DOCSLIB.ORG

Last Month When I Was Watching the Chris

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Last month when I was watching the Chris Smith TV show one evening there appeared a clip showing Prince Charles at the Davos meeting shaking hands with Greta Thunberg (no problem) and then going along a row of important attendees, including Mike Pence, the Vice-President of the USA and shaking their hands and making the occasional comment. When he arrived at Mike Pence, who held out his hand for a handshake, the Prince deliberately passed him by and shook the hand of the next person, with Vice-President Pence looking flabbergasted at this obvious snub. I could not believe it – here was the person who is to be the next Head of State of Australia displaying contempt for a high ranking representative of an important ally not just of Australia but also Britain and other Commonwealth countries. Up to that point I had not taken much notice of Prince Charles’ views on plants, homoeopathy, etc, but this was something that could not be ignored. In 2010, my wife and I were visiting some friends in Canada and while there I read the local newspapers. In one paper there was an article about how the Canadian Government should consider having in place a succession plan for when the Queen died and Prince Charles took over the Monarchy. Like Australia, Canada is signatory to the Statute of Westminster 1931 which requires for Commonwealth countries sharing the Queen as Head of State “…that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom”. The Canadian article acknowledged that while the Queen had carried out her role in the traditional manner it was likely Prince Charles would be very different and that needed to be factored in with some sort of review of his relationship with the Canadian Parliament. The Canadians had insisted on implementing the above Statute of Westminster convention in 1936 when Edward VIII abdicated and Canadian laws needed to be changed to recognise the new line of succession. In 2015, in accord with same convention, Australia has agreed with other Commonwealth countries that the first born of the Royal Family, irrespective of whether male or female should be the Monarch and that being a Catholic is no barrier to being the Monarch (Succession to the Crown Act 2015). According to Bagehot, the Crown’s role in Britain is described as follows: “To state the matter shortly, the sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights – the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn.” Those three rights were developed in the context of the power struggle over the centuries between the Parliament and the Monarchy and have been regarded in practical terms the rights of the Monarch to be consulted by Parliament, to encourage Parliament and to warn Parliament - not the general population. The Queen has adhered to this process scrupulously, not only in Britain where she regularly meets with her Prime Minister, but also in Australia where she consults in private with her representative the Governor- General who in turn consults with the Prime Minister. This tradition of neutrality in public affairs means the Monarch is well respected in the community, and hence the role of the Monarch per se. In contrast to her approach, Prince Charles seems to want to bypass Parliament and speak directly to his subjects via modern media. This not only goes beyond the three agreed rights outlined above, but also brings the Monarchy into disrepute by his taking partisan positions on controversial issues and this is divisive in the community and inimical to democracy, and to the Monarchy itself, which is hereditary and not elected. Given that the Queen’s reign is almost at an end does the Australian Government have a position on endorsing the reign of Prince Charles when he becomes king? I believe that Parliament should have a fall back position on the death of the Queen that severs formal constitutional ties with the UK Monarchy and replaces that Monarch as our head of state by an Australian Head of State, chosen by election. That does not mean Australia leaves the Commonwealth or adversely affect its cultural and economic ties with Britain. I have put a proposal previously to State and Federal Parliamentary leaders along the following lines: 1. Each State Parliament and the Federal Parliament choose a candidate using the existing methodologies for choosing a State governor and the Commonwealth Governor-General. 2. These candidates publish a simple CV in selected media and without further campaigning put themselves up for election by the public for the position of Governor-General/President Discussion In 1999 the Referendum question was as follows: “To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and the Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds of majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament”. After the referendum failed in 1999 it was obvious that it had failed mainly because the pro-republic supporters were split over the model that was on offer. There were other reasons which are set out and discussed in the attached paper by the Hon Justice Michael Kirby in March 2000. I personally agreed with the 1999 Referendum model whereby Parliament was in control of electing the President. This reflected the status quo relationship between the Parliament and the Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General and the Head of State (The Queen), while reflecting the result of hundreds of years of power struggle between Parliament and the Monarchy and which had resulted in a stable and democratic system of government. The alternative of having an elected President conjured up visions for most people the spectacle of a USA type election resulting in Australia in a President with as yet undefined powers that may usurp the powers of Parliament, and thus the preference was for the “minimalist model”. The preparation for the referendum had been very thorough and cannot be faulted. A Constitutional Convention was held in Old Parliament House from 2 to 13 February 1998 following election of delegates in 1997. I attended public meetings here in Canberra where the process was outlined and obtained excellent official booklets on the issue that were made freely available to the public. In anticipation of a possible “Yes” vote the Attorney-General’s Department had prepared a draft “Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution and to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with a President chosen by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament” accompanied by a comprehensive “Explanatory Memorandum – Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999”. (Appended below). These two documents (on the same website) spelt out the alterations to the relevant sections in the Constitution to change Australia into a republic. The Federal government of the day had obviously obtained the permission to go ahead by the State Governments as they also had a direct relationship with the Crown. In 2011 I retired and again took an interest in the question of Australia having its own Head of State and came to the conclusion that it was necessary to reconcile the opposing views of the two factions of the pro-republic supporters, along the lines of the proposal outlined above. The rationale behind that proposal was that the Parliaments of our Federation would still have control over the suitability of the candidature for Head of State and the public were able to exercise their democratic right to elect the President. After all, we elect our Australian Parliaments to govern on our behalf, and I could not see a problem in their choosing candidates on our behalf. Since then there have been moves firstly to have a plebiscite asking “Do you want a republic or a monarchy”? and if successful to have a further plebiscite on a range of models and once the model is decided then to have the referendum. That sounds good on paper but it won’t work. As part of my interest in this question in retirement I assisted for a couple of years at the ARM stall at Canberra’s annual Multicultural Festival where interested passers-bye were asked the same question – “Do you want a republic or a monarchy” and the bulk of respondents said while they favoured a republic they would not vote for a republic in such a plebiscite unless they knew what model was on offer. I don’t blame them – neither would I, after the disaster in 1999. As a result of this feedback I realised the only way around this dilemma was to put before the public a composite model of the two competing models and that proposal to be put to the public either as a plebiscite followed by a referendum (assuming “yes” in the plebiscite) or going directly to a referendum. As the changeover of the Monarch approaches, I believe it should be Parliament who makes the running on this issue rather than activist groups like the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) and Australians for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM). These may have a role in advising Parliament on their respective views and promoting the two opposite sides of a plebiscite, but they are not bodies democratically elected by the whole community. Australia’s constitutional relationship with the Monarch is government business as can be seen from the following selection of legislation, both from UK and Australia: 1900 – Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act,
Recommended publications
  • The Constitutional Requirements for the Royal Morganatic Marriage

    The Constitutional Requirements for the Royal Morganatic Marriage

    The Constitutional Requirements for the Royal Morganatic Marriage Benoît Pelletier* This article examines the constitutional Cet article analyse les implications implications, for Canada and the other members of the constitutionnelles, pour le Canada et les autres pays Commonwealth, of a morganatic marriage in the membres du Commonwealth, d’un mariage British royal family. The Germanic concept of morganatique au sein de la famille royale britannique. “morganatic marriage” refers to a legal union between Le concept de «mariage morganatique», d’origine a man of royal birth and a woman of lower status, with germanique, renvoie à une union légale entre un the condition that the wife does not assume a royal title homme de descendance royale et une femme de statut and any children are excluded from their father’s rank inférieur, à condition que cette dernière n’acquière pas or hereditary property. un titre royal, ou encore qu’aucun enfant issu de cette For such a union to be celebrated in the royal union n’accède au rang du père ni n’hérite de ses biens. family, the parliament of the United Kingdom would Afin qu’un tel mariage puisse être célébré dans la have to enact legislation. If such a law had the effect of famille royale, une loi doit être adoptée par le denying any children access to the throne, the laws of parlement du Royaume-Uni. Or si une telle loi devait succession would be altered, and according to the effectivement interdire l’accès au trône aux enfants du second paragraph of the preamble to the Statute of couple, les règles de succession seraient modifiées et il Westminster, the assent of the Canadian parliament and serait nécessaire, en vertu du deuxième paragraphe du the parliaments of the Commonwealth that recognize préambule du Statut de Westminster, d’obtenir le Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state would be consentement du Canada et des autres pays qui required.
  • English, French, and Spanish Colonies: a Comparison

    English, French, and Spanish Colonies: a Comparison

    COLONIZATION AND SETTLEMENT (1585–1763) English, French, and Spanish Colonies: A Comparison THE HISTORY OF COLONIAL NORTH AMERICA centers other hand, enjoyed far more freedom and were able primarily around the struggle of England, France, and to govern themselves as long as they followed English Spain to gain control of the continent. Settlers law and were loyal to the king. In addition, unlike crossed the Atlantic for different reasons, and their France and Spain, England encouraged immigration governments took different approaches to their colo- from other nations, thus boosting its colonial popula- nizing efforts. These differences created both advan- tion. By 1763 the English had established dominance tages and disadvantages that profoundly affected the in North America, having defeated France and Spain New World’s fate. France and Spain, for instance, in the French and Indian War. However, those were governed by autocratic sovereigns whose rule regions that had been colonized by the French or was absolute; their colonists went to America as ser- Spanish would retain national characteristics that vants of the Crown. The English colonists, on the linger to this day. English Colonies French Colonies Spanish Colonies Settlements/Geography Most colonies established by royal char- First colonies were trading posts in Crown-sponsored conquests gained rich- ter. Earliest settlements were in Virginia Newfoundland; others followed in wake es for Spain and expanded its empire. and Massachusetts but soon spread all of exploration of the St. Lawrence valley, Most of the southern and southwestern along the Atlantic coast, from Maine to parts of Canada, and the Mississippi regions claimed, as well as sections of Georgia, and into the continent’s interior River.
  • The Governor Genera. and the Head of State Functions

    The Governor Genera. and the Head of State Functions

    The Governor Genera. and the Head of State Functions THOMAS FRANCK* Lincoln, Nebraska In most, though by no means all democratic states,' the "Head o£ State" is a convenient legal and political fiction the purpose of which is to personify the complex political functions of govern- ment. What distinguishes the operations of this fiction in Canada is the fact that the functions of head of state are not discharged by any one person. Some, by legislative enactment, are vested in the Governor General. Others are delegated to the Governor General by the Crown. Still others are exercised by the Queen in person. A survey of these functions will reveal, however, that many more of the duties of the Canadian head of state are to-day dis- charged by the Governor General than are performed by the Queen. Indeed, it will reveal that some of the functions cannot be dis- charged by anyone else. It is essential that we become aware of this development in Canadian constitutional practice and take legal cognizance of the consequently increasing stature and importance of the Queen's representative in Canada. Formal Vesting of Head of State Functions in Constitutional Governments ofthe Commonnealth Reahns In most of the realms of the Commonwealth, the basic constitut- ional documents formally vest executive power in the Queen. Section 9 of the British North America Act, 1867,2 states: "The Executive Government and authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen", while section 17 establishes that "There shall be one Parliament for Canada, consist- ing of the Queen, an Upper House, styled the Senate, and the *Thomas Franck, B.A., LL.B.
  • “An Audience with the Queen”: Indigenous Australians and the Crown, 1854-2017

    “An Audience with the Queen”: Indigenous Australians and the Crown, 1854-2017

    2018 V “An audience with the Queen”: Indigenous Australians and the Crown, 1854-2017 Mark McKenna Article: “An audience with the Queen”: Indigenous Australians and the Crown, 1954-2017 “An audience with the Queen”: Indigenous Australians and the Crown, 1954- 2017 Mark McKenna Abstract: This article is the first substantial examination of the more recent historical relationship between Indigenous Australians and the Crown. While the earlier tradition of perceiving the Queen as benefactress has survived in Indigenous communities, it now co- exists with more critical and antagonistic views. After the High Court’s Mabo decision (1992), the passage of the Native Title Act (1993), and the federal government’s Apology to the Stolen Generations (2008), it is clear that the only avenues for seriously redressing Indigenous grievances lie within the courts and parliaments of Australia. The Australian monarch—either as a supportive voice, or as a vehicle for highlighting the failure of Australian governments— no longer holds any substantial political utility for Indigenous Australians. Monarchy has become largely irrelevant to the fate of future Indigenous claims for political and social justice. Keywords: monarchy, republic, Indigenous Australia n October 1999, a delegation of Indigenous leaders from Australia visited Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace. The ‘audience,’ which lasted for little more than an hour and was widely reported in the British and Australian press, was claimed to Ibe the first granted to Indigenous Australians by a reigning British monarch since 24 May 1793, when Bennelong, who had been captured by Governor Arthur Phillip in Sydney and later sailed with him to England, was presented to King George III.1 The 206-year hiatus was telling for more than one reason.
  • The Current Status and Issues Surrounding Native Title in Regional Australia

    The Current Status and Issues Surrounding Native Title in Regional Australia

    284 Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, Vol. 24, No 3, 2018 NEW DIMENSIONS IN LAND TENURE – THE CURRENT STATUS AND ISSUES SURROUNDING NATIVE TITLE IN REGIONAL AUSTRALIA Jude Mannix PhD Candidate, Science and Engineering Faculty, School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, 4000, Australia. Email: [email protected]. Michael Hefferan Emeritus Professor, c/- Science and Engineering Faculty, School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, 4000, Australia. Email: [email protected]. ABSTRACT: The acquisition and use of real property is fundamental to practically all types of resource and infrastructure projects. The success of those activities is based, in no small way, on the reliability of the underlying tenure and land management systems operating across all Australian states and territories. Against that background, however, the historic Mabo (1992) decision gave recognition to Indigenous land rights and the subsequent enactment of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth.) (NTA) ushered in an emerging and complex new aspect of property law. While receiving wide political and community support, these changes have had a significant effect on those long-established tenure systems. Further, it has only been over time, as diverse property dealings have been encountered, that the full implications of the new legislation and its operations have become clear. Regional areas are more likely to encounter native title issues than are urban environments due, in part, to the presence of large scale agricultural and pastoral tenures and of significant areas of un-alienated crown land, where native title may not have been extinguished.
  • The Sovereign and Parliament

    The Sovereign and Parliament

    Library Note The Sovereign and Parliament The Sovereign fulfils a number of ceremonial and formal roles with respect to Parliament, established by conventions, throughout the parliamentary calendar. The State Opening of Parliament marks the beginning of each new session of Parliament. It is the only routine occasion when the three constituent parts of Parliament—that is the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons—meet. The Queen’s Speech during State Opening is the central element around which the ceremony pivots, without which no business of either the House of Lords or the House of Commons can proceed. Each ‘Parliament’ lasts a maximum of five years, within which there are a number of sessions. Each session is ‘prorogued’ to mark its end. An announcement is made in the House of Lords, to Members of both Houses following the Queen’s command that Parliament should be prorogued by a commissioner of a Royal Commission. At the end of the final session of each Parliament—which is immediately prior to the next general election—Parliament is also dissolved. Following the Prime Minister’s advice, the Sovereign issues a proclamation summoning the new Parliament, appointing the day for the first meeting of Parliament. All bills must be agreed by both Houses of Parliament and the Sovereign before they can become Acts of Parliament. Once a bill has passed both Houses, it is formally agreed by the Sovereign by a process known as royal assent. Additionally, Queen’s consent is sometimes required before a bill completes its passage through Parliament, if the bill affects the Sovereign.
  • Scriptedpifc-01 Banijay Aprmay20.Indd 2 10/03/2020 16:54 Banijay Rights Presents… Bäckström the Hunt for a Killer We Got This Thin Ice

    Scriptedpifc-01 Banijay Aprmay20.Indd 2 10/03/2020 16:54 Banijay Rights Presents… Bäckström the Hunt for a Killer We Got This Thin Ice

    Insight on screen TBIvision.com | April/May 2020 Television e Interview Virtual thinking The Crown's Andy Online rights Business Harries on what's companies eye next for drama digital disruption TBI International Page 10 Page 12 pOFC TBI AprMay20.indd 1 20/03/2020 20:25 Banijay Rights presents… Bäckström The Hunt For A Killer We Got This Thin Ice Crime drama series based on the books by Leif GW Persson Based on a true story, a team of police officers set out to solve a How hard can it be to solve the world’s Suspense thriller dramatising the burning issues of following the rebellious murder detective Evert Bäckström. sadistic murder case that had remained unsolved for 16 years. most infamous unsolved murder case? climate change, geo-politics and Arctic exploitation. Bang The Gulf GR5: Into The Wilderness Rebecka Martinsson When a young woman vanishes without a trace In a brand new second season, a serial killer targets Set on New Zealand’s Waiheke Island, Detective Jess Savage hiking the famous GR5 trail, her friends set out to Return of the riveting crime thriller based on a group of men connected to a historic sexual assault. investigates cases while battling her own inner demons. solve the mystery of her disappearance. the best-selling novels by Asa Larsson. banijayrights.com ScriptedpIFC-01 Banijay AprMay20.indd 2 10/03/2020 16:54 Banijay Rights presents… Bäckström The Hunt For A Killer We Got This Thin Ice Crime drama series based on the books by Leif GW Persson Based on a true story, a team of police officers set out to solve a How hard can it be to solve the world’s Suspense thriller dramatising the burning issues of following the rebellious murder detective Evert Bäckström.
  • House of Lords Reform 1997–2010: a Chronology

    House of Lords Reform 1997–2010: a Chronology

    House of Lords Reform 1997–2010: A Chronology This House of Lords Library Note sets out in summary form the principal developments in House of Lords reform under the Labour Government of 1997–2010. Chris Clarke and Matthew Purvis 28th June 2010 LLN 2010/015 House of Lords Library Notes are compiled for the benefit of Members of Parliament and their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of the Notes with the Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public. Any comments on Library Notes should be sent to the Head of Research Services, House of Lords Library, London SW1A 0PW or emailed to [email protected]. Table of Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 1997 .................................................................................................................................. 2 1998 .................................................................................................................................. 2 1999 .................................................................................................................................. 3 2000 .................................................................................................................................. 4 2001 .................................................................................................................................. 5 2002 .................................................................................................................................
  • Table of Contents Chronology of Events

    Table of Contents Chronology of Events

    Table of Contents Chronology of Events .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 History- 1788 to 1900 .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Plenary ‘sovereign’ Parliaments ........................................................................................................................................ 5 History- Towards Federation- 1880 to 1990 ................................................................................................... 6 Federation (1901)...................................................................................................................................................... 7 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp) ...................................................................................... 7 Post Federation- 1901 to 1986 (Parliamentary Sovereignty) ................................................................... 8 ‘Balfour Declaration 1926’ [1.3.9E] .................................................................................................................................. 8 Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK) [1.3.11E] ................................................................................................................ 8 The Australia Acts ..................................................................................................................................................................
  • ROYAL—All but the Crown!

    ROYAL—All but the Crown!

    The emily Dickinson inTernaTional socieTy Volume 21, Number 2 November/December 2009 “The Only News I know / Is Bulletins all Day / From Immortality.” emily dickinson in20ternation0al so9ciety general meeting EMILY DICKINSON: ROYA L — all but the Crown! Queen Without a Crown July –August , , Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada eDis 2009 annual meeTing Eleanor Heginbotham with Beefeater Guards Emily with Beefeater Guards Suzanne Juhasz, Jonnie Guerra, and Cris Miller with Beefeater Guards Cindy MacKenzie and Emily Special Tea Cake Paul Crumbley, EDIS president and Cindy MacKenzie, organizer of the 2009 Annual Meeting Georgie Strickland, former editor of the Bulletin Bill and Nancy Pridgen, EDIS members George Gleason, EDIS member and Jane Wald, executive director of the Emily Dickinson Museum Jane Eberwein, Gudrun Grabher, Vivian Pollak, Martha Ackmann and Ann Romberger at banquet Group in front of the Provincial Government House and Eleanor Heginbotham at banquet Cover Photo Courtesy of Emily Seelbinder Photos Courtesy of Eleanor Heginbotham and Georgie Strickland I n Th I s Is s u e Page 3 Page 12 Page 33 F e a T u r e s r e v I e w s 3 Queen Without a Crown: EDIS 2009 19 New Publications Annual Meeting By Barbara Kelly, Book Review Editor By Douglas Evans 24 Review of Jed Deppman, Trying to Think with Emily Dickinson 6 Playing Emily or “the welfare of my shoes” Reviewed by Marianne Noble By Barbara Dana 25 Review of Elizabeth Oakes, 9 Teaching and Learning at the The Luminescence of All Things Emily Emily Dickinson Museum Reviewed by Janet
  • Queen's Or Prince's Consent

    Queen's Or Prince's Consent

    QUEEN’S OR PRINCE’S CONSENT This pamphlet is intended for members of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. Unless otherwise stated: • references to Erskine May are to the 24th edition (2011), • references to the Companion to the Standing Orders are to the Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to Proceedings of the House of Lords (25th edition, 2017), • references to the Cabinet Office Guide to Making Legislation are to the version of July 2017. Office of the Parliamentary Counsel September 2018 CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2 QUEEN’S CONSENT Introduction. 2 The prerogative. 2 Hereditary revenues, the Duchies and personal property and interests . 4 Exceptions and examples . 6 CHAPTER 3 PRINCE’S CONSENT Introduction. 7 The Duchy of Cornwall . 7 The Prince and Steward of Scotland . 8 Prince’s consent in other circumstances . 8 Exceptions and examples . 8 CHAPTER 4 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS The remoteness/de minimis tests . 10 Original consent sufficient for later provisions . 10 No adverse effect on the Crown. 11 CHAPTER 5 THE SIGNIFICATION OF CONSENT Signification following amendments to a bill. 13 Re-signification for identical bill . 14 The manner of signification . 14 The form of signification . 15 CHAPTER 6 PRACTICAL STEPS Obtaining consent. 17 Informing the Whips . 17 Writing to the House authorities . 17 Private Members’ Bills. 17 Informing the Palace of further developments . 18 Other. 18 CHAPTER 7 MISCELLANEOUS Draft bills . 19 Consent not obtained . 19 Inadvertent failure to signify consent . 19 Consent in the absence of the Queen. 20 Consent before introduction of a bill . 20 Queen’s speech . 20 Royal Assent .
  • Fastcap 21-30

    Fastcap 21-30

    DeflectorTM inventor, Matt Stodola RocLocTM inventor, John Fitzsimmons Deck MasterTM inventor, Jason Lindquist dbc designed by a cabinetmaker / contractor PRO Tools VLRQDO RIHV JUDG SU H Artisan Accents TM JUHDWSULFH & Mortise Tool Turn of the century craftsmanship with the tap of a hammer. Available in three sizes: 5/16”, 3/8” and 2”, create a beautiful ebony pinned look with the Mortise ToolTM and Artisan AccentsTM. Combining the two allows you to create the look of Greene & Greene furniture in a fraction of the time. Everyone will think you spent hours using ebony pins, flush cut saws and meticulously sanding. “Stop The StruggleTM” 1. Identify where the pin needs to go and tap with the Mortise ToolTM to make the Get the “Greene & Greene” look Accent divots. 2. Install a trim screw, if using one (it is not necessary; the Accents can simply be decorative). 3. Align the Artisan AccentTM in the divots, tap with a hammer until the edge of the Artisan AccentTM is flush with the edge of the wood and you are done! Note: Apply a dab of 2P-10TM Jël under the Artisan AccentTM for a permanent hold. Fast & simple! The 2” Artisan Chisel on an air hammer leaves a perfect outline for the Accents. The Artisan Accent tools are intended for use in real wood Great for... applications. Not recommended • Furniture • Beams for use on man-made material. • Cabinets • Rafters • Trim • Decks • and more! A Pocket Chisel creates square corners for the accent 2” 5 ⁄16” A small dab of 2P-10 Jël in the corners locks the Accent in place 3 ⁄8” Patent Pending Description Part Number USD Artisan Accents (50 pc) 5/16” ARTISAN ACCENT 5/16 $5.00 Mortise Tool (5/16”) MORTISE TOOL 5/16 $20.00 Artisan Accents (50 pc) 3/8” ARTISAN ACCENT 3/8 $5.00 Mortise Tool (3/8”) MORTISE TOOL 3/8 $20.00 Inventor, Artisan Accents (10 pc) 2” ARTISAN ACCENT 2 $9.99 Jeff Marholin Artisan Chisel 2” ARTISAN CHISEL 2 $59.99 A fi nished professional look dbc designed by a cabinetmaker www.fastcap.com 21 PRO Tools TM *Four corners shown Screw the Ass.