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

126 PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [raRT LIL detail in the case of Cooper v. Commissioners of Income Tax for the State of Queensland! decided in 1907 by the High Court of the Commonwealth. The question there discussed arose from the refusal of Sir Pope Cooper, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland, to pay income tax on his judicial salary under the Queensland Income Tax Consolidated Acts, 1902-4, and the Income Tax Declaratory Act, 1905. The claim was based on the fact that the Chief Justice’s salary was fixed by the Salary Act, 1901, at £2,500, and the view the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, s. 17, provid- ng that the salaries of Judges of the Supreme Court shall be paid and payable to each of them during the term of their com- missions, were an equivalent to an enactment that the salaries should be paid to the judges without reduction or diminution throughout their terms of office. The Legislature of Queensland were empowered to alter the constitution by express enactment altering or repealing constitutional provisions. But such powers of alteration must be exercised in the proper way, and the mere enactment of provisions inconsistent with the constitution did not repeal or alter the constitution to the extent of the incon- sistency. It was argued that therefore the payment of income tax, if required from judges, was to interpret the Income Tax Declaratory Act of 1905 in such a manner as to be repugnant to the Constitution Act, 1867, and that Act, by virtue of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, overrode the provisions of the later Act. On the other hand, it was contended that the Constitution Act of 1867, being merely an Act of the Queensland Legislature, was of no more effect than anv other Act of the Legislature. and therefore its terms (1907) 4 C. L. R. 1304. It should be noted that this decision applies generally to all cases of change of constitution, and would cover such cases as e.g. formerly Cape and Natal and now the Canadian Provinces, where there are not special conditions laid down regarding constitutional changes. These it holds, and I think rightly, must still be enacted as such. Cf. also the view of the New Zealand Government in 1866, Parl, Pap., February, 1866, p. 36; and see above, pp. 360, 361.

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