Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 1)

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1780948581

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-168414

Document type:: Monograph

Author:: Smith, Henry Justin http://d-nb.info/gnd/124454801

Title:: John Pierpont Morgan, der Weltbankier

Place of publication:: Dresden

Publisher:: Reissner

Year of publication:: 1928

Scope:: 310 Seiten

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Monograph

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Achzehntes Kapitel. Hochfinanz und grosse Politik: Dawes-Plan und Frankenstützung

Collection:: Economics Books

cEAP. v] THE GOVERNOR AND THE LAW 271 v. Eyre}! which arose out of the Jamaica rising and its suppression by the Governor, and by the case of Rex v. Tomko. in which in 1907 the Privy Council said :— Their lordships are unable to advise his Majesty to grant special leave to appeal in this case. The question raised is settled by an Act of Natal, and it is not within the power or within the province of the Board to discuss or consider the policy or expediency or wisdom of an Act, or to do anything beyond deciding whether the Act applies. Their Lordships are of opinion that the Act applies and they are bound by it and must give effect to it. It is therefore important that indemnity acts should be worded so as to cover all that it is right to cover without affording a cover to acts of private malice done under the pretence of suppressing a rebellion. The Irish case of Wright v. Fitzgerald 3 shows that such an act is not covered by the ordinary act of indemnity, and the Colonial Office in 1867 ¢ followed this precedent by declining to approve a New Zea- land Act which was not limited to an indemnity for acts done in good faith in the suppression of the native rising in that Colony, but covered all acts done in the suppression of the rebellion without qualification. In the case of the indemnity acts passed after the Boer war by the Cape and Natal the protection given was most carefully worded so as to cover only acts done in good faith by the officers concerned in repressing the disturbances in those Colonies, nor does it seem that there were thus protected any serious cases of abuse.5 On the other hand, the Indemnity Act passed by Natal in 1906, No. 51, to legalize the acts done by the officers and others in the Colony during the rebellion of that year, was severely criticized not only in England but in South Africa, as a bad departure from precedent in that it was provided that all acts done by military or civil officials should have been deemed to have been done in good faith, while the acts of non-officials were legalized only if either 1 4Q.B.225; 6Q.B. 1. 2 [1907] A. C. 461. * 27 St. Tr. 759. ¢ New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, i. 1003. 5 Cape Acts Nos. 4 and 10 of 1902; cf. No. 35 of 1904: Natal, No.22 of 1902,

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 1)

Monograph

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation