Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

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:: 1896935052

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-238139

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 2

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XI Seiten, Seiten 570-1100

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part IV. The federations and the union // Chapter I. The dominion of Canada

Collection:: Economics Books

672 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [part iv most important judgements regarding these cases. It is that the British North America Act is to be regarded as a British statute and to be interpreted as such a statute, that is, to give all its parts their natural sense when read in conjunction, and not to limit the interpretation of the whole by any theory of federal government. It is all the more important to lay stress on this principle, because exactly the opposite principle has, as we shall see, been accepted by the High Court of Australia for the interpretation of the Commonwealth Constitution, and the majority of that Court maintain their views despite the reasoned dissent of the Privy Council in the case of Webb v. Outtrim. It is charac- teristic that while that case has been disregarded by the majority of the High Court of the Commonwealth it has been followed in Canada, and has been used to upset the decisions often repeated in the Ontario Courts? and, by a curious irony of fate, quoted by the Chief Justice of the Common- wealth as being an accepted part of the law of Canada, that no municipal or provincial authority could tax the salary of a federal officer, as that would be to interfere with a federal instrumentality, a course forbidden, not indeed by the ex- press terms of the Act, but by the nature of a federation. But a federation which has a rigid constitution and is a sovereign power must be interpreted in a very different way from one which is a dependency, and in which, moreover, the federal government possesses what the federal power in the United States has not—the power of disallowing the Acts of the provinces. It is true that the Commonwealth Court has recognized the latter difference, and used that as their justification for disregarding the cases decided as regards Canada, on the ground that the Commonwealth [1907] A. C. 81, dissenting from I’ Emden v. Pedder, 1 C. L. R. 91, and Deakin v. Webb, 1 C. L. R. 585. For the rejection of the Privy Council's view, see 4 C. L. R. 1087 ; below, pp. 824 seq. For the general principles of interpretation, see Lefroy, Legislative Power tn Canada, pp- 21 seq. * Leprohon v. City of Ottawa, 40 U. C. Q. B. 478; 2 0. A. R. 522. As Lefroy, p. 671, pointed out, it was inconsistent with Bank of Toronto v. Lambe, 12 App. Cas. 575, and the Supreme Court reversed it in Abbott v. City of St. John, 40 S, C. R. 597. See also Lefroy, pp. xliii-lxx.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation