Editing Edmund Barton (section)

==High Court Justice==
[[File:Justice Barton (b&w).jpg|thumb|left|upright|Barton in judicial regalia]]
Barton was sworn in to the High Court on 7 October 1903, along with his close friends [[Samuel Griffith]] and [[Richard Edward O'Connor]]; Griffith became the inaugural [[Chief Justice of Australia]]. The new justices had worked together in drafting the constitution and habitually lunched together. As a result of their closeness and the small number of cases heard, there were few dissents in the early years of the court.{{sfn|Bolton|2000|p=301}}

Deakin succeeded Barton as prime minister, but the government performed poorly at the [[1903 Australian federal election|December 1903 election]]. The [[hung parliament]] allowed [[Chris Watson]] and the ALP a chance to form government in April 1904, but it was short-lived and [[George Reid]] succeeded Watson as prime minister in August. Later in the year, the court came into conflict with [[Josiah Symon]], Reid's appointee as attorney-general. Symon objected to the judges hearing cases in each of the state capitals, believing the court should sit only in [[Melbourne]] and [[Sydney]], and also thought their travelling expenses were excessive. Relations between the government and the court became so strained that the judges contemplated refusing to hear cases, and Barton seriously considered resigning.{{sfn|Bolton|2000|p=302}} The situation was only resolved in June 1905 when Deakin returned as prime minister.{{sfn|Bolton|2000|p=303}}

===Court dynamics===
The Deakin government added two extra judges to the High Court in 1906, appointing former attorneys-general [[H. B. Higgins]] and [[Isaac Isaacs]]. Their elevation brought an adversarial aspect to the court for the first time, as the new judges were political radicals and had not been involved in drafting the constitution.{{sfn|Bolton|2000|p=304–306}} Barton and Griffith formed a conservative bloc, almost always joined by O'Connor.{{sfn|Bolton|2000|p=306}} Barton did not dissent from Griffith in the first eight years of the court's existence. In the 44 cases heard by the court from 1904 to 1905 he delivered only 12 separate judgments, choosing to join Griffith's opinion in every other case. Some writers have taken this as indicative of laziness or reluctance to lead the court.{{sfn|Bolton|2000|pp=304–305}} However, others have suggested that his lack of separate judgments was not representative of his work ethic and reflected more a general dislike of [[concurring opinion]]s as liable to complicate the interpretation of rulings.{{sfn|Bolton|2000|p=305}}

Barton was acting chief justice for nine months in 1913, while Griffith was overseas. The same year saw a major shift in the composition of the court, with two new seats created and a third judge appointed to fill the vacancy caused by O'Connor's death. One of the new judges was Barton's friend [[Albert Piddington]], whose appointment proved controversial due to his political views. He resigned from the court after a month, despite Barton's attempts to convince him to stay.{{sfn|Bolton|2000|p=313}} The three vacancies were eventually filled by [[Frank Gavan Duffy]], [[Charles Powers]] and [[George Rich]], none of whom had been involved in the drafting of the constitution. As a result, Barton and Griffith increasingly found themselves in a minority on constitutional matters, seeking to preserve the intentions of the framers rather than allow the constitution to evolve. The new judges were also less familiar with the North American federal precedents that the original judges had often relied upon.{{sfn|Bolton|2000|p=314}} The influx of new voices contributed to Barton's movement away from Griffith, as he showed "a return of energy and initiative [...] greater independence and at times disagreement" than in his earliest years on the court.{{sfn|Bolton|2000|p=313}}

===Notable cases===
[[File:Edmund Barton - Sarony (b&w).jpg|thumb|upright|Barton later in life]]
In ''[[D'Emden v Pedder]]'' (1904), the High Court formulated a doctrine of [[Intergovernmental immunity (Australia)|implied immunity of instrumentalities]], modelled closely on the American concept of [[Intergovernmental immunity (United States)|intergovernmental immunity]] which Barton and the other authors of the constitution had closely studied. The court followed this precedent in ''[[Deakin v Webb]]'' (1904), which was subsequently overturned by the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] in ''[[Webb v Outtrim]]'' (1906). Barton was angered by the Privy Council's intervention, having always believed the High Court should be the final court of appeal. In personal correspondence he described the 83-year-old presiding judge [[Hardinge Giffard, 1st Earl of Halsbury|Lord Halsbury]] as an "old pig" who did not understand the needs of a federation.{{sfn|Bolton|2000|pp=306–307}}

Sitting as the [[Court of Disputed Returns (Australia)|Court of Disputed Returns]], Barton was the sole judge in ''[[Blundell v Vardon]]'' (1907), where he ruled that [[Joseph Vardon]]'s election to the Senate was void due to electoral irregularities.{{sfn|Bolton|2000|p=305}} He joined with Griffith and O'Connor in the majority opinion in ''[[R v Barger]]'' (1908), "the High Court's most decisive intervention to date in thwarting social reforms passed by the Commonwealth parliament".{{sfn|Bolton|2000|p=308}} In a series of cases around the same time, the trio also restricted the powers of the [[Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration]].{{sfn|Bolton|2000|p=309}} Barton and Griffith split notably in ''[[New South Wales v Commonwealth (1915)|New South Wales v Commonwealth]]'' (1915), with the court voting 4–2 to strip the [[Inter-State Commission]] of any judicial power, much to Barton's dismay. Only Gavan Duffy sided with his argument that parliament should determine the commission's powers rather than the court. The decision was "a rebuff to Barton's authority as an interpreter of the Constitution and his special authority as one of its draftsman".{{sfn|Bolton|2000|pp=318–319}}

During World War I, Barton joined the majority in ''[[Farey v Burvett]]'' (1915), which saw the court adopt a broad view of the federal government's [[Section 51(vi) of the Constitution of Australia|defence power]].{{sfn|Bolton|2000|p=322}} In ''Duncan v Queensland'' (1916), he and Isaacs were the only dissenters from the court's interpretation of [[Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia|section 92]] of the constitution. With Griffith authoring the majority opinion, the court held that state governments could circumvent the constitution's free-trade provisions simply by banning the movement of goods across state boundaries. Barton expressed a "heavy sorrow" at the court's decision and Isaacs was highly critical. In 1920, after Barton's death, Isaacs led the court in reversing ''Duncan'', in what became known as the ''[[Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd|Engineers' case]]''.{{sfn|Bolton|2000|pp=322–323}}

===Other activities and final years===
Along with Griffith, Barton was several times consulted by Governors-General of Australia on the exercise of the [[reserve power]]s.<ref>[[Donald Markwell]], "Griffith, Barton and the early governor-generals: aspects of Australia's constitutional development", ''Public Law Review'', 1999.</ref> In 1919, although ill, he was extremely disappointed to be passed over for the position of Chief Justice on the retirement of Griffith.<ref>Markwell, "Griffith, Barton and the early governor-generals", [[Public Law Review]], 1999.</ref>