308 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART IV 
a subject of the Queen resident in such other state. This 
section has not yet been found to apply to any case, though 
it has been invoked. But in one case! the test of the 
discrimination made was found to be domicile, not residence : 
in that case it was contended that the section was violated by 
the imposition of a specially low rate of duty on the estate 
of a deceased person domiciled in a state as compared with 
the rate on the estate of a deceased person not so domiciled, 
and the High Court found that the discrimination was valid, 
because it did not rest on residence, but on domicile, and the 
term residence in the Constitution could not be assumed to 
mean domicile, which was a very different thing from mere 
residence. Besides, it was pointed out that as in the case 
of a domiciled person the power of the state extended to 
taxing property wherever situate, the regulation for a lower 
rate was in itself a reasonable one. 
§ 8. NEw STATES 
By s. 121 of the Constitution the Parliament is at liberty 
to admit new states on such conditions as it shall prescribe, 
and to provide as it thinks fit for the representation in the 
Parliament of such states, no limit being assigned to such 
representation. It may also, under s. 122, make laws for 
the government of any territory surrendered by any state 
and accepted by the Commonwealth, including such represen- 
tation as may be thought fit in Parliament, and the same 
power exists with regard to territory surrendered by the 
Crown to the Commonwealth. By s. 123 it is empowered, 
with the consent of a State Parliament, to increase or diminish 
the boundaries of a state, but such consent is also required 
from a majority of electors in the state voting on the question ; 
if that consent is given it also authorizes the Parliament 
to make provisions regarding the effect of such increase, 
decrease, or alteration of territory, the clause being borrowed 
from the Imperial Act of 1871 regarding Canada. A new 
' Davies and Jones v. The State of Western Australia, (1904) 2 C. L. R. 
29, at pp. 38, 89; Lee Fay v. Vincent, 7 C. L, R. 389. Cf, Harrison Moore, 
sp. cit., p. 334; Stow, Commonwealth Law Review, iii. 97: Adcock v 
Aarons, 5 W. A, L. R. 140, at p. 146.