Editorial Committee of the Cambridge Law Journal

Constitutional Law. Dedication of Crown Lands. Disputed Rights. Revocation. Legislative Powerof State. Commonwealth of Australia v. New South Wales. [1929] A. C. 431Author(s): A. D. C.Source: The Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1 (1930), p. 54Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Editorial Committee of the Cambridge LawJournalStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4502428 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 00:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Cambridge University Press and Editorial Committee of the Cambridge Law Journal are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Cambridge Law Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:47:55 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Cambridge Law Journal. The Cambridge Law Journal. 54 54

another, signed by the maker,' within section 83, sub-section 1 of the Act, judgment was given for the plaintiff on that ground.

S. R. L.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW DEDICATION OF CROWN LANDS DISPUTED RIGHTS- REVOCATION- LEGI8LATIVE POWER OF STATE.

Commonwealth of Australta v. New Soqsth Wales. [1929] A. C. 431.

TZE question at issue was whether Garden Island in Port Jackson was, as part of the Crown lands, under the control of the Legislature of New South Wales, or whether it was properly possessed and controlled by the Commonwealth of Australia in pursuan of a dedication to the ImperiaI Government for naval purposes in 1866.

The N. S. W. Constitution Act, 1855, vested the control of Garden Ieland (at that date part of the Crown lands) in the Legialature of New South Wales, which, in 1866, dedicated the island as a naval depot.

In 1913 Garden Island had been vacated by the Imperial NavaI Authorities, and taken over by those of the Commonwealth. A dispute with New South Wales arose over terms of occupation, and the executive authorities of New South Wales in 1923 revoked the dedication, acting under the Crown Lands Consolidation Act, 1913 (N. S. W.).

The Judicial Committee held that they were legally entitled to do this. An Imperial Order in Council, made in 1899 under the Colonial

Fortifications Act, 1877, had recited an agreement made between the Government of New South Wales and the Imperial Government, by which the former, after erecting certain buildings and works (partly on Garden Island) and dedicating their sites ' in perpetuity for the use of hEIer Majesty's navy in the same way as Garden Island had been,' was to receive in return certain ordnance resenre lands and bllildings. It appeared to Isaacs J. (one of the dissenting judges in the High Court of Au6tra]ia) that reference in the Order to the dedication of GEarden Island as having been made ' in perpetuity ' and that the order was granted ' in considera- tion of the premisesX ' rendered necessary the consent of the Imperial Government to any revocation; furthermore that the Order eYen had the effect of an Imperial statute.

Their Lordships could not agree with this view. The mere recitals in the Order in Council did not purport to alter the then existing title to Garden Island, and, as to any part of the Order itself which could be regarded as having the foree of an Imperial statute, they held that, acting within the Constitution, the Legislature of a self-governing colony or State is supreme, and no act of the Imperial executive Government could fetter in any legal sen6e the future exercise by it of its powers, or give to any person a title other than such as could be conferred under existing legislation.

A. D. C.

another, signed by the maker,' within section 83, sub-section 1 of the Act, judgment was given for the plaintiff on that ground.

S. R. L.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW DEDICATION OF CROWN LANDS DISPUTED RIGHTS- REVOCATION- LEGI8LATIVE POWER OF STATE.

Commonwealth of Australta v. New Soqsth Wales. [1929] A. C. 431.

TZE question at issue was whether Garden Island in Port Jackson was, as part of the Crown lands, under the control of the Legislature of New South Wales, or whether it was properly possessed and controlled by the Commonwealth of Australia in pursuan of a dedication to the ImperiaI Government for naval purposes in 1866.

The N. S. W. Constitution Act, 1855, vested the control of Garden Ieland (at that date part of the Crown lands) in the Legialature of New South Wales, which, in 1866, dedicated the island as a naval depot.

In 1913 Garden Island had been vacated by the Imperial NavaI Authorities, and taken over by those of the Commonwealth. A dispute with New South Wales arose over terms of occupation, and the executive authorities of New South Wales in 1923 revoked the dedication, acting under the Crown Lands Consolidation Act, 1913 (N. S. W.).

The Judicial Committee held that they were legally entitled to do this. An Imperial Order in Council, made in 1899 under the Colonial

Fortifications Act, 1877, had recited an agreement made between the Government of New South Wales and the Imperial Government, by which the former, after erecting certain buildings and works (partly on Garden Island) and dedicating their sites ' in perpetuity for the use of hEIer Majesty's navy in the same way as Garden Island had been,' was to receive in return certain ordnance resenre lands and bllildings. It appeared to Isaacs J. (one of the dissenting judges in the High Court of Au6tra]ia) that reference in the Order to the dedication of GEarden Island as having been made ' in perpetuity ' and that the order was granted ' in considera- tion of the premisesX ' rendered necessary the consent of the Imperial Government to any revocation; furthermore that the Order eYen had the effect of an Imperial statute.

Their Lordships could not agree with this view. The mere recitals in the Order in Council did not purport to alter the then existing title to Garden Island, and, as to any part of the Order itself which could be regarded as having the foree of an Imperial statute, they held that, acting within the Constitution, the Legislature of a self-governing colony or State is supreme, and no act of the Imperial executive Government could fetter in any legal sen6e the future exercise by it of its powers, or give to any person a title other than such as could be conferred under existing legislation.

A. D. C.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:47:55 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions