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

854 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART IV a state law laying down a different rule was necessarily antagonistic to the award itself. Isaacs J. considered that this view was strengthened by the case of the arbitration as to the assets and debts of Upper and Lower Canada under s. 142 of the British N. orth America Act, 1867. In that case there were to be three arbitrators representing Canada, Ontario, and Quebec. The Quebec arbitrator resigned owing to a dispute, and the other two delivered a decision. It was contended by Quebec before the Privy Council that the arbitration was stayed by resigna- tion of its arbitrator, but this obligation, which would have been fatal to an ordinary arbitration, was held by the Privy Council not to be fatal to the award of the other two arbitrators.1 There was no state law which could be applicable to a dispute extending beyond one state. When a quarrel attained national proportions, when the discordant laws of the states proved powerless to restrain the strife and to prevent its extension, when the other states were directly involved in the actual dispute, and the whole industrial and domestic system of the continent was deranged, when internal trade was everywhere obstructed, and interstate and foreign commerce impeded and imperilled, was it con- ceivable that the Commonwealth power at such a crisis was at the caprice of the states, possibly of one against the will of all the rest, to stand in danger of paralysis and defeat ? He also pointed out that if the principle accepted by the majority of the Court was sound, why should it be restricted bo state statutes 2 Why should the arbitrator be empowered to disregard the common law, which was as much the law of the state as the statute law ? And again, assuming that the award of the Federal Court was a mere judgement, why should it be held to be superior to the award of a State Court ? It was not appellate, and it was not the interpreta- tion or enforcement of any Commonwealth law. He was, therefore, disposed to hold that the proposed award could override any state law, but he agreed in any case that there ' See 4 Cart. 712; 28 8. C. R. 609.

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