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 II. The executive Government

Collection:: Economics Books

car. 1] THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNOR 133 from Australian Acts. The rule of ministerial responsibility is made absolute in the Tasmanian Interpretation Act, 1906, and the Union Interpretation Act, 1910, following the Cape by declaring that Governor means Governor in Council. Doubt may arise in such cases as the exercise of such prerogatives as that of ordering the seizure of enemy vessels in ports on the outbreak of war or otherwise, the grant of days of grace, and the exercise with regard to neutral vessels of the droit de prince. Moreover, the question was discussed at great length in the case of Chun T'eeong Toy, whether or not a Governor by virtue of his commission could perform an act of State. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria held that he could not do so in virtue of his commission? and Kerferd J.3 agreed with him in this view, though they held that in this case he could exercise the prerogative 4 of excluding an alien, but the majority 5 of the Court decided against that contention; and though the decision of the majority was reversed on appeal to the Privy Council,® nevertheless it was reversed on other grounds, and the Privy Council expressed no opinion on this particular issue. It is important to note that in this case the Chief Justice indicated as matters which did not fall within the prerogatives necessary for Colonial Government, prerogatives relating to war and peace and the conduct of foreign affairs, which would cover such cases as the droit de prince, Such prerogatives are regarded by Sir J. Quick and Mr. Garran? 28 being without the sphere which is attributed even to the ‘14 V. L. R. 349. ' 14 V. L. R. 349, at pp. 4086, 407. ' Which probably has long since ceased to exist (even in extradition cases it is obsolete ; see Brown v. Lizars, 2 C. I. R. 837; Hazelton v. Poiter, 3 C. L. R. 445). 5 Williams J., at pp. 413, 414 ; Holroyd J., at pp. 430,431 ; a’Beckett J., at p. 435; Wrendforsley J., at pp. 442, 443. ¢ [1891] A. C. 272, on the ground that there was no statutory obligation bo accept payment for the Chinese and then to admit him, and generally that an alien has no right enforceable by action to enter British territory. T Constitution of Commonwealth, p. 391, following Higinbotham C. J., in 14 V. L. R. 349, at p. 380. 2 14 V. L. R. 349, at pp. 376, 377.

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