Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

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:: 1896935311

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-237672

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 3

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XII Seiten, Seiten 1102-1670

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part V. Imperial control over Dominion administration and legislation

Collection:: Economics Books

1104 ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATION [PART V may be noted that counsel did not attempt to argue that any treaty could alter the law, only that treaties of peace, or treaties akin to such treaties, could do so. The decision of the Privy Council left it open for Her Majesty’s Government to defend the action of Sir Baldwin Walker on the ground of the treaty. It is significant that they did not do so, but that they took steps to pay compensa- tion to all those whose lobster factories had been interfered with by Sir Baldwin Walker. The same question of the effect of a treaty in overriding the law of the country has been discussed in other cases, both by the Privy Council and by Colonial Courts; the general tendency is to consider that the making of a treaty is not sufficient to alter the ordinary rights of British subjects. For example, in the case of Tsewu v. Registrar of Deeds}! decided by the Transvaal Supreme Court in 1905, it was held that, whatever was the force of the Conventions between the Transvaal Republic and Her Majesty’s Government in 1881 and 1884, they were not sufficient to make it part of the law of the Transvaal that land held by natives should not be registered in their names, but in the name of a Govern- ment officer. In 1902 Mr. Deakin intimated clearly that in his opinion an Imperial Treaty could not override the law of Australia, and though there are expressions of opinion to the contrary,? it seems certain that this view is correct. The correct procedure, therefore, is for every Colony which L [1905] T. 8. 30; cf, [1904], T. 8. 241; Vincent v. Ah Yeng, 8W. A. L. R. 145 ; Brown v. Lizars, 2 C. L. R. 837, which decides that an extradition treaty is not sufficient authority for extradition without legislation. See also Wi Paratav. Bishop of Wellington, 3 N. Z. J. R. (N. 8.) 8. C. 72, where it was held that a Crown grant was conclusive that the Crown had legally acquired land from the natives, despite the terms of the Treaty of Wai- tangi ; Nireaha Tamaki v. Baker, 12 N. Z. L. R. 483, overruled in [1901] A. C. 561 ; Greenberg v. Williams, N. 0., 3H. C. G. 336 : and Cook v. Sprigg, 1899] A. C. 572; 9 C. T. R. 701. * The British Columbia Courts held the reverse, and this is also the view of the Provincial Government ; see Tas Sing v. Maguire, 1 B. C. (Irving), at p. 109, and Lefroy, Legislative Power in Canada, pp. 265-7. It is hardly necessary to discuss these cases: there is no treaty with China imposing oblications as to immigration. as the Court seems to have held.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation