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 VIII. Imperial unity and imperial co-operation

Collection:: Economics Books

1456 IMPERIAL UNITY [PART VIII between the Commonwealth Government and the Japanese Consul-General in Australia, but, where the matter becomes in any sense of the word a question of international right, the foreign Power has recourse to the Imperial Government. Thus, for instance, when the Vancouver riots in September 1907 resulted in damage to Japanese and Chinese property, the formal request for redress was made not direct to the Dominion, but to the Imperial Government. So in 1905 and the following years, when the Government of Newfound- land interfered with rights claimed by the United States, the Government of that country addressed its representations to the Imperial Government ;* and the cases could be cited indefinitely. Nor is there any chance of this practice being modified as long as the Empire holds together ; the essence of an international sovereign state is that there should be a unity which is sovereign, and if the Dominions do not intend to become independent powers they must accept this unity as essential. Of course it would be absurd to imagine that the unity will always maintain the present shape ; if the Dominions commence to do more than bear the burden of their own defence, if they begin to bear part of the burden of the Empire as a whole, then they will desire to receive and will have accorded to them a share in the direction of the common international policy. In that way lies the future of the Empire as an empire ; any other way means the development of separate states, allied no doubt, but yet not united and not one. Moreover, there are every now and then cases which remind us that the artificial distinctions of the Crown in its several rights, which are familiar in the federal constitutions, are artificial and are due to the breaking up of the royal sovereignty which is an essential part of any federal Act. In the case of Williams v. Howarth ? the unity of the Crown t Parl. Pap., Cd. 3262. Cf. Mackenzie in Canada Sess. Pap., 1878, No. 70. ® [1905] A. C. 551, overruling 2 8S. R. (N. S, W.) 4562. So in Sir B. O’Loghlen’s case (member for Clare in 1877-9) his seat was declared vacant in the latter year by a select committee of the House of Commons, owing to his acceptance of the Attorney-Generalship of Victoria, a post held to be under the Crown, though in the gift of the Governor: Law Times.

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