not override the law 
of Australia, and though there are expressions of opinion 
to the contrary,? it seems certain that this view is correct. 
The correct procedure, therefore, is for every Colony which 
L [1905] T. 8. 30; cf, [1904], T. 8. 241; Vincent v. Ah Yeng, 8W. A. L. R. 
145 ; Brown v. Lizars, 2 C. L. R. 837, which decides that an extradition 
treaty is not sufficient authority for extradition without legislation. See 
also Wi Paratav. Bishop of Wellington, 3 N. Z. J. R. (N. 8.) 8. C. 72, where 
it was held that a Crown grant was conclusive that the Crown had legally 
acquired land from the natives, despite the terms of the Treaty of Wai- 
tangi ; Nireaha Tamaki v. Baker, 12 N. Z. L. R. 483, overruled in [1901] 
A. C. 561 ; Greenberg v. Williams, N. 0., 3H. C. G. 336 : and Cook v. Sprigg, 
1899] A. C. 572; 9 C. T. R. 701. 
* The British Columbia Courts held the reverse, and this is also the view 
of the Provincial Government ; see Tas Sing v. Maguire, 1 B. C. (Irving), 
at p. 109, and Lefroy, Legislative Power in Canada, pp. 265-7. It is hardly 
necessary to discuss these cases: there is no treaty with China imposing 
oblications as to immigration. as the Court seems to have held.