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

CHAP. 11] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 825 to consider the validity under the Constitution of the pro- visions of each Act presented for the royal assent. The Court also noticed a misapprehension of the Supreme Court in thinking that, accepting the doctrine of McCulloch v. Maryland as sound law, it was a question in each case whether the attempted exercise of state authority actually impeded the operations of the Federal Government. They laid down that the question was solely not whether actual interference took place, but whether interference might take place! On these grounds they held that the Stamp Act did actually interfere with the action of a federal officer in the discharge of his duty to the Commonwealth. The Federal Audit Act required the giving of a receipt by the officer, and the Stamp Act penalized the performer of that duty unless a contribu- tion were made to the state revenue. The attaching by a state law of any condition to the discharge of a federal duty wag assuredly an act of interference or control. If, therefore, the Tasmanian Act were construed as applying to receipts given by a federal officer to the Federal Treasurer in the course of his federal duty, it would be an interference with him in the exercise of that duty and would, therefore, be invalid. It was, however, a sound principle that acts of a sovereign legislature, and indeed of subordinate legislatures, should be so interpreted as to make them operative and not inoperative, and the state law must therefore be inter- preted so as not to apply to a receipt given bv a federal officer. The same principle of non-interference by state laws with the Commonwealth activities was reasserted in the income- bax case (Deakin v. Webb and Lyne v. Webb).2 In this case it was decided that an income-tax of a state, so far as it attempted to tax the salaries of officers of the Commonwealth, fell within the principle of D’Emden v. Pedder ;% that when 3 state attempted to give to its legislative or executive authority an operation which, if valid, would fetter, control, * Contrast Bank of Toronto v. Lambe, 12 App. Cas. 575. 1 C. L. R. 585. *1C L. R. 91.

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