CHAP. 111] THE CONFERENCE OF 1911 1525 
North America Act, 1894, gave the Dominion Parliament 
full legislative powers, and that only a formal alteration of 
that Act would enable the powers to be overridden. In any 
event he wished the position cleared up. His views were 
reinforced by Mr. Brodeur,! who insisted that the Act of 1894 
had altered Canadian law.2 Mr. Buxton 3 insisted that the 
Act was merely intended to consolidate, and that any 
alteration was merely accidental. Besides, he expressed his 
readiness to meet the views of the Dominion by securing 
the royal approval to the proposal in a Bill of 1911 to 
validate as regards Canadian registered shipping the devia- 
tion between Canadian and British law. Mr. Fisher? finally 
decided not to vote for the motion, lest he be deemed to admit 
that the Commonwealth had not all the powers which it 
desired to have, but Sir J. Ward intimated pretty plainly 
that the Commonwealth was really no better off in this 
regard than the Dominion. Mr. Malan ¢ and General Botha 5 
also thought that matters were quite satisfactory, and that 
t Cd. 5745, p. 419. He admitted the binding force of the Act of 1894, 
! The reference seems to be to two facts: (a) s. 69 of the Imperial 
Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, altered the measurement of vessels for 
limitation of compensation by substituting for gross tonnage without 
deduction of engine-room space, registered tonnage plus the amount 
deducted for engine-room in arriving at the registered tonnage; (b) the Act 
of 1894 makes the effect of any breach of collision rules conclusive proof of 
default on the part of a vessel in collision, while the older Act of 1854, which 
was followed by Canadian law (first in 1880 by ¢. 29, and now in the Shipping 
det, 1906), made the breach of rules merely proof of default if the accident 
arose from the breach. Cf. China Merchants’ Steam Navigation Co. v. 
Bignold, 7 App. Cas. 512; The Khedive, 5 App. Cas. 486. In both cases it 
seems to me that the Canadian law was overridden, but it was a case where 
the Canadian law never had any validity as repugnant to 36 & 37 Vict. 
©. 85, 8. 17 (overlooked in 1880 by Canada). The saving in s. 421 of the 
Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, refers to collision rules, not to the rules 
regarding the effect of disregard of rules, and still less to the rules regard- 
ng limitation of liability which occur in a different part of the Imperial 
Act, though in the same part of the Canadian Act as the collision rules. 
It should be noted that the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the 
validity of the Canadian Shipping Act, but the point of repugnancy was 
not taken in the case in question; see The Ship ‘ Cuba’ v. McMillan, 
26 S. C. R. 651; above p. 716, note 1. * Ibid., pp. 422, 423. 
4 Ibid., p. 423. % Ibid.