832 THE FEDERATIONS AND THF UNION [PART IV 
this as being a sufficient ground for differentiating the case 
of the United States and the case of the Commonwealth, 
and in the course of the judgement the majority expressed 
themselves as follows — 
The analogy between the two systems of jurisprudence is 
therefore perfect. Indeed, it may be said that in this respect 
they are identical, unless, indeed, the attribute of sovereignty, 
using that term in any relevant sense, is denied to the Com- 
monwealth. The King is the common head of the United 
Kingdom and of all the self-governing dominions, and the 
Legislature of each of these dominions has, subject to its 
own constitution, full autonomy. It seems strange that in 
bhis year 1907, when the world is resounding with praises! 
of the system of the British Empire, which allows its different 
members to enjoy this freedom and independence, we should 
be asked to decide solemnly that the idea is an entire delusion. 
It is now, we suppose, well recognized that, except so far as 
regards relations with foreign powers, which are not now in 
question, the King as the head of each of these several 
autonomous states is so far a separate juristic person that 
differences and conflicts may arise between these states just 
as between other autonomous states which do not owe 
allegiance to a common sovereign. It is too late to set up 
a contrary theory, unless it is intended to make a revolu- 
tionary change in the concept of the Empire. 
Of the other two members of the Court—the Court now 
consisting of five instead of three justices—the view of 
Isaacs J.% was that the words of s. 74 were strong enough to 
lead to the conclusion that on questions falling within that 
section the decision of the High Court was final, and that 
therefore the Court had a right to decline to follow the 
decision of the Privy Council upon any such question. But 
the respect and weight due to a judgement of the Privy 
Council made it the duty of the High Court in the circum- 
stances to reconsider the decision in Deakin v. Webb. Fur- 
ther consideration in the light of the decision in Webb v. 
Outtrim left the authority of D’Emden v. Pedder unimpaired, 
! An allusion to the grant of self-government to the Transvaal and 
Orange River Colony. 
* 4 C. L. BR. 1087, at p. 1159.