Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

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:: 1896935052

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-238139

Document type:: Volume

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

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 2

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XI Seiten, Seiten 570-1100

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

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

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part IV. The federations and the union // Chapter II. The commonwealth of Australia

Collection:: Economics Books

862 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART Iv to the arbitrator to regulate a particular trade. That would be giving the tribunal a power to legislate which no torture of words could twist into arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal must at any rate be judicial and not legislative. It could not overpass the area of the dispute as to the subject-matter or as to disputants, nor could the settlement be something to which the disputants could not, if they would, agree. [f that which purported to be a settlement affected to bind others than the disputants, the function performed by the tribunal was not arbitration any more than such a decision by a Court would be a judgement. He did not decide as to s. 38 of the Act authorizing the declaration of the common rule, but assuming its invalidity, he still held that the pro- visions questioned did not affect the valid portion of the Act, which therefore had due effect. O’Connor J. also declined to pass an opinion on the common rule provision on the ground that it was separable, and he concurred in the judgement proposed by the Chief Justice. Isaacs J.2 showed that arbitration did not exclude a possible choice of arbitrators, and he quoted a long series of Imperial Acts? in favour of this contention, and he also referred to the Canadian Act, No. 40, of the Revised Statutes of 1886. He went in detail through the sections of the Act which were alleged to be invalid, and showed that in most cases no real question arose. On the other hand, the question of the common rule did give rise to some difficulty. On the one hand the provisions had the appearance at first sight of regulations not necessarily dependent upon actual or threatened disputes, and on the other hand they seemed absolutely necessary to the effective application of the remedy of conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of disputes. The preventive jurisdiction was certainly intended to be a veal and substantial power ‘ 11C.L.R.1, at pp.42 seq. Seepp. 325-9. * 11C.L.R.1,at Pp. 49 seq. *8 & 4 Vict. ¢. 97; 5 & 6 Vict. c. 55; 26 & 27 Vict. o. 112; 31 & 32 Vict. c. 119; 37 & 38 Vict. c. 40 ; 45 & 46 Vict. ¢. fi6 ; 51 & 52 Viet. c. 41 3 53 & 54 Viet. ¢. 70: 63 & 64 Vict. e. 59.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation