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 VII. The Church in the dominions

Collection:: Economics Books

1440 THE CHURCH IN THE DOMINIONS [PART VIL by a stipulation that the interpretation of the terms of association should be exclusively in the hands of a judicial body empowered to decide without question the limits of its own jurisdiction, and that the penalty of questioning the decisions of that tribunal should be expulsion from the association or a temporary loss of its benefits, but there was no such self-surrender or abrogation of rights in the contract in question, and the whole contract abounded in provisions for securing to members the preservation of rights and a fair trial of accusations. Moreover, the Cardross case was an authority in favour of the view which he took. Isaacs J. also rejected any universal claim for exclusive jurisdiction in the Church Courts. He said : But these tribunals, though conveniently enough styled Courts’, are not Courts in the legal sense. They have no jurisdiction properly so termed. The law invests them with no coercive power, with no authority to issue process, or to declare, determine, or enforce rights, and they are strictly dependent for such so-called jurisdiction as they possess upon the consent of the parties who are subject to it. In this respect the Act of 1900 makes no difference. That Act merely gives legal effect to an agreement for federal union, and bestows no changed character on the tribunals then already existing in the several states beyond subordinating them to the final decision and paramount authority of the Federal Assembly. All powers exercisable by the associa- tion, legislative, judicial, or administrative, if intended to bind its own members, must spring from their consent, and do not arise from the authority of the general law. He concluded from the decision in Long’s? case, and from the principle laid down there by Lord Kingsdown, that if a man made a voluntary submission he could not complain of the results of this submission. He thought that this was brought out by the authority of the Scottish judges in the Cardross ® case, but of course subject to the constitution which he accepted not containing some provision contrary to law, for such a provision could not be enforced. But that position was quite distinguishable from a provision * 8 C. L. R. 673, at pp. 704 seq. * 1 Moo. P. C. (N. 8.) 411, 3 22 D., at pp. 314, 315.

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