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

ouap. 11] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 827 for Victoria in all cases, and to ss. 106 and 107 of the Common- wealth of Australia Constitution Act, which provided that the constitution of each state should continue until altered in accordance with the law of the Constitution in each case, and that the powers of the Parliament of each Colony should continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth. The power of taxation by the Parliament was therefore apparently maintained, but it was argued that, inasmuch as the impo- sition of an income-tax might interfere with the free exercise of the legislative or executive power of the Commonwealth, such interference must be impliedly forbidden by the Con- stitution of the Commonwealth, although no such express prohibition could be found therein. Such a prohibition was based upon the judgement of Marshall C.J. in McCulloch v. State of Maryland! and no doubt in dealing with the same subject-matter the judgement of that most learned and logical lawyer might be accepted as conclusive, but the Court was not bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, though those decisions might be regarded as a most welcome aid and assistance in any analogous case. But in this case the analogy failed in the very matter which was under debate. No state of the Australian Commonwealth had the power of independent legislation possessed by the states of the American Union. Every Act of the Victorian Council and Assembly required the assent of the Crown, but when it was assented to it became an Act of Parliament as much as any Imperial Act, though the elements by which it was authorized were different. If indeed it were repugnant to the provisions of any Act of Parliament extending to the Colony it might be inoperative to the extent of its repugnance (see The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865), but with this exception 2 no authority existed by which its validity could be questioned or impeached. The American Union, on the other hand, had erected a tribunal which possessed jurisdiction to annul a statute upon the ' 4 Wheat. 316. * This ignores the question of the territorial limitation of Colonial jurisdiction, but in the context no reference to that was necessary.

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