320 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART IV
between the states and with foreign countries is assigned
to the Commonwealth is not intended to restrict the state
power to legislate save in as far as it is repugnant to Common-
wealth legislation. Similarly, the states may not raise
forces without the consent of the Parliament of the Common-
wealth, and may not coin money or make anything but gold
or silver coin legal tender, but subject to Commonwealth
legislation the state has full power to legislate as to currency.
The position of naturalization before Union Acts were made
by the Commonwealth is a subject of some interest. Tt is
suggested by Mr. Justice Clark ? that the result of s. 118 of
the Constitution was to give in each of the states and through-
out the Commonwealth naturalization to a person naturalized
in any state under a state law, but it is hardly possible to
accept this view. Fortunately the matter has been disposed
of by the passing of the Commonwealth legislation of 1903.
As the Constitution is a federal one, the powers of the
Parliament depend upon the interpretation of the exact
wording of the Act. This is well illustrated by the cases
respecting immigration, for the High Court have laid it
down that the law of the Commonwealth can only affect
immigrants, and not every person who arrives in Australia
is an immigrant. It is not necessary to prove intention to
remain for a definite period? and there is no such thing as
Australian nationality as opposed to British nationality.
But it was doubted in one case 4 whether the term ‘ immigra-
tion’ applied to the return of an Australian absent from
Australia on a visit animo revertendi. Then later it was held
that a person with a permanent home in Australia was not
on his return from a visit an immigrant, and this was applied to
a Chinese boy, an illegitimate son of a Victorian woman, who
was removed at the age of five by his father to China, where
+ Op. cit., pp. 96-102.
Chia Gee v. Martin ; Chow Quin v. Martin, 3 C. L. R. 649.
Attorney-General for the Commonwealth v. Ah Sheung, 4 C. L. R. 949.
Contrast the distinction as to desertion in cases of Australian seamen
drawn in the Navigation Bill of 1910 and defended by Senator Pearce.
s potter v. Minahan, 7 C. L. R. 277.
