SULLIVAN’S CASE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4344, 20 February 1875, Page 2

SULLIVAN’S CASE.

TO TilE EDITOR. Sir, —With reference to the embarrassing* of the murderer .Sullivan; will you allow me»to suggest an aspect of the matter which does not seem yet to have occurred, so far as I know, to any c£ the contending critics on either side of this now serious quarrel? So long as such a . point as. the one I here put—merely, be it remembered, as an arguable one—was likely to enure solely for the benefit of such a scoundcel as Sullivan, I judged it proper to hold my tongue. But the case has now reached such a development as to touch on many-sided public interests, both Intercolonial and Imperial, Sullivan, sir, I take it, received from the Crown a pardon conditioned on his removing from this colony., Tills being so, then this point arises: The maxim of law is that the Royal, prerogative cannot be defeated except by Act of Parliament expressly naming the Crown, or, by necessary implication, referring to it., “By general words inan Act of Parliament, the -King, may be precluded of such inprior claims as might belong indifferently to lum or to a subject (as the title to an advowson or to a landed estate), but not stripped of any part of his ancient prerogative, nor of those rights which are incommunicable and appropriate to him as essential to bis regal capacity." Now, do the general words in the first section of the Victorian Influx.of Criminals Act, 1854, destroy the effect of, and render nugatory, the'Royal Pardon under which Sullivan was set at libertv? It is a nice point, and certainly were I Ins advocate, T should avail myself of it. Let it be clearly understood, however, that I do not.commit myself to an opinion one way or other—the-point, I think, is fairly arguable, that is all.

Here is the portion of the Victorian Act on which the question hinges ;—“lt shall be lawful for anv J.P. or any constable, at any time after the passing of this Act, having reasonable-cause to suspect that any person has at any time been found guilty of any capital or transportable felony by a Court of competent jurisdiction, &c,,’ and has after the passing of this Act come into Victoria, forthwith and without any warrant for such purpose to cause any such susjiecfced person to be apprehended and taken before any two J.P.’s to be dealt with as hereinafter mentioned, &c: •

The dealing with as hereinafter mentioned ”Is set out m the 2nd section, and does seem to be such a dealing with the recipient of, the Royal pardon as to be inconsistent with the legal theory of its effect. The questions are these :

1. Does the general language of the Victorian Act conflict with the effect of the Royal prerogative of pardon, and tend to render it nugatory ? 2. If so, which of them, the pardon or the Act is to* prevail? r / 1

Again let me say I merely put the case ; and it is far too important a matter, and, to my mind too doubtful, to be lightly settled one way or the other I am, &c.» . J,. 11. Shaw, LL.B.