cHAP. 11] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 795 
Isaacs J. said: 
True in a sense the Crown is one and indivisible throughout 
the Empire, but its power is not one and indivisible ; it 
acts by different agents with varying authority in different 
localities or for different purposes in the same locality. 
The constitution redistributed the royal authority over the 
territory of Australia. Formerly and subject only in the last 
resort to the will of the Imperial Parliament, the sovereign 
exerted his authority over his subjects in each separate 
Colony solely by his local representatives and advisers there, 
and with regard to all matters of legislative and executive 
control. The distribution of power effected by the constitu- 
tion has produced this change in the position of the King, 
that his sovereign power is no longer exercised by means of 
those representatives and advisers over so large a field of 
subject-matters, or in some cases with the same finality. His 
Commonwealth representatives and advisers in all matters 
committed to them are now either the exclusive or the 
dominant depositaries of the royal authority. 
Trade and commerce with foreign countries is one of 
those matters. Customs taxation is another. The states 
are still His Majesty’s agents so far, for instance, as the 
general construction and management of railways are con- 
cerned, and for the purpose of acquiring the ownership of 
property destined for use in connexion with railways in 
their respective territories—but they are not his agents 
to exercise his sovereign jurisdiction with regard to the 
introduction of articles of commerce into this continent 
contrary to the declared will of the Federal Parliament. 
The meaning of s. 114 of the Constitution was discussed 
at some length. Isaacs J. held that duties of customs were 
imposed on the goods and therefore on property within the 
meaning of s. 114, but that they did not come within 
the meaning of the word tax as used in that section. and in 
the constitution generally. 
' 5C.L.R. 789,at p. 809. Cf. the discussionin Parl. Pap., 1907-8, No. 128. 
! For a good case of this, cf. the Privy Council judgement in Dominion 
of Canada v. Province of Ontario, [1910] A. C. 603. 
* What constitutes importation was discussed in Canada Sugar Refinery 
Co. v. The Queen, [1898] A, C. 735, when it was held that mere taking of 
goods into the territorial waters of Canada to a port of call was not importa- 
tion ; arrival at a port of discharge at least was necessary. Quick and 
(larran, op. cit., p. 859.