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

cap. 11] LIMITATION OF LEGISLATION 377 Courts could exercise an admiralty jurisdiction over a vessel which was arrested while on the Canadian side of the boundary in the St. Lawrence, but in a channel which was open to free passage under the Ashburton Treaty of 1842. There were various other questions at issue ; whether by the Act of 1891 the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Exchequer Court was not restricted to vessels and happenings in Canadian waters—in this case the accident occurred in Rio de Grande, outside Canada—and whether the objection to the jurisdiction was taken too late in the Supreme Court on appeal, as Idington J. held. But the majority of the Court (Davies, Maclennan, and Duff, JJ.) held that the exercise of the right of innocent passage was not ground for an arrestment, and Davies J. thought that a mere passage through territorial waters was quite inadequate in any case to found an arrestment, as distinct from the case of entry into a harbour, where such entry gave a certain claim to jurisdiction in rem. Idington J.} on the other hand, insisted that the Canadian Courts had the full admiralty jurisdiction over all foreign vessels for accidents in foreign waters as exercised in Great Britain,? and that arrest was a proper mode of procedure. Of Colonial cases there may be noted also two Newfound- land cases of considerable interest : in Rhodes v. Fairweather? decided in 1888, the question was whether the Colonial Act of 1879, which fixed a close time for seal-fishing, could be applied to a Scottish sealer which caught seals outside the boundaries of the Colony during a prohibited time. The vessels cleared from St. John’s for the fishery, and returned thither for manufacture and shipment of the skins. It was expressly held by Carter C. J., that even if the vessel, which ' (1907) 38 8. C. R., at pp. 323 seq. * The Diana, Lush. 539; The Courier, Lush. 541 ; The Jassy, 95 L. T. 363. See 24 Vict. ¢. 10. But hedid not meet the point that the vessel was never in a Canadian port and never really in Canadian waters proper. 3 1897 Newfoundland Decisions, 321. It may be noted that the Court of Newfoundland (not the Legislature) has a jurisdiction over offences on the Grand Banks by 5 Geo. IV. c. 67, which, however, would equally exist under the Act of 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 96) as to admiralty matters.

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