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

cmap. 11] LIMITATION OF LEGISLATION 397 by the case of The Attorney-General for Canada v. Cain and Gilhula! As regards Macleod’s? case he rested on the argu- ment that the result would have been other had the accused been a citizen of New South Wales, and he pointed out that a person naturalized in a Colony under the Naturalization Act of that Colony was only a British subject in respect of the Colony, and he would not be subject, unless colonial legislatures had power to bind colonial citizens, to any legislative restrictions outside British territory. He also relied on the fact that a ship could be considered as part of the territory of the state whose flag she flies, and he held that the laws of New Zealand applied to persons on board a New Zealand ship as distinct from a British ship when beyond the territorial limits of New Zealand. He admitted that the doctrine which he laid down was a development of the doctrine of self-government, but he referred to the fact that it had been the glory of the British Constitution that, unlike the Constitution of the United States, it allowed growth, development, and adaptation, and he held that the fact that the power had not hitherto been claimed was no proof that the Constitution Act did not contain a potency, both of legislation and administration, hitherto not exercised in the Colony. It is difficult to accept the views of the Chief Justice. The case of the conveyance of a prisoner from one prison in a Colony to another outside territorial limits is really covered, as the Court seemed to have forgotten, by the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, s. 25. The overruling of In re Gleich by the Privy Council extends only to the precise point there decided, namely, the power of a Dominion legislature to make adequate provision for the removal of undesirable persons from within the Colony. It cannot be used as an argument for the existence of an extra-territorial authority in Dominion parliaments. Nor does it seem reasonable to assume that on a foreign ship not in territorial waters the criminal laws of a Dominion should take general effect; if a duel were so fought then the offenders could be punished in England by virtue of the power given by < 119061 A. C. 542. 2 118917 A. C. 455.

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