cap. 11] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 835
that accepted by the High Court, which assumes that certain
powers are impliedly reserved to the states, and which cuts
down the powers conferred upon the Commonwealth Parlia~
ment in such a manner as to render them valid only when
they do not infringe upon the powers believed to be reserved
to the states.
The simpler doctrine is clearly that advocated by the two
junior justices of the Court, that full effect should be given
to the Commonwealth powers of legislation in every respect,
and that they should not be restricted by the supposed limita-
tions placed upon them bv the implied reservations of state
powers.
Conversely, the Privy Council has held that the powers of
the states should not be rendered nugatory by supposed
limitations on their powers in the interests of the Common-
wealth.
The decision of the Privy Council is clearly one based on
the ordinary interpretation of an Imperial Act, and as a
matter of law it cannot be regarded but as being superior {o
the view taken by the High Court, for that a Constitution
granted by the Imperial Parliament should be interpreted
by the principles of the rigid Constitution of the United States
is a result which legally is certainly unsound. On the other
hand, it is but right to say that the members of the High
Court were so prominently engaged in the framing of the
Constitution which they now interpret, that it may well be
that their opinions as to the meaning of that Constitution
express its intention more accurately than the judgements
of the Privy Council. But that is only to say that their
interpretation may be more closely allied to the spirit of the
Constitution, at least as they understand it ; it is not to say
bhat it is a more accurate reproduction of the legal effect of
the Constitution, as it in fact exists established by an Act of
the Imperial Parliament, to which the ordinary principles of
the interpretation of Acts of that Parliament should in the
absence of adequate reason to the contrary most certainly
be applied.
On the other hand, it is clear that the High Court is not
I,
