| OCR Text |
Show -2- conflicts generated by the existence of two areas of authority - the Pro- vinces and the Dominion.6 In the recent invalidation by the Privy Council of the Canadian Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of 1907 7 as ultra vires the Dominion Parliament has put on the front page of the daily paper a striking manifestation of this persistent problem.8 With the formation of the South African Union in 1909 9 the powers of government were divided between the provinces and the Union; since 1909, the history of South Africa has been partly the history of adjustments between Provincial and Union as- sertion of power. 10 Here then we have an obstinate problem common to the four great systems of federated government in the English speaking world. 11 The problem is inherent in the very conception of federalism. Constitution- al provisions and constitutional adjudications may, at a given time, repre- sent the forms of specific adjustment. But no matter how explicit the pro- visions nor how decisive the adjudications, they are not, because they can- not be, definitive answers to the central problem. The legal issues are continuous because the human difficulties are continuous. And in their ap- plication to the United States, behind all legalistic controversies lie deep issues of state-craft in the practical government of a farflung em- pire. 12 6 See Kennedy, The Disallowance of Provincial Acts in the Dominion of Canada (1924) 6 Journ. Comp. Leg. Pt. 1, p. 81; Haines, Judicial Review of Legislation in Canada (1915) 28 Harv. L. Rev. 565- See also 1 lucas, Lord Durham* s Report (1912) introd.; Pope, Confederation Documents US95;; 1*- Froy, Law of the Legislative Power in Canada (1897); Newton, Federal and Unified Constitutions (1923); Keith, Responsible Government in the Dominions (1912); Kennedy, Constitution of Canada (1922) chs. 23-2U, passim. 7Can. Sts. 1917* c, 20. . BToronto Electric Comm. v. Snyder (1921*) 2 D.L.R. (U.S.) 761, reversed by the Privy Council, (1925) A. C. 396. See also A. Privy Council Decision, The London Times, Jan. 22, 1925- See the recent debate in the Canadian House of Commons on the proposal of Mr. McLean to secure for the Dominion the right -to amend the British North America Act. Mr. McLean thus summed up the situation* "There is a dispute between the federal and provincial powers in this country, as there is in Australia, and the same is the case in the United States." See 60 Hansard (1925, Can.) 300, 302, et seq. 9const. of South Africa Act (1909) 9 Edw. VII, o. 9- See Brand, Union of South Africa (1909) passim. 10De Waal, N, 0. v. North Bay Canning Co. Ltd. (1921, S* A.; A. D. 5*1, Rex v. Amod (1922, S. A.) A. D. 217* . HC£. Edeerton, Federations and Unions in the British Empire^ Smith, Federalism in North America (1923); I Bryce, Studies in History and Jurisprudence (l90l) 216. ,__ tirw^v, 12cF.Curtis, The Commonwealth of Nations (1916) Pt. 1, 610-611: Expon- ents of* mere centralization are forever harping on the vices of the State legislatures as though they were bodies not bad by comparison, but like Sodom a.nd Gomorrah bad in themselves and past cure. In any state the local organs, when dissected and viewed apart, nearly always suffer by comparisons with the organ of the central government. What these critics forget, how- ever, 5_s that in a great commonwealth it is the presence of these local organs which alone renders possible the existence of the central government. |
