882 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART IV 
it was not necessary to determine the question as to how 
far such an appeal lay, but that there was an appeal to the 
Supreme Court of Victoria, and that the appellants should 
go there first of all. The decision was obviously a wise one, 
else the High Court would cease to be able to perform its 
functions at all, being obstructed with all sorts of appeals 
before they have been sifted out and reduced to order by 
consideration by a Supreme Court. 
It will be seen that the Judiciary Act endeavours to treat 
the whole creation of federal jurisdiction as a new thing, and 
to remove it from the ordinary category of business before 
the State Court, by vesting it in that Court by a Common- 
wealth Act. There seems to be no legitimate ground of 
objection to these provisions: it is clear that before they 
were passed the State Courts could and did properly deal 
with cases involving federal questions, since the Constitution 
is by s. 5 of the covering Act binding upon them, and they 
might easily have to interpret its clauses. But after the Act 
the jurisdiction was not state jurisdiction, and if that were 
the view of Hodges J. in the case of Webb v. Outtrim? before 
the Supreme Court of Victoria it cannot be defended. There 
is certainly adequate authority in the Commonwealth Consti- 
tution for the Parliament to remove all federal jurisdiction 
from a Supreme Court and revest it with such jurisdiction 
as a Federal Court. But a different principle applies to the 
further doctrine laid down by the High Court? that in the 
exercise of such jurisdiction it could exclude a right of appeal 
save by special leave to the Privy Council. It was not 
contended on behalf of the High Court that the Parliament 
could create a subordinate Court and bar an appeal to the 
Privy Council by special leave, and it was argued that they 
had not attempted to do so, but had merely provided that 
there should be no appeal without special leave. But this 
view was clearly not that adopted by the Privy Council? 
* (1905) V. L. R. 463. Contrast Clark, op. cit., p. 160. 
* Hannah v. Dalgarno, 1 C. L. R. 1, at p. 10 ; Baater v. Commissioners of 
Taxation, N. 8. W., 4 C. L. R. 1087, at pp. 1138, 1139, Higgins J. dis- 
venting, at pp. 1162, 1163. 
* 11907]/A. C. 81. Cf. Harrison Moore, op. cit., p. 231.