-6-
64
powers obtained from two authori ti es which might at
any time be found to be conflicting. It would on
that view in certain circumstances be conceivable that
a court might act legally in defiance of the limitat-
ions imposed upon it by its own constitution. The
competence of a court is derived from its sovereign.
Judicial functions are a portion of sovereignty.
Unless it receives the jurisdiction from the sovereign,
a court is without power to act. An acquiescence by
the sovereign in a usurpation by the court of any
portion of sovereign power would not amount to a
sufficient authority. Jurisdiction cannot depend
on any form of ratification.
I note in passing that the contention of the
learned Attorney General has the support of Sir
William Blackstone who, in his "Commentaries on the
laws of England" 1857 Ed., volume IV, at p.62, in a
chapter he aded "Of offences against the law of nations"
states his opinion in these words "In arbitrary
states this law, (i.e. intemational law) wherever it
contradicts or is not provided for by the municipal
law of the country, is enforced by the royal power:
but since in England no royal power can introduce a
new law, or suspend the execution of the old, therefore
the law of nations (wherever any question arises which
is properly the object of its jurisdiction) is here
adopted in its full extent by the common law, and
is held to be a part of the law of the land; and
those acts of Parliament which have from time to time
been made to enforce this universal law,
or to
facilitate the execution of its decisions, are not