Slike strani
PDF
ePub

And, as to matters mentioned in both Secs. 75 and 76, the Federal Parliament is given power to make laws :

(1) "Defining the jurisdiction of any Federal Court other than the High Court.

(2) "Defining the extent to which the jurisdiction of any Federal Court shall be exclusive of that which belongs to, or is invested in the Courts of the States.

(3) "Investing any Court of a State with Federal jurisdiction." [Sec. 77.]

As far as the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by Sec. Comparison. 75 of the Australian Constitution is concerned, there are one or two salient points of comparison with the provisions of the American Constitution. In the first place, the American Constitution confers only appellate jurisdiction in "controversies to which the United States shall be a party"; and in "cases arising under . . . treaties made, or which shall be made, under this authority whereas both of these cases are brought under the original jurisdiction of the High Court by Sec. 75 of the Australian Constitution. The other outstanding points of comparison are well summarised by Messrs. Quick and Garran [Ann. Const. Aust. Comm., p. 774], as follows:

[ocr errors]

'Notwithstanding the XIth Amendment, a State can still be sued by another State of the Union though enjoying immunity from being sued by citizens of such other State. The result of this distinction was that attempts were made by States, whose citizens had claims against another State, to prosecute these claims on behalf of their citizens; but these attempts were defeated, it being held that a State could not in this way 'create a controversy with another State. [New Hampshire vs. Louisiana; New York vs. Louisiana, 108 U.S., 76.] The provisions of this Constitution, however, make no distinction between a plaintiff State and a plaintiff resident of that State.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Again, though the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction in cases where a State is a party, it has only appellate jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different States.' Accordingly in an action of ejectment between citizens of different States in respect of land over which both States claimed jurisdiction, it was held that the Supreme Court had no original jurisdiction, inasmuch as a State was neither nominally nor substantially a party; and it was not sufficient that the State might be consequently affected by having to compensate its grantee. [Fowler vs. Lindsey, 3 Dall, 411; see Kent, Comm. I., 323.]

'The judicial power of the United States extends to controversies 'between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects.' In this Constitution there is no such provision."

A further point is that in Sub-Sec. (4), Sec. 75 of the Australian Constitution, the word resident is substituted for the word citizen in the corresponding provision of the American Constitution-an alteration which may have important legal results, especially in the case of Corporations. In the cases of Louisville R. Co. vs. Letson [2 How. 497], Steamship Co. vs. Tugman [106 U.S., 118], and Memphis etc., R.R. Co. vs. Alabama [107 U.S., 581], the United States Court reversing previous decisionsdecided that a Corporation created and doing business in a State was an inhabitant of a State, capable of being treated as a citizen for all purposes of jurisdiction; and conclusively presumed that the members of a Corporation were citizens of the State in which the Corporation was created. "According to writers on

Australia.
Appellate
Jurisdiction.

Switzerland.

International Law, supported by English decisions, the residence
of an incorporated company is determined by the place in which
its administrative business is carried on." [See Westlake: "Private
International Law," 285; Lindley: "Company Law," p. 910.]*

The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia is defined
by Sec. 73 of the Constitution :—

"The High Court shall have jurisdiction, with such exceptions and subject
to such regulations as the Parliament prescribes, to hear and determine
appeals from ali judgments. decrees, orders and sentences:

(1) Of any Justice or Justices exercising the original jurisdiction of the
High Court;

(2) "Of any other Federal Court or Court exercising Federal jurisdiction:
or of the Supreme Court of any State, or of any other Court of any
State from which at the establishment of the Commonwealth an
appeal lies to the Queen in Council;

(3) "Of the Inter-State Commission, but as to questions of law only;
and the judgment of the High Court in all such cases shall be final and con-
clusive.

"But no exception or regulation prescribed by the Parliament shall prevent the High Court from hearing and determining any appeal from the Supreme Court of a State in any matter in which at the establishment of the Commonwealth an appeal lies from such Supreme Court to the Queen in Council.

"Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the conditions of, and restrictions on appeals to the Queen in Council from the Supreme Courts of the several States shall be applicable to appeals from them to the High Court"

The question of appeals to the Privy Council from the decisions of the Federal High Court or the Supreme Courts of the several States of Australia is dealt with in Chapter XII. The only other sections of the Commonwealth Act which need be noticed in connection with the jurisdiction of the Central Tribunal in Australia are Sec. 78, which gives the Federal Parliament power "to make laws conferring rights to proceed against the Commonwealth or a State in respect of matters within the limits of the judicial power," Sec. 79, which allows the Federal jurisdiction of any Court to be exercised by "such number of Judges as the Parliament prescribes"; and Sec. 80, which says that :

"The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by Jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes."

The Constitution of the Swiss Federal Tribunal rests upon a law passed upon the adoption of the Constitution of 1874 by the Federal Assembly and an amending Act passed in 1893. There are now sixteen members of the Federal Judiciary, elected for six years by the Federal Assembly, which appoints the President and Vice-President every two years. Sixteen substitutes are also elected for the six years' term. Federal Judges are capable of re-election at the end of their term. The salary of the President is £440 per annum, and that of the other Judges £400 per annum. * Quick & Garran : Ann. Const. Australian Comm.,” p. 777.

"

[ocr errors]

Every Swiss citizen eligible for the National Council can be elected; but a Judge cannot also be a member of the Federal Council or Assembly, or be appointed as an official by the Federal Council or Assembly, or follow any profession.

The jurisdiction of the Swiss Federal Tribunal falls under four heads :

I. As a Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction :

It can decide cases :

(i.) Between the Confederation and one or more Cantons. (ii.) Between Cantons.

(iii.) Between individuals or corporations as plaintiff and the Confederation as defendant, if the matter in dispute amounts to 3,000 francs.

(iv.) Between Cantons and Corporations or Individuals; if one party demands trial before the Federal Tribunal and the amount in dispute is 3,000 francs.

(v.) Between Communes of different Cantons as to disputed questions of citizenship.

(vi.) As to homeless people, expropriations for railways or public works, civil questions between the Confederation and Railway Companies and the winding-up of the latter. (vii.) Questions which by the Constitution or the legislation of a Canton [duly ratified by the Federal Assembly] are entrusted to its competency.

(viii.) Questions brought before it by agreement between the parties, where the amount in dispute is 3,000 francs.

II. As a Court of Civil Appeal:

Cases where the Federal laws have to be applied by Cantonal tribunals and the amount in dispute is 3,000 francs or cannot be estimated; either party can appeal against the judgment of the highest Cantonal tribunal. [This includes Federal laws respecting contracts, other than those relating to real estate; copyright; trade-marks; divorce and nullity of marriage.]

III. As a Court of Criminal Jurisdiction:

For this purpose the Swiss Federal Tribunal is divided into three sections-the Chamber of Accusation; the Criminal Chamber, which holds the Federal Assizes; and the Court of Criminal Appeal [Tribunal de Cassation].

As a Court of Criminal Jurisdiction the Swiss Federal Tribunal has cognisance of the following cases :

(i.) High Treason against the Federation.

(ii.) Revolt or violence against Federal authorities.

(iii.) Crimes and offences against International Law.

(iv.) Crimes and political offences which are the cause or the consequence of troubles occasioning an armed intervention by the Federal authority.

(v.) Charges against officials appointed by a Federal authority, when the latter makes application to the Federal Tribunal. It has also, by Statute, jurisdiction over certain minor offences.

IV. As a Court to decide upon questions of Public Law:

Under Article 113 of the Constitution of 1874 it has cognizance

[blocks in formation]

(i.) Conflicts of competency between Federal and Cantonal authorities.

(ii.) Such disputes between Cantons as are within the domain of Public Law.

(iii.) Claims for violation of rights of citizens or corporations guaranteed by the Federal or by a Cantonal Constitution. (iv.) Federal laws which have been passed in execution of the Federal Constitution.

(v.) Claims of individuals or of corporations for violation of concordats [agreements] between Cantons, as well as of treaties with foreign countries.

[N.B.-These details as to the Swiss Federal Tribunal are taken from Messrs. Adams and Cunningham's book on "The Swiss Confederation," published in 1889. At the end of their chapter on the Federal Tribunal the authors point out that "the Federal Council has announced its intention of presenting before long a new law which will introduce extensive modifications." The law thus referred to was passed in 1893. The number of Judges and substitutes was raised to sixteen of each. But the changes in the jurisdiction of the Federal Tribunal do not seem to have been very material. Vide, upon the whole question, Lowell, "Governments and Parties in Continental Europe," Vol. II, pp. 214-220.]

CHAPTER XII.

APPEAL TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL.

"

The right of appeal to the Privy Council, from the Courts of a In general. Union of States under the British Crown, is a subject of extreme complication. In Canada there have been a multitude of decided cases of very varying importance-which have turned upon this point; whilst in Australia the clause in the draft Constitution, sent for the approval of the Imperial Parliament, which attempted to define the right of appeal to the Privy Council from the Courts of Federated Australia, was the clause which caused most contention between the Australian delegates and the Law Officers of the Crown This has been briefly alluded to in the chapter on the growth of the Australian Commonwealth." Not only was this so, but since the Australian Federal Constitution came into operation the clause relating to Privy Council appeals has given occasion for constant friction. With the latter fact, however, we have in this work nothing to do. All that has here been attempted is to give a brief outline of the practice that obtains in Canada as to appeals to the Privy Council-founded as it is on the accumulated results of a long series of decisions; and to supply an equally brief outline of the provisions of the Australian Constitution on the point. For in this respect, as in many others, the Constitution of Australia is more explicit than that of Canada.

To take first the case of Canada, the student of this important Canada. subject will find an exhaustive, though not very clear or connected account of the various enactments and legal decisions with regard to the right of appeal to the Privy Council from both the Provincial and the Dominion Courts, in Wheeler's Confederation Law of Canada [pp. 396, 406, 410-483]. The short sketch which follows is however, taken in the main from Todd's Parliamentary Government in the British Colonies [pp. 304-312]. As stated by Todd, the Canadian practice can be very briefly summarised. It was pointed out in Chapter XI. of this book that the British North America Act makes no provision for the establishment of a Dominion Court, though it gives the Dominion Parliament power to make such provision. In Appendix C the various Acts passed by the Dominion Parliament, as to the establishment of a Supreme Court for the Dominion, are reviewed. The Act of 1875, establishing the Supreme Court, contains a clause declaring that

« PrejšnjaNaprej »