1278 ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATION [PART V 
which have fallen very considerably short of half of the 
expenditure. 
There was difficulty in passing the Commonwealth legisla- 
tion * to give effect to the agreement, and a strong feeling 
developed itself in Australia in favour of the assumption 
of full responsibility for the defence of Australian ports 
and dockyards, and the protection of coasting trade. The 
Imperial Defence Committee expressed the opinion that the 
British fleet guaranteed Australia against invasion in force, 
and also against attack by a considerable squadron of 
armoured vessels, though admitting that the exigencies of 
war might require the withdrawal of the Australian Imperial 
squadron, and that Australia could not be guaranteed against 
attack by armoured commercial raiders, up to four in 
number, but such damage as they could inflict would not be 
of more than secondary importance. It was considered, 
however, by the naval advisers of the Commonwealth, that 
while the damage so inflicted might be of secondary impor- 
tance, it might nevertheless be of moment to Australia, and 
Mr. Deakin’s Government decided to commence building 
an Australian navy. Discussions arose with the Imperial 
Government as to the impogtant question of the control of 
the navy in time of peace and in time of war. The Australian 
Government desired to retain the constitutional power of 
placing the navy under the control of the Admiralty in 
time of war, while in time of peace they were desirous that 
the navy should remain completely under their own control? 
The position presented obvious difficulties, inasmuch as 
there was, to begin with, a doubt as to the limits of the 
power of the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate effec- 
tively for the government of the naval forces while beyond 
the territorial waters of the Commonwealth? It was true that 
- It was questioned by Mr. Higgins whether such expenditure was 
within the legal powers of the Commonwealth ; see Parliamentary Debates, 
1903, pp. 1997, 1998 ; Harrison Moore, Commonwealth of Australia,’ p. 553. 
* See Parl. Pap., Cd. 3523, pp. 128 seq., 469 seq.; 3524, pp. 38-71; 
Commonwealth Parl. Pap., 1901, No. 52, A. 12; 1905, No, 66; 1906. Nos. 
14, 81, 82; 1907-8, Nos. 6, 143, 144; 1908, Nos. 6, 37. 
% (Of. the dictum of Martin C.J. (N.S. W.) in The Brisbane Oyster Fishery 
Co. v. Emerson, Knox, 80, at p. 86.