Full text: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

822 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART IV 
The High Court reversed the decision of the Supreme 
Court. The questions at issue were, in their opinion :— 
1. Whether the Tasmanian Stamp Act should be con- 
strued as applying in terms to receipts given by Common- 
wealth officers for their salaries ; and 
2. If so, whether such a law was within the competence of 
the State Legislature. 
On the second head it was contended for the appellant 
that the Act, if so construed, operated as an interference by 
way of taxation with the federal agency ; that it attempted 
to impose a condition which must be complied with by an 
officer before he could receive the salary allotted to him by 
the Commonwealth ; that such a condition could not be 
constitutionally imposed by a state ; that the imposition of 
a stamp duty on the receipt for a federal salary was in effect 
taxation of the federal salary, which was not within the 
competence of the state ; that the receipt was the property 
of the Commonwealth, and therefore not taxable under the 
Constitution ; and further, that the Act so construed would 
be inconsistent with the Federal Appropriation Act, by 
which the officer’s salary was fixed. 
The Court pointed out with regard to the last contention 
that the Appropriation Act did not fix the salaries of public 
officers, but merely authorized the payment of lump sums 
specified in the schedules. With regard to the contention 
that the receipt was the property of the Commonwealth 
within the meaning of s. 114 of the Constitution, they held 
that it was not property of the kind intended in that section, 
which appeared rather to refer to taxation gua property. 
With regard to the other ground of objection, the Court 
laid stress upon the fact that where any power or control 
was granted, there was included in the grant, to the full 
extent of the capacity of the grantor and without special 
mention, every power and every control, the denial of which 
would render the grant itself ineffective. This they held 
was a statement of a necessary rule of construction of all 
grants of power, and applied from the necessity of the case 
to all to whom was committed the exercise of powers of
	        
Waiting...

Note to user

Dear user,

In response to current developments in the web technology used by the Goobi viewer, the software no longer supports your browser.

Please use one of the following browsers to display this page correctly.

Thank you.