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

cuar. 111] REPUGNANCY OF COLONIAL LAWS 405 answered in the affirmative, and the second in the negative, are we able to suggest any principle which would regulate the distinction between fundamental principles of which the violation would vitiate a Colonial Act, and the non-funda- mental rules or customs of legislation which a Colonial Legislature is at liberty to disregard ? 6. To what extent would a single provision invalid on account of repugnancy with English law vitiate the rest of the Act ? 7. Would a judge be at liberty to pronounce a Colonial Act invalid, though duly assented to by the Governor, on the ground that it fell within one of the classes to which he was forbidden to assent without urgent necessity ? 8. In particular, do we see any reason to doubt the validity of the South Australian Constitutional Act ? 9. Having special reference to the omission of any reference to South Australia in the 29th section of the Act 13 & 14 Vict. ¢. 59, do we see any reason to doubt the power of the South Australian Legislature to constitute courts of justice ? 10. Do we see anything objectionable in Mr. Boothby’s view of his own obligation to conform his own judgement to the decisions of the Supreme Court of which he is a member ? ’ 11. And, finally, whether we concur with the Committes of the House of Assembly in thinking Imperial legislation advisable or necessary in order to place beyond doubt all or anv of the above questions. The report was as follows :— That 1. The powers of the Colonial Legislature being conferred by Act of the Imperial Parliament, and limited by the same enactment, and so, valid or invalid, as they keep within or transgress the prescribed limits, the Supreme Court of South Australia is, in our opinion, bound (and certainly at liberty) to satisfy itself of the legal validity of any Act of the Colonial Legislature, the provisions of which it is called upon to administer. In the case of an Act assented to by the Governor, we think that the fact of its having been left to its operation by Her Majesty would not affect the question of its validity. 2. We answer this question in the affirmative, as in the case supposed an unquestionable ‘repugnancy *would beapparent between the English law and the Colonial enactment, and the Colonial Legislature is debarred from the enacting of laws being thus repugnant (13 & 14 Vict. c. 59. s. 14).

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