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

328 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART IV ground that it was unconstitutional. But in the British Constitution, though sometimes the phrase °unconstitu- tional > was used to describe a statute which, though within the legal power of the Legislature to enact, was contrary to the tone and spirit of our institutions, and to condemn the statesmanship which had advised the enactment of such a law, still, notwithstanding such condemnation, the statute in question was the law and must be obeyed. It was obvious that there was no such analogy between the two systems of jurisprudence as the learned Chief Justice suggested. The enactments to which attention had been directed did not seem to leave any room for implied prohibition. Expressum facit cessare tacitum. It was true that when a particular form of legislative enact- ment which had received authoritative interpretation was adopted in the framing of a later statute, it was a sound rule of construction to hold that the words so adopted were intended to bear the meaning so put upon them, but it was an extraordinary extension of such principles to argue that a similarity, not of words but of institutions, must neces- sarily carry with it as a consequence an identity in all respects. They referred to the remarks of Griffith C.J. in D’Emden v. Pedder! in which he held that it was a reasonable inference that the provisions of the Constitution, which were undistin- guishable in substance, though varied in form, from pro- visions of the United States Constitution which had long since been judicially interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States, should receive a similar interpretation. They observed that the Chief Justice had not mentioned what provisions he referred to as ‘ undistinguishable in substance though varied in form’. They referred also to the remarks of the Chief Justice in Deakin v. Webb,? in which he said that the framers of the Australian Constitution had deliberately adopted, with regard to the distribution of powers, the model of the United States in preference to that of Canada. They pointed out that it was somewhat difficult to know what it was to which the learned Judge referred, and the only "1 C. L. R. 91, at p. 113. 21 C. L. R. 585, at p. 606.

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