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

838 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART IV and naval purposes, the action of the Commonwealth was definitely restricted by the grant of the definite powers in these subsections. Thus the commerce power (i), or the postal power, could not authorize the building or acquisition of state railways without the consent of the state and their control as to running of trains, &c. The matter is compli- cated by the provisions of ss. 92, 98, and 102-4, and it is clear that the adoption of the referenda of 1911 would have simplified matters. In the case of Peterswald v. Bartley the question was raised whether brewers’ licence fees under s. 71 of the New South Wales Liquor Act, No. 18 of 1898, were duties of excise within the meaning of ss. 86-90 of the Commonwealth Con- stitution, and therefore not within the power of the State Parliament to impose. It was, however, held that the impo- sition of such licence fees was a bona fide exercise of the police power of the state for the control and regulation of the trade. It has been held below, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales? that the licence fee was an excise duty, but the Commonwealth Court laid stress on the fact that the Constitution did not provide for the Commonwealth Parlia- ment interfering with the private or internal affairs of the states, or restricting the power of the state to regulate the carrying on of any business or trade within its boundaries. Such a construction of the Constitution as gave to the Com- monwealth the power to regulate the internal affairs of the states in connexion with nearly all trades and businesses carried on in the states was altogether contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, and would not be accepted by the Court unless the plain words of the statute required. Conversely, in The King v. Barger? the excise there levied by the Common- wealth was held to be a regulation of internal trade. and not a real tax at all. The doctrine of implied prohibition appeared in its strongest form in that case which arose out of the ‘ new pro- ''1C. L. R. 497. * 48. R. (N. 8S. W.) 290. 6 C. LR. 41; Commonwealth Parl. Pap.. 1907-8, Nos. 134. 147: [908, No. 16.

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