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

HAP. 11] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 843 the sense usual in 1900, the Constitution gave the Parliament power to say what marks should be recognized as trade- marks and what not, and the meaning of the expression in 1900 gave the centre, not the circumference, of the power. He countered the obvious argument that the power of defi- nition might be used to arrogate a power not conferred by the Constitution by quoting the case of Attorney-General for Quebec v. Queen Insurance Co. in which the Privy Council rejected the attempt of a provincial legislature in Canada bo enact a stamp tax (which under the British North America Act, 1867, it has no power to do) by imposing what was really such a tax in the form of a business licence. (¢) Control of Companies? The question of the power of the Commonwealth Parlia- ment with regard to the control of companies was exhaus- tively considered in the case of Huddart Parker and Company Proprietary Limited v. Moorehead? which was decided by the High Court in 1908, and in the decision of which they applied their usual principle of asserting that Commonwealth legislation must not interfere with the reserved power of the states to deal with internal trade and commerce. Theye were two points at issue in the case. The first was as to the validity of s. 15 B of the Australian Industries Preservation Act, 1906, as amended by Act No. 5 of 1908 ; the second was the question of the validity of ss. 5 and 8 of the former Act. 8.15 B gave to the Controller-General of Customs the power to ask certain questions if he believed that an offence had been committed against partii of the Act. It was held by the whole Court that the inquiry thus authorized was in no way inconsistent with the right to trial by jury con- ferred by s. 80 of the Constitution ; that such an inquiry was not an exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth, and that such an inquiry was not an incident of the execu- tion and maintenance of the provisions of the Constitution ' 3 App. Cas. 1090. * Cf. Quick and Garran, Constitution of Commonwealth, pp. 578, 579 as to banks), 604-8; Keith, Journ. Soc. Comp. Leg., xii. 108 seq. ® 8 C. L. R. 330. See Harrison Moore, op. cit., pp. 469-73.

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