The Brisbane Courier, Saturday, 26 December 1903, p. 14
MARITIME BOUNDARY OF QUEENSLAND. PAPER BY THE HON. JOHN
DOUGLAS. ROYAL GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY.
The following is the text of a paper on “The Maritime
Boundary of Queensland,” by the Hon. John Douglas, Government Resident at
Thursday Island, and read before the Royal Geographical Society (Queensland
Branch) at the meeting held last Tuesday evening:—
I am honoured by thus having audience of the Royal
Geographical Society of Queensland, and I beg to crave the attention of members
for a brief space while I expound my theme on a matter of some general
geographical interest, and one of special local significance to those of us who
are connected, as I am, with the islands of Torres Straits, and the somewhat
important little dependency of Thursday Island and Fort Kennedy.
There is a tradition that a commission was sent out to Sir
John Young, authorising him to extend the boundary of New South Wales to the
10th parallel of south latitude. I cannot ascertain whether it was ever acted
on. Let me, however, relate how it was that the islands of Torres Straits came
to be annexed.
In 1876-7 certain adventurous spirits connected with the
pearl-shelling industry had pushed out beyond the recognised bounds of our
jurisdiction, and it was found that there was no legal authority which could be
brought to bear upon them. It became necessary, therefore, to extend the
boundaries of Queensland, and after a good deal of correspondence this was
finally accomplished by the passing of an Act of the Queensland Parliament in
1879, which had been duly authorised by letters patent under the great Seal.
Thus it was that certain islands in Torres Straits and lying
between the continent of Australia and island of New Guinea, that is to say,
all islands included within a line drawn from Sandy Cape northward to the
south-eastern limit of the Great Barrier Reefs, thence following the line of
the great Barrier Reefs to their north-eastern extremity, near the latitude of
9½deg., thence in a north-westerly direction, embracing East Anchor and Bramble
Cay, thence from Bramble Cay in a line west by south (true), embracing Warrior
Reef, Saibai, and Tuan Island, thence diverging in a north-westerly direction,
so as to embrace the group known as the Talbot Islands, thence to and embracing
the Deliverance Islands, and onwards in a west by south direction to the
meridian of 138deg. of east longitude.
That then is the present boundary of Queensland. When it was
thus defined it was considered desirable to annex everything up to the shores
of New Guinea. The annexation of British New Guinea did not take place for some
nine years after this, but it then soon became apparent that some modification
of the boundary in Torres Straits was necessary. This became the subject of
correspondence between Sir William McGregor, the Colonial Office, and the
Government of Queensland. In 1892 Sir Samuel Griffith, then being in office,
visited Torres Straits on purpose to satisfy himself on the merits of the case,
and I have no doubt that it would then soon have been settled, but
unfortunately for this particular matter then in hand, Sir Samuel became Chief
Justice, and nothing more was done until the correspondence was again revived,
and at last various propositions were made and rejected. In May, 1893, an
Order-in-Council altering the boundary, was passed, and such alteration was to
take effect upon the passing of an Act of Parliament by Queensland endorsing
it. The Act was duly drafted, printed, and prepared for the approval of
Parliament, but unfortunately again, it was never brought in, and nothing more
was done.
I shall now proceed to describe to you what the alteration
was which it was thus proposed to effect.
Starting from a point three miles south-east of Bramble Cay,
on the existing boundary line, it was designed to pass midway between Pearce
Cay and Dalrymple Island, then by the centre of Moon Pass in the Warrior Reef,
thence by a line passing three miles to the south of Turnagain and Deliverance
Islands, westerly, thence west by south to the meridian of the 138th degree of
east longitude. But, as I have said, this was never authorised.
Soon after the Commonwealth came into existence, and with it
the capacity of Queensland to deal solely with the matter passed to the
Commonwealth. Now, we know that the Commonwealth Parliament is about to
legislate for British New Guinea, or for Papua, as it is to be called, and that
is why I am anxious to draw attention to the maritime boundary of Queensland as
affecting the maritime boundary of Papua, in order that it may be clearly
understood.
In the first place, allow me to say that, in my opinion, the
boundary, as defined by the Order-in-Council of 1893, ought to be accepted as a
fair and reasonable solution of the question. It was arrived at after an
exhaustive correspondence between the parties concerned, and would, I feel
sure, be gladly accepted by the Papuan Government authorities as a just
solution of their claims, for they have undoubted claims to a rectification of
the existing boundary. So far as regards the Government of Queensland, it ought
to be a relief to them to be able to hand over to the Papuan Government islands
which they are not able satisfactorily to govern from Thursday Island.
Moreover, the Papuan Government, by its special ordinances made applicable to
native requirements, is much more capable of administering justice and
maintaining order than we are. I have done the best I can to administer justice
and maintain order in a patriarchal kind of way through the head men, or
mamooses, as they are called, of the different islands, and the people
generally carry out my wishes, but something more than this is now required. It
is difficult, nay almost impossible, to apply our Queensland laws to such
islands as Saibai, Dowan, and Boigu. To the magistrate at Daru, with his native
ordinances, and his proximity to these islands, it is another matter
altogether. The people inhabiting these islands are Papuans. They are most
amenable to order. They have improved immensely. When I first knew them they
were literally naked savages. Now they are among the most intelligent and
enterprising of our islanders. But, like most natives, they are easily led
astray.
Unprincipled men, both white and coloured, give or sell them
drink, and through Saibai a good deal of liquor has been supplied to the
natives of New Guinea. Indeed, so frequently has this been lately done that the
authorities at Daru have prohibited our Saibai natives from landing on the
shores of New Guinea. I have done the best I can to stop this nefarious traffic
in liquor, and I am happy to say that I have secured two convictions; but this
is not such an easy matter, for the proceedings have to be conducted in
accordance with the laws of the State before the court at Thursday Island,
which is eighty miles from Saibai. In the last case five witnesses had to be
brought in and taken out again in order to secure the necessary evidence. Such
cases would, I can assure you, be much more easily and effectually disposed of
at Daru, the western headquarters of administration in British New Guinea. That
is one very good reason why I should like to see Saibai under the jurisdiction
at Daru.
There are many other reasons, but geographically—and you,
gentlemen, are specially interested in the question from that point of view—it
does seem ridiculous that a large island like Saibai, being almost within
gunshot of New Guinea, should still belong to Queensland. Nor must it be
forgotten that as Government Resident at Thursday Island I have now no steamer
in which I can visit these islands. This year, it is true, I have visited the
coast of New Guinea four times in order to investigate matters of this kind;
but it has always been in a small sailing vessel, and this does not further
prompt action.
What I have said of Saibai holds good of Dowan (Tuan) and of
Boigu. They are both visited and occupied by Papuans, and they are both tarred
with the same brush so far as the distribution of liquor is concerned. I am
sorry to say it, for the Papuan, as a rule, has no great longing for our
liquors, unless he is educated in that direction by the white man. He is
satisfied with the mild excitements of the betel nut until he reaches a higher
exaltation under the influences of our liquor essences. Of course you all know
that under our laws persons are prohibited from supplying liquor to aboriginal
natives, or to South Sea Islanders, and at Thursday Island we are sometimes
held up as examples of how a good law may be violated with the utmost impunity.
A distinguished visitor, a senator from the South, for
instance, remarked the other day that he saw aboriginal natives served at the
bars of public-houses with the police looking calmly on. This, I admit, is
perfectly true. There appears to be great apathy on their part. When
challenged, however, with negligence of duty, they say that they arrest
offenders who exceed, and that they prefer the open violation of the law as
practised to the illicit sale of bottles and cases of grog through intermediate
persons. They also say that it is almost impossible to secure a conviction
against a publican who sells to an aboriginal across the bar, for the law
requires proof that the liquor so sold contains or contained so much per cent.
of alcohol. How are they to prove that, they say, when the alcohol is absorbed
into the stomach of the participant? I fancy myself that a way out of that
difficulty might be found. Still, the fact remains that no complaints are
lodged, and convictions are rarely obtained.
To revert, however, once more to the theme of my paper,
which I do not wish to make tedious, there are manifest advantages connected
with the proposed rectification. No one can question its geographical
justification. It will fairly meet the claims of the Papuan Government, and it
will in no way prejudice the territorial rights of this State. The trade of
that portion of New Guinea, such as it is, gravitates to Thursday Island, and
will continue to do so. It gives reasonable scope to the natives of Papua for
the prosecution of their pearl-shelling industry, to which they are by no means
indifferent, and it will enable the Papuan Government to control and repress
altogether, I hope, this nefarious dealing in liquor, which is calculated to do
so much harm if it is allowed to go on.
Before I close this paper I must honestly tell you that
before the desired object can be attained considerable difficulties stand in
the way. The rectification could easily have been effected in 1892, after Sir
Samuel’s exploration, or, indeed, in 1893, when the Order-in-Council
authorising it was passed; but now there is rather a formidable lion in the
path. The 123rd clause of the Commonwealth Constitution provides that “the
Parliament of the Commonwealth may, with the consent of the Parliament of the
State, and the approval of the electors of the State voting upon the question,
increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of the State, on such terms
and conditions as may be agreed on, and may, with the like consent, make
provision respecting the effect and operation of any increase, diminution, or
alteration of territory in relation to any State affected.”
As I have said, this is rather a formidable lion; but he can
be tackled and required to retreat in this particular case if we can show, as I
think we can, that he stands in the way of what would be a decided improvement.
Perhaps, however, you would like to hear something about our own islands, which
we do not propose to hand over to Papua. Here Mr. Douglas proceeded to refer to
Murray, Darnley, Mabuiag, Badu, Albany, and other islands.
