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

860 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [parr 1v the form of words employed did not indicate that the Parlia- mentary exception was intended to be as wide as the con- stitutional grant, and consequently the power to prohibit for want or excess of jurisdiction remained. On the main question the opinion of the Chief Justice! was as follows. The questions at issue were, in the first place, that the constitution of the Court was not such as was authorized by the power given in the Constitution to make laws with respect to conciliation and arbitration for the pre- vention and settlement of industrial disputes, and secondly, that several provisions of the Act itself, notably that relating to the common rule, were not within the power granted, and that those provisions were so intimately bound up with the rest of the Act that if they were eliminated the rest of the Act would have a substantially different character, and the whole Act was therefore invalid. In favour of the first contention it was argued that the concept of arbitration as it existed in 1900 presumed that (a) the submission was voluntary, (b) that at least some part of the tribunal was chosen by the disputants themselves either directly or in- directly, (c) that the tribunal was not fettered by the ordi- nary formalities of legal procedure, and its functions were not limited to determining existing rights but it could prescribe rules of conduct for the future within the limits of law, and (d) that the function of an arbitrator was a judicial function to be exercised after hearing both sides. The Chief Justice pointed out that in his opinion the list of statutes which was mentioned by Isaacs J. did not permit of doubt that the voluntary submission and the choice of arbitrators were not an essential part of the term ° arbitration’, the words ‘ arbitrator * and ‘ arbitration ’ having been used by the English Parliament to denote a tribunal with respect to which the essential element of the concept was absolute dis- cretionary power, only fettered by the limits of the dispute submitted to arbitration and the law of the land. He there- fore dismissed the first two parts of the first objection to the validity of the Act. With regard to the latter two he L11 C. L. R. 1, at pp. 22 seq. See also pp. 315-20.

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