Talk:Andrew Inglis Clark

Importance

I have rated the importance of this article as HIGH as Clark was one of the committee of four which drafted the bill for the Australian Constitution, and given his earlier personal completion of a draft constitution for the federation conventions and his American background was possibly the major driver for much of the final wording. Frankly, I'm quite surprised much more hasn't been written about the man. —Moondyne 14:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Clark was one of the most important, and under-rated, people in Australian history. he was the father of the Australian Constitution. 86 of the 128 sections of the final constitution were recognisable from his draft. He was as close to Thomas Jefferson as any figure in Australian history. He was a radical reformer who worked within the system; a supporter of trades unions and universal (including female) sufferage; the most important Tasmanian A-G of the 19th (and probably 20th) centuries. Yet he was shy and a poor public speaker (amazing a in a successful barrister and politician) and suffered from poor health. His writings were unpublished - he wrote (in beautiful copperplate long-hand) his essays in exercise books which were circulated from hand to hand. He worked through others, and accepted compromises.

The compromises to the 228 pieces of legislation he introduced to the assembly — for instance he failed to remove the property qualification or introduce female sufferage — were not important, since they were remedied within a generation. The compromises he accepted in the Constitution were disasters — the failure to guarantee due process, freedom from arbitary arrest and free speech — since the Constition has proved largely immutable.

Beyond all this, Clark was a man who was always ready to stop was he was doing and mend a child's toy (like John Monash, he was a qualified engineer as well as a lawyer) and his wife (after 20 years of marriage) on hearing of his imminent return from overseas could write "'to celebrate your return I must do something or bust'".

Needless to say, I'm in the process of writing a comprehensive entry. I've covered his political and early legal careers, but I still have to complete sections on the story of writing a constitution and of his years on the Supreme Court bench. — Papafox (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarks' development of the Constitution

Folks, If any body can help by expanding parts of this...

Here are my rough notes:

• Clark learns about the American Constitution via the American Club

• American Unitarian connections - Moncure Conway and Oliver Wendell Holmes - When did Clark start corresponding with Holmes? Why is his son named Wendell? Wendell from Holmes's grandmother

• The 1890 trip to London - decision to travel back via Boston - writes draft constitution (before or after Boston?) - meetings with Holmes - the term 'Commonwealth' appears

• Correspondence with Holmes about draft Constitution

• Attends 1890 convention in Melbourne and 1891 convention in Sydney. Member of the Constitutional Committee and the Judicary Committee. Circulates draft in long-hand form (how many copies??)

• Easter 1891 - 'Lucinda' - Clark not present due to ill-health - Griffith converts Clarks draft (badly) to outline of final form - loses most guarentees - screws separation of powers

• 1890's depression - convention system pauses

• 1897 Convention (Adel/Mel/Syd) - Clark does not attend - Correspondence - separation of powers restored - withholds approval of final document (why?)

Clark, amazingly for a sucessful barister and politician, apparantly was shy and a poor public speaker. How did this affect his choice of not directly pushing his view (Clark was undoubtably the pre-eminent constitutional theorist and jsurist - and this was known by others)? Instead Clark chose to work indirectly, letting others make the running. Sam Griffiths ran off with Clarks lunch. Papafox (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think stripping out parchment guarantees of rights and strict separation of powers was a very good thing, and the history of the US vs Australia proves it. Parchment guarantees mean nothing. Responsible government is the only thing that can give you rights. 110.175.158.36 (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Neasy's Biography

Spent Thursday at LaTrobe Uni library reading Neasy, F. M. (1999). Andrew Inglis Clark. Univestity of Tasmania Law Press. ISBN 0859019640. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). An amazingly well researched book. Like Clark, Neasy was a Justice of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. He has written what is clearly the definitive biography and, like most biographies, it took ages to write - Neasy spent over a quarter of a century gathering information. He passed away before it was finished, and it was completed by his son.

Its full of amazing information. For instance as late as 1897, 6 years after it became clear that US Constitutional legal prededents were critical to drafting a workable document, especially the parts surrounding the construction and powers of the High Court - Barton, Deakin and Griffiths had not fully read and understood the US Constitutional text, let alone studied important cases such as Marbury v. Madison. Completely amazing.

While Clark attended Hobart High School, this institution has no connection with the modern state school of the same name. The Hobart High School in the 1850-60's was funded by 'private subscription'

Clark did not attend the critical 'Lucinda' meeting because he was sick with the flu and stuck in Sydney. More later. Papafox (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)