Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 1)

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1826612467

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-221187

Document type:: Monograph

Author:: Sombart, Werner http://d-nb.info/gnd/118751433

Title:: Die drei Nationalökonomien

Place of publication:: München [u.a.]

Publisher:: Duncker & Humblot

Year of publication:: 1930

Scope:: XII, 352 S.

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

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

Chapter

Document type:: Monograph

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Zweiter Teil. Die drei Nationalökonomien

Collection:: Economics Books

cap. 11] LIMITATION OF LEGISLATION 379 the wide power given in that Act it was possible to prevent all British ships from engaging in the fisheries, however far out at sea, without taking out a licence, and in effect, as the fishery could only be carried on by vessels which could rely on the use of the shore for stores and shelter, it was possible, as shown in 1911, to require all foreign vessels to take out a licence and pay the fees as a condition of using the shore at all. The other case is that of The Queen v. Delepine,! in which, as in the former case, the waters of Newfoundland were held in the case of bays to extend from a line drawn three miles from headland to headland, quoting the decision of the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and of the Privy Council in Anglo-American Telegraph Co. v. The Direct United States Co. ? where it was laid down that Conception Bay was territorial waters of Newfoundland. The well-known Canadian case of the Frederick Gerring® illustrates, however, only the ordinary three-mile limit if the evidence is to be accepted as correct. At the same time it may be noted that in a recent case? the Canadian Supreme Court has adopted the doctrine that capture of a vessel which has just infringed some local law in territorial waters while it is being hotly pursued from these waters is lawful even if the capture is outside the three-mile limit, as it is recognized as legal in international law, and there seems nothing to justify us in supposing that the doctrine would not be upheld if an appeal had been brought to the Privy Council on the question. The Court evidently considered the usual question of the limitation of authority and decided against it, on the ground that the power of the fishing regulation could not be exercised effec- tively without it. It may be noted also that the Natal Treason Court held that it could punish treason committed outside 1 1897 Newfoundland Decisions, 378. It arose out of an alleged con- travention of the Bait Act, 50 Vict. c. 1. * 2 App. Cas. 394. See also the Hague Arbitration Award of 1910, which accepts the judgement, Cd. 5396, p. 23. Chaleurs Bay is territorial accord- ing to Mowat v. McFee, 5S. C. R. 66. * (1897) 27 8. C. R. 271, a decision much resented in the United States. The Ship < North® v. The King, 37 8. C. R. 385; and cf. Hall, Inter- national Law p. 246.

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