cmap. 1] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 887 
to follow, and which robs the provision of any serious 
objection. Briefly, the effect of it is to secure the due 
recognition of the modern rules of private international 
law, especially with regard to the judicial proceedings. It 
does not even go so far as to allow one decision to be enforced 
by the Courts of another state, but it does extend to making 
another state’s Courts treat the decision as a correct exposi- 
bion of the laws of that state ; it deals in fact with procedure 
rather than with substantive law. For example, the case of 
Haddock v. Haddock! decided that a divorce valid in one 
state was not, under that clause of the Constitution, eo nomine 
valid in another; that depended on the further question 
whether the Courts of the first state had jurisdiction, that is, 
whether the persons divorced were domiciled there, that being 
the rule of private international law as understood in America 
by the Supreme Court. The Commonwealth Parliament, 
following the model of the Australasian Federal Council,? has 
power to legislate on the topics of the service of criminal 
and civil process throughout the Commonwealth and of 
the recognition of state laws therein, and the power has been 
exercised by the State Laws and Records Recognition Act, 1901, 
and the Service and Execution of Process Act of the same year. 
Part iii of the latter Act provides for the endorsing of 
warrants in other states and the arrest of the fugitive offender, 
who thay be discharged by a justice if the complaint is 
trivial, or apparently not bona fide? but otherwise is sent 
back. This power is concurrent with the powers given by 
part ii of the Imperial Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881. which 
has been applied to Australia. 
Part iv creates an interesting problem, for it allows the 
Courts of the states to have their judgements enforced by 
mere registration in the Courts of other states. This may, 
of course, give a curious effect in that a judgement which. 
(1905) 201 U. 8. 562. 
' See Harrison Moore, op. cit., pp. 477 sed. ; Quick and Garran, op. cit., 
pp. 614-6; Elkan v. de la Juvenay, 22 A. L. T. 3M. 
© The King v. Boyce and Roberts, ex parte Rustichelli, (1904) 8. R. (Qd.) 181. 
An attachment for failure to carry out a judgement cannot be enforced 
slsewhere : Lewis v. Lewis, (1902) S. R. (Qd.) 115.