Speech of John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, upon the right of the people, men and women, to petition; on the freedom of speech and debate in the House of representatives of the United States; on the resolutions of seven state legislatures, and the petitions of more than one hundred thousand petitioners, relating to the annexation of Texas to this Union. Delivered in the House of representatives of the United States, in fragments of the morning hour, from the 16th of June to the 7th of July 1838, inclusive.

Mode of access: Internet.

Speech, of Mr. Severance, of Maine, on the right of petition.

A discussion of the rule "No petition, memorial, resolution, or other paper, praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or any state or territory, or the slave trade between the states or territories of the United States in which it now exists, shall be received by the House, or entertained in any way whatever."

Speech of Mr. J.R. Underwood, upon the resolution proposing to censure John Quincy Adams for presenting to the House of Representatives a petition praying for the dissolution of the Union : delivered in the House of Representatives on the 27th of January, 1842.

Page [16] is blank.

Applying integrated resource and environmental management to transmission right-of-way maintenance

The concept of a substantive integrator is introduced as a method for integrated resource and environmental management as a means to assimilate different resource values at the operational or field level. A substantive integrator is a strategic management tool for integrating multiple uses into coprorate management regimes that traditionally manage for single values. Wildlife habitat management is presented as a substantive integrator for managing vegetation on electric utility power line corridors. A case study from northern British Columbia provides an example of wildlife habitat management as a means to integrate other resource values such as aesthetics, access and subsistence along British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority's transmission rights-of-way.

Cranes, claims and a statutory right of user

In larger developments there is potential for construction cranes to encroach into the airspace of neighbouring properties. To resolve issues of this nature, a statutory right of user may be sought under s 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld). Section 180 allows the court to impose a statutory right of user on servient land where it is reasonably necessary in the interests of effective use in any reasonable manner of the dominant land. Such an order will not be made unless the court is satisfied that it is consistent with public interest, the owner of the servient land can be adequately recompensed for any loss or disadvantage which may be suffered from the imposition and the owner of the servient land has refused unreasonably to agree to accept the imposition of that obligation. In applying the statutory provision, a key practical concern for legal advisers will be the basis for assessment of compensation. A recent decision of the Queensland Supreme Court (Douglas J) provides guidance concerning matters relevant to this assessment. The decision is Lang Parade Pty Ltd v Peluso [2005] QSC 112.

Statutory right of user imposed for landlocked land

The decision of McMurdo J in Pacific Coast Investments Pty Ltd v Cowlishaw [2005] QSC 259 concerned an application under s 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) for a statutory right of user.

The divine right of ...judges

Poem published in Free Speech segment of NTEU Newletter.

Statutory right of user - its impact in practice?

Scenario 1 A buys a two storey commercial building built along the only street frontage to the property. Vehicles cannot reach the rear of the property as the building extends across the entire width of the land. A bought the building with full knowledge that vehicular access to the rest of the property had been compromised by a desire to obtain maximum street frontage for the building which was occupied by a commercial tenant. On street parking is scarce in the surrounding area. A (to the knowledge of the adjoining owner B) constructs a carpark at the rear of the building. The employees of A’s tenant have been using the carpark obtaining access via a driveway on B’s land. To formalise this arrangement, A seeks a right of way for vehicles to travel down B’s driveway to access the carpark...

Compensation or consideration for a statutory right of user?

Section 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) makes provision for an applicant to seek a statutory right of user over a neighbour’s property where such right of use is reasonably necessary in the interests of effective use in any reasonable manner of the dominant land. A key issue in an application under s 180 is compensation. Unfortunately, while s 180 expressly contemplates that an order for compensation will include provision for payment of compensation to the owner of servient land there are certain issues that are less clear. One of these is the basis for determination of the amount of compensation. In this regard, s 180(4)(a) provides that, in making an order for a statutory right of user, the court: (a) shall, except in special circumstances, include provision for payment by the applicant to such person or persons as may be specified in the order of such amount by way of compensation or consideration as in the circumstances appears to the court to be just The operation of this statutory provision was considered by de Jersey CJ (as he then was) in Peulen v Agius [2015] QSC 137.

A right of resale? Indigenous art under the hammer

This week, Sotheby's sold the late Clifford Possum Tjapaltjarri's painting, Warlugulong. The auction-house's spokesman, Tim Klingender, was enthusiastic about the high price commanded by the art work: "The painting was a really great painting and it deserved to make a really fantastic price, and it made that price."

'Leaving Nothing to Chance'?: Joint Tenancies, The 'Right' of Survivorship and Unilateral Severance

The joint tenancy with its inherent right of survivorship is the most prevalent form of co-ownership in the common law world today. Most couples will be joint tenants of a family home, while relations (such as siblings) who purchase property together may opt for this arrangement. Inter vivos acquisitions aside, the huge intergenerational transfer of wealth within families on death can result in a joint tenancy, and it may also be a convenient estate planning device. The fact that property automatically vests in the surviving joint tenants on death is the reason why many people choose this form of co-ownership. However, there is one serious disadvantage. A joint tenancy is an inflexible form of landholding where relationships sour or family circumstances change over time, and co-owners want their respective `shares' of the property to pass to someone else on death. Where consensual severance is not possible, one joint tenant can sever unilaterally. The latter mechanism is vital in terms of giving effect to the wishes of the severing joint tenant, especially in situations of discord or a breakdown in relations with their fellow co-owners. However, unilateral severance also has serious implications for the non-severing joint tenant(s) who expected to inherit property through survivorship, and can impact significantly on ownership of the home and other family property. This article looks at unilateral severance as a means of subverting the right of survivorship. The focus is on personal and inter-family relationships, and the various legal issues and policy considerations associated with unilateral severance across the common law jurisdictions of Britain, Ireland, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. It assesses the various methods of effecting unilateral severance and proposes specific measures, as well as considering novel arguments for preventing unilateral severance based on contractual agreements to the contrary and proprietary estoppel.

The right of access to a lawyer in terrorist cases

This is a survey of the applicable international human rights standards concerning the right which alleged terrorists have to access a lawyer.

A “Child’s Rights Perspective”: The “Right” of Children and Young People to Participate in Health Care Research

As all human beings are consumers of health care provision across the life span and in receipt of care delivered by accountable health care professionals, all should have the right to be involved in shaping the future of their own health care. Rights-based participation, when applied successfully, has the potential to inform and influence the delivery of child health care, the child’s experience of health care, plus children’s nursing education (Coyne & Gallagher, 2011). The “right” of every child and young person to participate in research that relates to their own health care is also sustained by the author’s lead position as a Senior Lecturer in Higher Education for pre-registration children’s nursing in Northern Ireland and the appreciation of their voice when practicing as a registered children’s nurse and ward sister. The report provides an insight into seminal work on human and child rights; the historical context of children in Western society, and the evolution of children’s nursing amid the child’s right to participate in shaping their own health care.