ARBITRATION.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 779, 31 March 1910, Page 5

ARBITRATION.

commonwealth' and state . . POWERS, By Tolceraph—Presa Assoclatlon-Copyrlirht (Eec. March 30, 10.10 p.m.) ' : ...''■'■■'■' Sydney/March 30." : An important point of arbitration law has been decided by the High Court on questions of law submitted for its determination. The main issue was :— Whether, under the constitution, it is competent for tho Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to make any award which is inconsistent with certain awards or determinations of the State Wages Board?. " . . . l ; The contention was set up that,' in making an award in a dispute extending beyond the limits of a State, the. president of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court was not bound by >any State law regulating industry, but might .'prescribe whatever he thought necessary in order to, bring'about an effectual settlement.. The Chief.Justice, Sir Samuel Griffith, said. that arbitration meant primarily determination by a. tribunal which was not an ordinary Court 'of' Justic e ,, bound to administer the strict rules of common and statute law, but a tribunal selected by the parties to a controversy to which both- submitted themselves, and by whose determination' they agreed to be bound. ■The efficacy, of, the -award was derived from the agreement of submission; although statutory; provisions for its' enforcement were; now commonly, adopted, the foundation of the authority of;' : tho arbitrators was the consensual agreement of'the parties.' ' In course of: time the meaning had been extended so'is to in-' elude determination" by arbiters, some of whom were not necessarily the free choice ;of' the. parties, but this difference" in the mode of choice alter the fundamental notion of tho funotion of an arbiter, which was to make a, determuiation that the ; parties were. bound; to "obey. It' followed, : that .whatever the parties could; lawfully agree'todo, they might Ik ordered to' do; and whatever they could not lawfully agree to do, they could not be ordered-.t0.d0 by the tribunal. .The* conclusions were incontrovertible, and in.deed were not controverted as far as re-, garded on'arbitration tribunal lawfully established within any civilised State.'. By a : majority the Court answered the question,in the negative.' .' ■