CHAP. 1] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 857 
the Act was open to serious objection, as interference with 
existing litigation was most unusual and unprecedented, 
a phrase which he would hardly have used if he had remem- 
bered recent legislation in Ontario! His view of the Act 
was that no Act of any state could prejudice the rights of 
the Federal Parliament and of the Federal Arbitration 
Court under the Constitution. 
The powers of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation 
and Arbitration were further considered in the case of The 
King v. Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, 
ex parte Whybrow and Company. The case is of particular 
interest as several important collateral questions were 
raised. 
In that case an application had been made to the President 
of the Court—Mr. Justice Higgins—by the Australian Boot 
Trade Employés’ Federation asking for the intervention of 
the Court in an alleged industrial dispute between the 
federation and certain employers carrying on business as 
boot manufacturers in the States of New South Wales, 
Victoria, Queensland, and South Australia. He made an 
award on certain points, and in accordance with the terms 
of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904, he exercised 
the poyer of declaring his award to be a common rule for 
the whole trade. 
The employers, being unable to bring an appeal from the 
award itself under the Act, which by s. 31 forbids an appeal, 
applied for and obtained a rule nisi for a prohibition to 
restrain the Court and the Boot Trade Employés’ Federation 
from further proceedings upon the order and award. They 
claimed among other things that the Act of 1904 was uncon- 
stitutional and beyond the powers of the Parliament of the 
Commonwealth. On the other hand, it was objected on 
behalf of the Boot Trade Employés that the High Court 
had no power to issue prohibition against the Commonwealth 
Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. 
This objection to the jurisdiction of the Court was rejected 
‘Cf. 6 Edw. VIL c. 12; 7 Edw. VIL c. 15; 8 Edw. VIL ec. 22; 
Y Edw. VIL c. 19; above, pp. 745 seq. 2 (1910) 11 CL. R. 1.