ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 175 



of Newfoundland had already been consolidated and repealed, 

 re-enacted as to part, in a statute of 1824, which was a five- 

 year statute, continued until 1829, continued again until 1832, 

 and then dropped. 



Now, Mr. Root argued that — 



Sir Charles Fitzpatrick: It was continued until 1834, and 

 then dropped. 



The ArroRJSfEY- General: Continued imtil 1834 and then 

 dropped. Yes. 



Mr. Root argued that the repeal was permanent, although the 

 statute itself was temporary; and that, therefore, when the statute 

 expired there was no regulation. It is a matter of English law, 

 which the Tribimal will find in "Maxwell on Statutes," under the 

 heading of "Repeals," that if a statute repealed an antecedent 

 statute at that stage in our history — it is not so now — and the 

 repealing statute itself determined or was repealed, all the statute 

 that it had repealed revived. So that when the statute of 1824 

 expired, all the repealed statutes therein contained revived. Other- 

 wise Newfoimdland would have been left without regulation at 

 aU. 



Sir Charles Fitzpatrick: Without legislation at all — with- 

 out anything ? 



The Attorney-General: Without legislation, yes. But, in 

 fact, of course, all these statutes continued, and the law ofl&cers of 

 Newfoimdland were aU right when they said there were no local 

 regulations; because there had been no local regulations since 1834. 

 But the whole of the antecedent imperial legislation continued and 

 was in fulj force. 



I hope Mr. Root will forgive me for making this statement at 

 this time. I did not wish to interrupt him while he was speaking, 

 and I thought I had better mention it now, so that if he wishes to 

 deal with it at a later period in his argument he will have an oppor- 

 tunity to do so. 1 



'Thereupon, at 12.15 o'clock p.m., the Tribunal took a recess until 2.15 



o'clock P.M. 



