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. mi] REPUGNANCY OF COLONIAL LAWS 415 Dominion of Canada was constituted, declaring that the exclusive legislative authority of the Dominion Parliament extends (amongst other things) to copyrights, has reference only to the exclusive jurisdiction in Canada of the Dominion Legislature as distinguished from the Legislatures of the Provinces of which 1t is composed.? This opinion was adopted by His Majesty’s Government in Lord Carnarvon’s dispatch of June 15, 18742 That dispatch was based on an opinion of the then law officers of the Crown (Sir Richard Baggallay and Sir John Holker), given on May 22, 1874, in which they accepted the views of Sir Roundell Palmer and Mr. Herschell. Moreover, a similar opinion was given by the same two law officers on June 7, 1875, and in consequence of this opinion the Canadian Act of 1875 with regard to copyright was expressly confirmed by an Imperial Act, 38 & 39 Vict. c. 53. Despite these facts, Sir John Thompson, in the memorandum above referred to, stated that the people of Canada could not accept the interpretation which had been placed upon the Act of 1867 by His Majesty’s Government. In support of that opinion he urged not merely the view of the people and Parliament of Canada, but certain cases decided in the Privy Council. No answer to this argument was ever sent by the Imperial Government.? In the case of Hodge v. the Queen which was decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1883, it was held that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, in the exercise of the legislative powers granted to it by Section 92 of the British North America Act, 1867, did not act as a delegate from, or an agent of, the Imperial Parliament, but with authority as plenary and as ample within the limits prescribed by Section 92 as the Imperial Parliament in the plenitude of its power possessed and could bestow. Inthe caseof Powell v. The Apollo Candle Company, Limited ® ! Parl. Pap., H. C. 339, 1872, p. T4. ! Parl. Pap., H. C. 144, 1875, pp. 12, 13. ! Nor does Lefroy, Legislative Power in Canada, pp. 224, 227, deal with the argument drawn from these cases by Sir J. Thompson, though (p. 229) he seems to admit that the contention is not sound in law. 4 0 App. Cas. 117. ® 10 App. Cas. 282

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