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

832 THE FEDERATIONS AND THF UNION [PART IV this as being a sufficient ground for differentiating the case of the United States and the case of the Commonwealth, and in the course of the judgement the majority expressed themselves as follows — The analogy between the two systems of jurisprudence is therefore perfect. Indeed, it may be said that in this respect they are identical, unless, indeed, the attribute of sovereignty, using that term in any relevant sense, is denied to the Com- monwealth. The King is the common head of the United Kingdom and of all the self-governing dominions, and the Legislature of each of these dominions has, subject to its own constitution, full autonomy. It seems strange that in bhis year 1907, when the world is resounding with praises! of the system of the British Empire, which allows its different members to enjoy this freedom and independence, we should be asked to decide solemnly that the idea is an entire delusion. It is now, we suppose, well recognized that, except so far as regards relations with foreign powers, which are not now in question, the King as the head of each of these several autonomous states is so far a separate juristic person that differences and conflicts may arise between these states just as between other autonomous states which do not owe allegiance to a common sovereign. It is too late to set up a contrary theory, unless it is intended to make a revolu- tionary change in the concept of the Empire. Of the other two members of the Court—the Court now consisting of five instead of three justices—the view of Isaacs J.% was that the words of s. 74 were strong enough to lead to the conclusion that on questions falling within that section the decision of the High Court was final, and that therefore the Court had a right to decline to follow the decision of the Privy Council upon any such question. But the respect and weight due to a judgement of the Privy Council made it the duty of the High Court in the circum- stances to reconsider the decision in Deakin v. Webb. Fur- ther consideration in the light of the decision in Webb v. Outtrim left the authority of D’Emden v. Pedder unimpaired, ! An allusion to the grant of self-government to the Transvaal and Orange River Colony. * 4 C. L. BR. 1087, at p. 1159.

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