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

caAP. 11] THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNOR 139 and it was the duty of the Governor to cause a writ to be issued for a new election. It was contended before the High Court that it was impossible to issue a mandamus in this case, and the decision of the High Court was in favour of this contention. The Court pointed out that under the constitutions of the states it was provided that upon a dissolution of the House of Assembly the writs for a General Election were to be issued by the Governor, but it had never been suggested that if the Governor failed to issue the writs a mandamus would lie from a State Court to compel him to do so. There was always a remedy in such a case, but it was to be sought from the direct intervention of the Sovereign and not by recourse to a court of law. The case of an election of the Senate was not quite analogous. It was conceivable that the Executive Govern- ment of a state for the time being might desire that no senator should be chosen to fill a particular vacancy. If they advised the Governor to abstain from taking any action to fill it, and refused to afford him the necessary administra- tive facilities, and he accordingly did nothing, it might be that he would have failed in his duty, but if so it was clear that the duty would be one which he owed to the State sollectively. It was not easy to see how in such a case he could perform the duty without dismissing his ministers and finding others, and that power was manifestly one the exercise of which could not be reviewed by any authority but the Sovereign. The duty, therefore, was one of the duties which the constitutional head of a state owed to the state (and in the case of a Governor, but in a slightly different sense, to the Sovereign), and its performance must be enforced in the manner appropriate to the case of such duties. Instances of such duties, duties of imperfect obligation, were familiar to students of constitutional law. Apart altogether from these considerations, they thought that a mandamus would not lie to a Governor of a state to compel him to do an act in his capacity of Governor. There was, of course, no British precedent for such a writ. Reference had been made to the cases in which it had been held that

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