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

856 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART IV of Great Britain that it had no power to take the steps, the omission to take which was charged against it by the United States Government. Moreover, the Arbitration Court had a different function from ordinary Courts of law. It was to prescribe rules of conduct between master and men, and not to declare existing laws. Tt was admitted by all that the Arbitration Court could override existing agreements and existing state arbitration awards ag distinct from Wages Board determinations, and he could not see any ground on which the distinction was drawn. The key of the situation lay in the fact that no state law applied or could apply to two-state disputes, and therefore the Arbitration Court could not be bound by state laws. The power of the Court was one to settle disputes, and only incidentally did it fix labour conditions, but when it did so fix them it prevailed over all state laws. He applied to the case the propositions laid down by the Chief Justice in D’Emden v. Pedder! which he quoted, and he insisted that the doctrine which had been enforced in that case, where the obstruction of federal action was only trifling and theoretical, might much more confi- dently be invoked where the Court of Arbitration could not effectively settle a dispute without being free to prescribe a uniform system for employers and employees in states which had differing labour laws. This view he supported by American cases and also by Canadian cases, including the case of Compagnie hydraulique de St. Francois v. Continental Heat and Light Company? where it was laid down by the judicial committee that when a given point of legislation was within the competence both of the Parliament of Canada and of the Provincial Legislatures, and both have legislated, the enactment of the Dominion Parliament must prevail over that of the province, On the other hand, he considered that the decision of the Court was in substance correct, and that there was no incon- sistency between the proposed award and the state board awards and determinations. With regard to the Factories and Shops Act of Victoria, No. 2241, he pointed out that '1C LR. 91, at pp. 108, 109, * [19097 A, C. 194.

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