Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 1)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

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

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896934455

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-236504

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 1

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: LI, 568 Seiten

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

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

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part III. The Parliaments of the Dominions

Collection:: Economics Books

CHAP. 1v] ALTERATION OF THE CONSTITUTION 427 could be amended in any way by a subsequent Act, although that Act did not purport to be an amendment of the consti- tution, so that if the Legislature thought fit by statute to alter the term of office of existing judges or to reduce their salaries they could do so without first amending the consti- tution. The High Court decided against the claim of Sir Pope Cooper. They held that the Act of 1867 declared the constitution of Queensland, and that, though that Act could be amended by legislation as provided for in the Act itself, hevertheless the constitution must be amended before it was’ possible for the provisions as to the tenure of office of judges to be altered. But they held that as a matter of fact the levying of income tax on judicial salaries was not really inconsistent with the constitution. Barton J. ex- pressly held that attempted legislation which was merely at variance with the Charter of Constitution could not be held to be an effective law, on the grounds that the authority conferred by that instrument excluded the power to alter or repeal any part of it, unless the legislation Had been preceded by a valid exercise of the power of alteration of the constitution. An implied repeal was not within the power to alter or repeal, and was not valid, because it was not an exercise of legislative power. He also agreed, however, that the levying of income tax Was not contrary to the constitutional provisions as to the salary of judges, and he pointed out that under the Imperial Acts of 1700 and 1760, which were the basis of the pro- visions in ss. 15 to 17 in the Queensland Constitution Act of 1867, those provisions could not be held to be inconsistent with the levying of income tax on the salaries of judges. The other justices all concurred in the views expressed by the Chief Justice and Barton .T. § 2. THE RESTRICTIONS ON ALTERATION IN AUSTRALIA In the case of the Australian Colonies, now States, the limitations on constitutional alteration were confusing, and nearly unintelligible. The following seems to have been

Access restriction

Copyright

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

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation