Trade Marks.

Attorney-General of New South Wales v. The Brewery Employees' Union of New South Wales, (1908) 6 C.L.R., 469.-The Commonwealth Trade Marks Act, Part VII., authorizing the registration of and giving proprietary rights in a "workers' label is in substance an attempt to regulate the internal trade of the States, not within or incidental to any of the expressed powers conferred on the Parliament to regulate that trade and is therefore ultra vires.

Commonwealth Royal Commissions.

Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. Attorney-General for the Commonwealth High Court, (1912) 15 C.L.R., 184.-The Executive Government of the Commonwealth cannot authorize a Royal Commission to take evidence on oath on matters and subjects outside the legislative powers of the Commonwealth or respecting matters relevant only to a possible amendment of the Constitution. Such inquiries are exclusively within the competence of the States. So held by a majority of the High Court. The Federal Parliament can pass a law compelling persons to give evidence on oath respecting matters and subjects within the ambit of the legislative powers of the Commonwealth; such a law being within the incidental power conferred by section 51 (XXXIX.) of the Constitution. The Commonwealth Royal Commissions Act 1902-12 is valid. So held by a majority of the High Court.

Attorney-General for the Commonwealth v. Colonial Sugar Refining Co., Privy Council, (1914) 17 C.L.R., 645.-The Commonwealth Royal Commissions Act 1902-12 in its present form is ultra vires of the Commonwealth Parliament and void so far as it purports to authorize a Royal Commission to compel answers to questions, or to order the productions of documents, relating to subjects generally, The decisions of the High Court, 15 C.L.R., 184, varied by the Privy Council.

Inter-State Commission.

The State of New South Wales v. The Commonwealth, (1915) 20 C.L.R., 54. Part V. of the Inter-State Commission Act 1912 constituting the Inter-State Commission a Court of Record with power to issue injunctions is invalid.

Taxation.

The King v. Barger and The Commonwealth v. Barger, (1908) 6 C.L.R., 41.-The Excise Tariff Act 1906 is invalid, inter alia, because it deals with matters other than duties of excise, viz. : the regulation of wages and labour conditions in the manufacture of agricultural implements, contrary to section 55 of the Constitution.

The King v. Barger and The Commonwealth v. Barger (supra). -The Excise Tariff Act 1906 is also invalid because it authorized discriminations between States in wages conditions, contrary to section 51 (m.) of the Constitution, and also because it authorized the giving of preference to one State over another State contrary to section 99 of the Constitution.

Osborne v. The Commonwealth, (1911) 12 C.L.R., 321.-The effect of the second paragraph of section 55 of the Constitution is to render invalid an Act imposing taxation which deals with any other matters or with more than one subject of taxation. The Land Tax Act (1910) incorporated with the Land Tax Assessment Act (1910) does not offend against these provisions. The Land Tax Act 1910 read and incorporated with the Land Tax Assessment Act 1910 is an Act imposing taxation only; it is not an Act to prevent the holding of large quantities of land and so is valid. Morgan v. Deputy Commissioner of Land Tax (1912) 15 C.L.R., 661.-The Land Tax Assessment Act section 39 is valid.

Attorney-General for Queensland v. Attorney-General for The Commonwealth, (1915) 20 C.L.R., 148.-The Land Tax Assessment Act 1910-14, so far as it purports to impose a land tax upon private individuals holding leasehold estates in Crown lands, is a valid exercise of the Federal taxing power. It is not an attempt to control the administration of the waste land of the Crown vested in the States.

Defence Powers.

Krigger v. Williams, (1912) 15 C.L.R., 366.-The Defence Act 1903-10 imposing obligations on all male inhabitants of the Commonwealth in respect of military training does not prohibit the free exercise of any religion, and, therefore, is not an infringement of section 116 of the Constitution. A person who is forbidden by the doctrines of his religion to bear arms is not thereby exempted or excused from undergoing the military training and rendering the personal service required by Part XII. of the Defence Act 1903-10.

The King v. Hyde; Ex parte Wallach; Hyde v. Wallach, (1915) 20 C.L.R., 294.-The regulations under the War Precautions Act 1914 authorizing the Minister of Defence to intern naturalized persons suspected of disaffection or disloyalty is a valid exercise of the defence power.

Moss and Phillips v. Donohoe, (1915) 20 C.L.R., 580.-The Trading with the Enemy Act 1914 making it a criminal offence to trade, or attempt to trade, with the enemy after the Imperial Proclamation of 9th September 1914 is a valid exercise of the defence power. Convictions sustained.

Welsbach Light Co. Ltd. v. The Commonwealth, (1916) 22 C.L.R., 268. The Trading with the Enemy Act 1914, section (2) which provides that for the purposes of the Act a person shall be deemed to trade with the enemy if he performs or takes part in " (b) any act or transaction which is prohibited by or under any proclamation made by the Governor-General and published in the Gazette" is a valid exercise of the legislative power of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Farey v. Burvett, (1916) 21 C.L.R., 433.-The regulations under the War Precautions Act 1914 authorizing the fixing of the highest prices to be paid for bread in certain localities during the present war are a valid exercise of the defence power.

Criminal Law.

The King v. Kidman, (1915) 20 C.L.R., 425.-The Crimes Act 1914 creating certain criminal offences within the Federal sphere; also the Crimes Act 1915 adding to it the offence of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth and making the Act retrospective (ex post facto) is within the Federal power.

Federal Territories.

Buchanan v. The Commonwealth, (1913) 16 C.L.R., 315.-The Northern Territory Acceptance Act 1910 and the Northern Territory Administration Act 1910, so far as they purport to give effect, in the Northern Territory, as law of the Commonwealth, the laws of the State of South Australia are valid.

The King v. Bernasconi, (1915) 19 C.L.R., 629.-The Commonwealth Parliament has power conferred by section 122 of the Constitution to make laws for the Government of a territory, whether

that power is exercised directly or through a subordinate legislature. Such power is not restricted by the provision in section 80 of the Constitution that the trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury. Section 80 has no application to territories; its operation is confined to States.

External Affairs.

Mc Kelvey v. Meagher, (1906) 4 C.L.R., 278.—The power conferred on the Commonwealth Parliament by section 51 (XXXIX.) with respect to "external affairs" probably includes the power to pass the necessary laws to give effect to the Imperial Fugitive Offenders Act (1881), section 32, or to deal with the surrender of fugitive offenders between the Commonwealth and other parts of the British Dominions. The Commonwealth Extradition Act (1903) extending to the Commonwealth the provisions of the Imperial Extradition Act (1870-1895) which provides for the surrender of fugitive criminals to foreign States is apparently a valid exercise of Federal power pursuant to section 51 (XXXIX.) of the Constitution.

(2) STATE POWERS AND IMMUNITIES.

State Agencies and Instrumentalities.

Federated Amalgamated Government Railway and Tramway Service Association v. New South Wales Railway Traffic Employees' Association, (1906) 4 C.L.R., 488.-The converse of the rule laid down in D'Emden v. Pedder (supra), was applied to a case of interference by the Commonwealth with State instrumentalities. The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act (1904), section 4, purporting to give the Commonwealth Arbitration Court jurisdiction to make an industrial award, applicable to employment on State railways, was held to be ultra vires and void. The Federal Parliament cannot pass a valid law giving the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration jurisdiction to make industrial awards regulating the labour and employment conditions on State railways. Subject to the Constitution, section 51 (xXXII.), the control and management of such instrumentalities are exclusively vested in the States. The Railway Traffic Employees' Association of New South Wales consisting of Government railway employees was held by the High Court not to be entitled to be registered as an industrial organization under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Federated Engine Drivers' and Firemen's Association of Australia v. Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd., (1911) 12 C.L.R., 414. -The Board of Water Supply and Sewerage, Sydney, is, according to the laws of New South Wales, in the strictest sense, a department of the State Government and is therefore an instrumentality of State Government entitled to the same immunity from. Federal interference and power as any other State department; therefore an industrial award of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court is not binding on such Board.

Federated Engine Drivers' and Firemen's Association of Australia v. Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd., (1913) 16 C.L.R., 245.— A municipal corporation (City of Melbourne) is not an instrumentality entitled to immunity from a Federal industrial award where it engages in municipal trading, such as supplying electrical energy to the public; hence an industrial award made by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration is binding on such a corporation, when acting within its trading sphere of activity.

Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australia v. Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd., (1913) 16 C.L.R., p. 262. -If a municipal corporation chooses to engage in what has been called municipal trading" and joins the ranks of employers in industries, it is liable to the same Federal laws as other employers in the same industries.

Intra-state Trade and Commerce.

The King v. Barger and The Commonwealth v. Mc Kay, (1908) 6 C.L.R., 441. The control of the domestic affairs of the States is exclusively vested in the States and the interference of the Commonwealth therewith by legislation either directly or indirectly is forbidden. The power of taxation by the Commonwealth Parliament cannot be exercised so as to operate as an indirect interference with those affairs in that particular. The selection of a particular class of goods produced in Australasia for taxation by a method which makes the liability to, or immunity from, taxation dependent upon conditions to be observed in the industry in which they are produced, such as "high wages no tax" is as much an attempt to regulate those conditions as if the regulations were made by distinct

enactment.