cua. 11] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 809 
To the claims of the states in this regard there has been 
some support in various judgements of the High Court, where 
the states are talked of as sovereign powers within their own 
ambits, and placed beside the Commonwealth also described 
as a sovereign power. This was notably the case in the 
whole series of judgements of the High Court in connexion 
with the establishment of the doctrine of non-interference 
with state instrumentalities by the Commonwealth or of 
federal instrumentalities by the state seen in the income-tax 
cases and the case of licensing duties! But it may be 
noted also that in a subsequent case? the High Court 
admitted that all the states and the Commonwealth were 
not strictly full sovereign states as they were subject to the 
paramount authority of the Imperial Parliament, by which 
they are constituted, for every state and the Commonwealth 
owes its existence directly or indirectly to Imperial Acts. 
Still the High Court must be admitted to have decided that 
ander the Fugitive Offenders Act the Governor of a state is 
still the proper person to act as required from the Governor 
of a Colony in that Act? and O’Connor J. distinctly stated 
that in his view the Commonwealth had no power to legislate 
as to fugitive offenders at all, as the criminal law in the 
Commonwealth was in the hands of the State Parliaments, 
and not of the Commonwealth authorities. Moreover, this 
quasi-independent position of the states, even as regards ex- 
ternal affairs, is recognized by the Colonial Office, in that, for 
example, official invitations are transmitted to the states to 
take part in conferences affecting their interests, and in that 
they are asked to accord recognition to consular officers. In 
both cases the Commonwealth Government are of course con- 
sulted. but the consultation of the state takes place as well, 
Office of the dispatches to the states, for his personal information. The 
sending of circular dispatches via the Governor-General has not been 
adopted—the statement on the subiect in Moore rests on a misunder- 
standing. 
L I Emden v. Pedder, 1 C. L. R. 91, at p. 109 ; Baater v. Commissioners 
of Taxation, New South Wales, 4 C. L. R. 1087, at pp. 1121, 1126. 
2 Qae 5 (1. LL. R. 737. at 740. 3 MYeKelvey v. Meagher, 4 C. L. R. 265.