Betriebsorganisation und Betriebsabrechnung

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 176196223X

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-144583

Document type:: Monograph

Author:: Brasch, Hans http://d-nb.info/gnd/1011578441

Title:: Betriebsorganisation und Betriebsabrechnung

Place of publication:: Berlin

Publisher:: Stilke

Year of publication:: 1928

Scope:: 139 Seiten; graph. Darst.

Digitisation:: 2021

Collection:: Economics Books

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

866 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART Iv 1. The Public Debt and Property. 2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce. 3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxa- tion. and Lefroy, op. cit., p. 212, note 2, is mistaken on this point, On the other hand, see Smiles v. Belford, (1876) 23 Gr. 590; 1 0. A. R. 436 ; Routledge v. Low, (1868) 8 H. L. 100; Ta: Sing v. Maguire, (1878) 1 B, C. (Irving), at p. 107 ; ex parte Worms, 22 L. C. J. 109, at p. 111, per Dorion C. J. ; Reg. v. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 44 U. C. Q. B. 564 ; Metherell v. The Medical Council of British Columbia, (1892) 2 B. C.(Cassidy), at p. 189. See also City of Fredericton v. The Queen, (1880) 3 8, C. R. 505, at pp. 529, 530; Attorney-General of Canada v. Attorney-General of Ontario, (1890) 20 O. R., at p. 245; the Thrasher Case, (1882) 1 B, C. (Irving), at p- 214; ex parte Renaud, (1873) 1 Pugs. 293, at p. 274; Merchants’ Bank of Canada v. Gillespie, (1885) 10 8. C. R. 312 (this case is wrongly decided, for the Companies’ Act of 1862 did not apply to the Colonies); and the copyright controversy in Part V, chap. viii; Canada Sess, Pap., 1875, No. 28; 1890, No. 35; 1892, No. 81; 1894, No. 50; Cornewall Lewis, Government of Dependencies, pp. 91, 92, 155, 156; Bourinot, Canadian Law Times, ix. 193 seq. ; Lefroy, op. cit., pp. 208-31. The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, applies beyond doubt to the provinces, if for no other reason than that it applies to the Dominion and a fortiori to the provinces, but it is also to be remembered that it is merely a statutory statement (and limitation) of the common law rule, that a subordinate legislature is subject to the paramount power of the power which created it. It may be added that the interpretation of the Act of 1867 is in some degree aided by the course of legislation in the Dominion and the provinces, but neither Dominion nor province ean authoritatively intervret the terms of the Act; see Lefroy, op. cit., pp. 233 seq. Comparatively little is heard of sovereignty as regards Canada and the provinces in the cases : Gwynne J., indeed, 4 8, C. R. 215, at pp. 346, 347, declared that the Dominion Parliament alone had sovereign power, but Ritchie C. J. (ibid., pp. 238 seq.), declared that both province and Dominion had a legislative sovereignty (Lefroy, pp. 252, 253). The older cases (Tai Sing v. Maguire, (1878) 1 B. C. (Irving), at p. 108; Reg. v. Wing Chong, (1885) 2 B. C. (Irving), at pp. 161, 162; Reg. v. The Gold Commissioners of Victoria District, (1886) 2 B. C. (Irving), at p. 260), which asserted limita- tions on the powers of the provinces resting on implied restrictions by the operation of (non-existent) treaties, or the rule of uniform treatment of citizens, are of no weight. The statutes of the provinces, therefore, must be read as presumably valid (Lefroy, pp. 260-9). The provinces within the limit of these powers can act as they please; they are not bound by any consideration of propriety except their own judgement, and they can affeet private rights as they deem desirable. The American doctrine of the

Access restriction

Copyright

Contents: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Monograph

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation