crap. 11] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 821
he remained for twenty-six years, a decidedly strong case.
On the other hand, the Court decided that mere formal
domicile owing to the domicile of the father does not prevent
an infant born out of Australia falling under the prohibition
of the Act.!
In the case of many clauses the powers of the states have
resulted in a definite restriction of the powers of the Common-
wealth Parliament 2
$ 5. RELATIONS OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF THE STATES
AND THE COMMONWEALTH ACCORDING TO JUDGEMENTS
oF THE HigH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(a) The Immunity of Instrumentalities?®
In the case of D’Emden v. Pedder * the question was raised
2s to the effect of Act 2 Edw. VIL. No. 30 of the State of
Tasmania, which prescribed a stamp duty of 2d. in respect
of every receipt where the sum received amounted to £5 and
was under £50. The federal officers in Tasmania were called
1pon to give receipts in respect of their salaries,and D’Emden,
who was Deputy Postmaster-General of the State of Tasmania,
was summoned before the Court of Petty Sessions in Hobart
on the ground that he gave a receipt for his salary which
was not duly stamped in accordance with that law. He
was convicted, and the case was taken on appeal to the
Supreme Court, who held by a majority that the appellant
was liable to pay the duty and confirmed the conviction, from
which the defendant appealed to the High Court of the
"asmmonwealth.
' Ah Yin v. Christie, 4 C. L. R. 1428. Cf. Natal Act, No. 3 of 1906.
* It is of interest to consider how far the Federal Parliament could use
the State Parliaments as agencies for carrying out its powers: it can use
the executive officers with their consent freely, and so does—but there is
no authority yet in the shape of federal decisions; see Parliamentary
Debates, 1907, pp. 3866 seq. ; Harrison Moore, op. cit., pp. 442-4.
' See Harrison Moore, op. cit., pp. 421-37; Law Quarterly Review,
xxiii, 373; Keith, Journ. Soc. Comp. Leg., xii. 95 seq.
¢1C L. R. 91. Cf. also Municipal Council of Sydney v. Commonwealth,
1 CL. R. 208 : Roberts v. Ahern. 1 C. L. R. 406.
