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 II. The commonwealth of Australia

Collection:: Economics Books

82¢ THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART IV considered as a most welcome aid and assistance in con- struing the Constitution of the Commonwealth. Further, the Constitution of the Commonwealth had been adopted by a convention of representatives familiar with the Constitutions of the Dominion of Canada and of the United States, and if they found embodied in the Constitution provisions indistinguishable in substance, though varied in form, from provisions of the Constitution of the United States which had long before been judicially interpreted by the Supreme Court of the Republic, it was not an unreason- able inference that the framers intended that like provisions should receive like interpretations. The Court pointed out that the majority of the Supreme Court of Tasmania had been under a misapprehension in thinking that the doctrine laid down in McCulloch’s case had been modified by later decisions. They also pointed out that the Courts of the Provinces of Ontario and New Brunswick since the year 1878 had adopted the doctrine laid down in McCulloch’s case in the interpretation of the Con- stitution of the Dominion, and that their decisions, though uniformly adverse to the Provincial Governments, had not been made the subject of appeal, either to the Judicial Committee or to the Supreme Court of Canada? The Court also noted the suggestion that the doctrines enunciated in McCulloch’s case were not applicable to the Commonwealth, by reason of the power of veto reserved to the Crown by the Constitution. It was, however, the duty of the Court and not of the Executive Government to deter- mine the validity of an attempted exercise of legislative power, and it would be to impose an entirely novel duty apon the Crown’s advisers if they were to be required, before advising whether the power of veto should be exercised, * See Leprohon v. City of Ottawa, 2 O. A. R. 522; followed in ex parte Owen, 4 P. & B. 487; Ackman v. Town of Moncton, 24 N. B. 103; Reg. v. Bowell, (1896) 4 B. C. 498. Cf. Evans v. Hudon, (1877) 22 L. C. J. 268 ; and contrast Fillmore v. Colburn, 28 N. 8. 292. This decision was, how- ever, recognized by Lefroy, Legislative Power in Canada, p. 671, to be incorrect, and was in fact reversed by the Supreme Court in Abbott v. City of St. John. 40 8. C. R. 597, relying on Webb v. Cuttrim, [1907] A. C. 81.

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