390 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART IV 
the power given by the Australian Industries Preservation 
dct, 1906, as amended in 1907, to the Controller-General of 
Customs to demand under penalties replies to questions, 
when he believed that there existed any conspiracy to 
monopolize trade, &c., was valid, and that it was not an 
exercise of judicial power requiring the presence of a jury. 
The powers granted were no more than were necessary and 
useful for the purpose of administration of the Acts, and had 
other parallels in powers given to officers by the Audit Act, 
1901, Immigration Restriction Act, 1905, and Census and 
Statistics Act, 1905. Isaacs J. put it that the inquiry was 
merely to inform the mind of the executive whether the law 
has or has not been observed, and if not, whether the nature 
of the contravention was such as to merit further action. 
On the other hand, O’Connor J. clearly laid it down that the 
power of inquiry must not be used if legal proceedings were 
m foot, and if used the Court would restrain such use. 
An interesting and important question arises in the case of 
the Commonwealth inasmuch as the judicial power is vested 
In Courts, defined by the Constitution. It is suggested by 
Professor Harrison Moore ! that the result of this enactment 
is to deprive the Parliament of any power to deal with matters 
which are judicial by means other than those of the Courts, 
and he deduces from the Huddart Parker case that while 
the Parliament could provide that certain matters could be 
inquired into by the Controller-General of Customs it could 
not empower the Controller to impose fines. Nor again, he 
arges, could the Parliament pass an ex post facto law making 
criminal acts which when done were lawful, though not 
avery retrospective act is an act of this prohibited class.? 
per Barton J.; at pp. 377 seq., per O'Connor J.; at pp. 381 seq., per 
[saacs J.; at p. 418, per Higgins J. Cox v. Coleridge. 1 B. & C. 37, was 
much relied on by the Court. 
‘ Op. cit, pp. 95 seq., 313 seq.; cf. Clark, Australian Constitutional 
Law, pp. 36-41; Quick and Garran, op. cit., pp. 720-2. In Canada there 
i8 no provision for judicial powers being separate from legislative, and 
the doctrine has not been applied ; see Lefroy, Legislative Power in Canada. 
pp. Ivi, 124, 279. 
* Cf. Donohoe v. Britz, (1904) 1 C. L. R. 391. at n. 402.