637
HOUSES
CHAP. vii] RELATIONS OF THE
gone into the ordinary estimates; the distinction between
hew salaries and new repairs or new works, and new motor-
cars for the Post Office Service, is certainly more subtle than
bonvincing or satisfactory.
The effect of the prohibition of tacking was considered
by the High Court of the Commonwealth in the famous case
With regard to the validity of the Excise Tariff, 1906 (No. 16).!
It was attempted in that case by the Parliament of the
Commonwealth to provide that a certain excise should be
levied on all agricultural implements manufactured in the
Commonwealth, with the proviso that the excise was not to
be levied if certain conditions as to labour intended to secure
reasonable remuneration for the workers were observed.
The High Court by a majority decided for many reasons that
the excise tariff was invalid. The Chief Justice, O’Connor and
Barton JJ. held that, even if otherwise valid, the Act which
if valid would have the effect of regulating the conditions
of manufacture would be invalid as dealing with matters
Other than duties of excise contrary to s. 55 of the Con-
Stitution. Higgins and Isaacs JJ. did not agree with this
Ontention, and urged that the Act was valid.
In general legislation the Upper House is at least the equal
of the Lower. For example, such important Bills as the
Navigation Bill have been introduced there, and all Bills
“ent up are freely amended, while the Upper House does
Dot concern itself much with party ties. Thus in 1909 the
Upper House rejected the Bill to arrange for the taking over
of the northern territory of South Australia, despite all
the efforts of Mr. Deakin to secure the passing of the Bill.
The Upper House is also decidedly inclined to academic
debating, and exercised its favourite occupation in 1910,
When the Senate spent valuable time in passing a resolution
0 favour of women’s suffrage for the benefit of the Prime
Minister of England, which Mr. Asquith on its receipt by
\ The King v, Barger, (1908) 6 C, L. R.41. On the other hand, the penalty
Clauses in the Customs Act, 1901, which provides the general machinery of
Customs administration, are not taxation; see Stephens v. Abrahams
0 V. LR. 201, at p, 299,
