830 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART IV 
held that the High Court was, under the Constitution, the 
ultimate arbiter upon all such questions, unless it was of 
opinion that the question at issue in any particular case was 
one upon which it should submit itself to the guidance of 
the Privy Council. It was therefore not bound to follow the 
decision in Webb v. Outtrim,! but should follow its own con- 
sidered decision in Deakin v. Webb? in which it had refused 
to grant a certificate for an appeal to the Privy Council, unless 
upon a reconsideration of the question for whatever reason 
it should come to a different conclusion, and there was no- 
thing in the reasons urged by the Judicial Committee to 
throw any new light on the question involved, either with 
regard to the necessity for the implication of the rule of 
implied prohibition laid down in McCulloch v. Maryland ® 
and adopted in D’Emden v. Pedder,* or as to the applica- 
bility of the rule to the particular question. They examined 
in detail the arguments of the Privy Council, and asserted 
that the principle of necessary implication was one which must 
have been before the minds of the framers of the Common- 
wealth Constitution. The criticism which had been made 
by the Privy Council, that Expressum facit cessare tacitum, 
was not a sufficient doctrine on which to base an overruling 
of the view laid down by the High Court. All the express 
prohibitions on which reliance was or could be placed, found 
their counterpart in the Constitution of the United States. 
The only section referred to expressly by the Privy Council 
which had any bearing on the application of the maxim was 
8. 114, which was not framed for the purpose of exhaustively 
defining the prohibitions upon the exercise of state powers, 
but with another intention. The rule of implied prohibition 
was an accepted part of the constitutional law of the United 
States, but it had been held by the United States Court that 
it did not extend to prohibit the taxation of federal property 
or state property in all cases. A distinction had been 
* [1907] A. C. 81. *1C. LR. 585. 
* 4 Wheat. 316. ‘10 LR. 9L 
? Cf. also the State Railway Servants’ case, 4 C. L. R. 488, at pp. 519. 
334.