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 VI. The judiciary

Collection:: Economics Books

tap. 1] THE TENURE OF JUDICIAL OFFICES 1331 1867,! by South Australia under ss. 30 and 31 of the local Act, No. 2 of 1855-6,2 and in 1890 under the Constitution Act of Western Australia? which was scheduled to an Imperial Act. In the case of Victoria the same provisions were inserted as in the case of New South Wales, but the power was given not as in that case to Her Majesty, but to the Governor, a difference of some substance. The result of these powers would seem to differ in part according to the authority by which the clauses were inserted. In the case of New South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australia, in which the power is given by an Imperial Act to Her Majesty, it would seem that it might fairly be argued that a power of amotion which is given by Burke's Act must be considered as no longer being applicable. It is true that a power of amotion given to a Governor in Executive Council is not the same as a power of removal on representations from the two Houses of the Legislature. But it may fairly be held that in granting a Constitution with the intention of its being exercised under responsible government, a provision for removal in a certain manner, being that provided in the Constitution of the United Kingdom, is intended to be the sole provision for such removal. It may therefore be held that Burke’s Act has been repealed so far as these Colonies, now states, are concerned. On the other hand, it is clear that the local Act of South Australia cannot possibly invali- date the legislation of the Imperial Parliament and that the power to amove still exists in South Australia. In the case of Victoria again the matter is complicated by the fact that the power of removal is granted to the Governor and not to the Crown. It may therefore be argued with ! See clauses ii, xv, xvi, xxii of letters patent ; 31 Vict. No. 38, ss. 4, 16, 17. A tax on an income is not an interference with the salary under this provision ; see Cooper v. Commissioners of Income Tax for Queensland, t+ C. L. R. 1304; 5 Edw. VIL No. 34. A federsl tax on a judge is there- fore constitutional ; contrast Quick and Garran, op. cit., p. 734. * Also as to salaries by s. 18 of 13 & 14 Vict. c. 59. 53 & 54 Vict. c. 26, sched. ss. 54-6. 18 & 19 Viet. c. 55, sched. ss. 38, 39. The provisions do not appear in the Supreme Court Aet, 1890, which (s. 13) allows the Governor in Council to suspend.

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