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

cap. 11] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 831 drawn, and was still accepted in the United States, between property held as an instrumentality of Government, and property held by the Commonwealth or a state in the carrying on of an ordinary business or as an investment. In such cases the position of the United States would simply be that of an ordinary proprietor. The property in such cases, unless used as a means of carrying out the purpose of the Govern- ment, was subject to the legislative authority and control of the states equally with the property of private individuals. Since, then, it was intended that such a distinction should not be drawn in the case of the Commonwealth, it was, if not necessary, at least highly expedient to deal with the matter by express enactment. Moreover, the doctrine of necessary implication had been applied to the constitutions of British dependencies in the case of Crown Colonies. The High Court quoted the case of In re Adam! and the Queensland Consti- tutional Case,” and compared the case of Attorney-General v. Cain and Gilhula® They added: The maxim Expressum facit cessare tacitum has been often evoked in vain in English Courts. See for example Colquhoun v. Brooks,* where Lopes L.J. called it ‘A valuable servant. but a dangerous master °. With regard to the criticism that there was a difference between the case of the Commonwealth and of the United States with regard to a law being unconstitutional, they pointed out that they had not asserted a power to declare a law invalid on the ground that it was unconstitutional; using that word in some vague general sense, and meaning something different from a contravention of the written Constitution. What they meant by the word unconstitu- tional was simply something contrary to and forbidden by the Constitution, and the word unconstitutional used in this connexion meant no more than ultra vires. They also noted the point of the controlling authority involved in the power of the sovereign to disallow any Act either of the Common- wealth or of any one of the states. They declined to regard 1 Moo. P. C. 460. 4 C. LR. 1304. "1190671 A. C. 572. 21 Q. B. D. 52.

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