oHAP. 11] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 819 
into Tasmania of criminals of other states of the Common- 
wealth, and there are similar Acts of 1903 and 1905 in New 
South Wales and Queensland. Similarly the State Parliaments 
can make laws with regard to the people of any race, and 
“hese laws can exist concurrently with Commonwealth laws. 
The exclusive powers of the Commonwealth under ss. 52 
and 69 include all matters relating to the departments of 
posts, telegraphs, and telephones, naval and military defence, 
light-houses, light-ships, beacons and buoys, and quarantine, 
but though these departments cannot be regulated by the 
State Legislatures, it is perfectly open to the State Parlia- 
ments to legislate on all these subjects ! pending the passing 
of Commonwealth Acts which contain provisions to which 
the provisions of the State Act are repugnant. It is clearly 
not the intention of the Commonwealth Act to deprive the 
State Parliaments of all legislative authority with regard 
to these subjects, but the State Parliaments were naturally 
forbidden forthwith to pass legislation affecting the constitu- 
tion of the transferred departments or their duties. In point of 
fact, the matter of quarantine is still left, as regards internal 
regulation, in considerable measure to be regulated by the 
state executive action and legislation.? The Commonwealth 
has also exclusive powers over surrendered territory by s. 111, 
and over territory surrendered by the Crown under s. 122. 
Moreover, there is no restriction on the legislation of the 
states as to external trade except such as is imposed by 
the fact that control of customs and excise and bounties has 
been taken away, save only in as far as the states are entitled 
to pass inspection laws.® The fact that trade and commerce 
8. 108. This cannot apply to the departments after transfer; see 
Harrison Moore, op. cit., p. 412; Quick and Garran, op. cit., p. 938. 
! See Commonwealth Official Year Book, iv. 1120: of. also Common. 
wealth Parl, Pap., 1908, No. 194. 
* Clark, op. cit, pp. 76 seq., thinks otherwise, and attributes to the 
police power (pp. 118-52) the power of the states to regulate trade other 
than domestic trade. I can find no warrant for this view. But Harrison 
Moore, op. cit., p. 331, suggests that in The King v. Sutton (6 C. L. R. 789) 
the High Court held explicitly that foreign commerce is exclusively the 
affair of the Commonwealth. This seems to go too far.