declared that cattle could not be moved or sold by the persons owning them at the time the tax was imposed before payment of the tax, that would prevent inter-state trade in cattle without being a contravention of section 92."

An Act to secure Supplies.

"Looking at the Act itself, I do not find any words in it which show that it is in substance anything more than an Act to secure supplies of Queensland meat for the uses of His Majesty's Imperial Government during the war, to declare the methods of securing those supplies and to provide for payment for any cattle required by His Majesty, with power to extend the operations of the Act to other food supplies and property in Queensland."

The Power to Export.

It should also be remembered that the Act in question expressly prohibits owners of cattle subject to the Act exporting cattle or meat; the word 'exporting' since Federation has been used only with respect to exports beyond the Commonwealth. The State had the power to deal with exports at the date of the establishment of the Commonwealth. That power is not interfered with by section 92. That power continues in the State under the Constitution (section 107) subject to the power of a Federal Parliament to pass a law inconsistent with a State law, in which case the law of the Commonwealth shall prevail"" (section 109).

State Control over Property.

In the United States the right to regulate inter-state trade is exclusively vested in Congress, but the United States Constitution does not contain any section similar to section 107 of the Australian Constitution. The power of the States to pass legislation to prevent the manufacture of goods intended for inter-state trade, and to prevent the sale of such goods if manufactured has been upheld by the United States Federal Court in many of the cases referred to during the argument; but no cases have been quoted or referred to by my brothers BARTON and ISAACS in their judgments in which the rights of the State to pass any law affecting property produced in the States has ever been successfully challenged in the United States Federal Courts. I do not see how section 92 is contravened by the State placing new qualifications or prohibitions on residents in the States, or on property in the States, so long as the property

in the hands of the owners who are qualified to sell and deliver it inter-state is free from interference. Section 92 did not give to persons in all the States under 21 years of age, or to lunatics, a right to sell goods inter-state; if the laws in force in a State rendered them incapable of selling any property at that time, section 92 did not authorize them to sell inter-state. The State law, by disqualifying the persons mentioned, did not place any restriction on inter-state trade or commerce within the meaning of section 92; the State only exercised its power to deal with the rights to property."

State Power to Acquire.

"If the State can compulsorily acquire, or even confiscate property which is admitted, I see no reason why a State cannot place limits on the rights of residents of the State to deal with real or personal property produced in the State; and/or suspend for any time it thinks fit, in the public interest the power to sell any commodity produced in the States. For instance, a State could in my opinion, prevent the sale of any female cattle in the States so as to secure a continuation of the supply of cattle for its people. That would prevent the sale of female cattle to persons in other States, but it would not, I think, be a contravention of section 92."`

66

Once it is conceded that the States retained the power to deal with the rights of property, the only question left is whether this Act, the Queensland Meat Supply Act, has disqualified the persons resident in Queensland owning cattle fit for export or which may be made available for export from selling or disposing, etc. of their cattle except in a way provided by the Act. I think it has done so very clearly by section 6 (1) and (2) and section 7 (1), (2) and (3). The capacity of disposition is one of the usual incidents of the ownership of property, and is subject to the laws of the State in which the property is situated. The Act deprived the owner of the right or capacity of free disposition. The Act sets aside or dedicates or places in trust for the public purposes the defence of the State and Empire-the stock and meat referred to in the Act and takes away the power of the then owner to sell except on the terms and conditions set out in the Act. The right of dominion over the property, except under the conditions set out in the Act is taken away. The sections were clearly intended to take away, and did take away any right the then owner had to sell or move

any cattle referred to in the Act, namely, fat cattle or cattle available for export in Queensland, except in accordance with the Act. The Act may, and apparently does, incidentally prevent inter-state trade in cattle to some extent, but that interference is incidental, and is caused by an Act the States can lawfully pass under the powers reserved to the States by section 107 of the Constitution, without contravening section 92." Per POWERS, J. in Duncan v. The State of Queensland, 22 C.L.R., at pp. 642-652.

Payment to States for five years after uniform Tariffs.

93. During the first five years after the imposition of uniform duties of customs, and thereafter until Parliament otherwise 161 provides

(i.) The duties of customs chargeable on goods imported 162 into a State and afterwards passing into another State for consumption, and the duties of excise paid on goods produced or manufactured in a State and afterwards passing into another State for consumption, shall be taken to have been collected not in the former but in the latter State:

(ii.) Subject to the last subsection, the Commonwealth shall credit 163 revenue, debit expenditure, and pay balances to the several States as prescribed for the period preceding the imposition of uniform duties of customs.

§ 161. “UNTIL PARLIAMENT OTHERWISE PROVIDES."

LEGISLATION.

SURPLUS REVENUE ACT 1908.

This Act repealed the provision made by section 93 of the Constitution in relation to the crediting of revenue, the debiting of expenditure, and the payment of balances to the several States. The Act was proclaimed to commence on 13th June 1908; after that date and until the framing of the Surplus Revenue Act 1910,

the method of crediting and debiting was as follows:-The Commonwealth had to credit to each State-(a) the revenue (other than new revenue) collected therein by the Commonwealth; and (b) the proportion of the State, according to the number of its people, in the new revenue of the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth, it was provided, should debit to each State (a) the expenditure of the Commonwealth incurred solely for the maintenance or continuance, as at the time of transfer of any department transferred from the State to the Commonwealth and (b) the proportion of the State, according to the number of its people, in the other expenditure of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth should in each month ascertain the balance of revenue over expenditure, and pay that balance to the State as surplus revenue.

New revenue was defined to mean revenue-(1.) received by the department of External Affairs, the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Home Affairs, and the Department of the Treasury. (II.) received by the Department of Trade and Customs other than duties of customs and excise and revenue arising out of the administration of the laws relating to customs and excise, or out of the administration of State Acts: Provided that any items of revenue which, by reason of their relation to transferred expenditure, ought not, in the opinion of the Treasurer, to be credited as new revenue, should not be deemed to be new revenue : Provided further that any items of revenue which, by reason of their relation to "other" expenditure, or by reason of their nature, ought, in the opinion of the Treasurer, to be credited as new revenue, shall be deemed to be new revenue.

All duties of customs paid on goods imported into a State and afterwards passing into another State for consumption, and all duties of excise paid on goods produced or manufactured in a State and afterwards passing into another State for consumption should be taken to have been collected not in the former but in the latter State. All revenue collected by the Commonwealth in one State, but properly appertaining not to that State but to another State, should be taken to have been collected not in the former but in the latter State.

A most important section of the Act was as follows:---All payments to trust accounts, established under the Audit Acts

1901-1906, of moneys appropriated by law for any purpose of the Commonwealth shall be deemed to be expenditure." Where any trust account had been established under the Audit Acts 19011906, and moneys had been appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of the trust account, or for any purpose for which the trust account was established the appropriation was not to lapse at the close of the financial year for the service of which it was made and the Treasurer could in any year (subject to section 87 of the Constitution) pay to the credit of the trust account, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, such moneys as the Governor-General thinks necessary for the purposes of the appropriation.

This Act was superseded by the Surplus Revenue Act 1909, which, in its turn was superseded by the Surplus Revenue Act 1910 which federalized income and expenditure and provided for a subsidy at the rate of 25s. per head of its population being granted to the States for 10 years thereafter.

66

§ 162. GOODS IMPORTED INTO A STATE.”

It has been held that in the period between the establishment of the Commonwealth and the imposition of uniform customs duties, the State of Tasmania was not entitled, under the Constitution, to be credited with duties of customs collected by the Commonwealth in the State of Victoria on goods imported into Victoria and passing after the latter date therefrom into the State of Tasmania for consumption. It was held, also, for a similar reason, that the State of Tasmania was not entitled under the Constitution to be credited with duties of excise paid on goods produced in Victoria between the same dates and passing after the latter date therefrom into the State of Tasmania for consumption. Section 93 (1.) of the Constitution applies only to goods imported after the imposition of uniform duties of customs, and not of goods imported before that time: Tasmania v. The Commonwealth and State of Victoria, (1903) 1 C.L.R., 330.

§ 163. "CREDIT REVENUE AND DEBIT EXPENDITURE.” Retiring Pensions and Allowances.

An officer of a department of the public service of New South Wales who, on the transfer of the department to the Commonwealth, was retained in the service of the Commonwealth, was afterwards called upon to retire under the provisions of section 65 of the Com