[368 
THE JUDICIARY [PART VI 
of its federal jurisdiction should be final and conclusive 
except in so far as an appeal might be brought to the High 
Court. 
The conflict between the Privy Council and the High 
Court which had been anticipated was not long delayed. In 
the income-tax cases Deakin v. Webb and Lyne v. Webb 1 
the High Court decided that the salary of a federal officer 
was not liable to state income-tax, overruling a decision to 
the contrary of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The High 
Court also declined to give the necessary certificate to enable 
the matter to be carried to the Privy Council, though the 
Premiers of the Australian states were anxious that the 
matter should be taken there, and O’Connor J. had no 
hesitation in saying that, if it were found that by the current 
of authority in England it was likely that, should a case 
go to the Privy Council, some fundamental principle involved 
might be decided in a manner contrary to the true intent of 
the Constitution as the Court believed it to be, it would be 
their duty not to allow the case to go to the Privy Council, 
and thus to save this Constitution from a risk of what they 
would consider a misinterpretation of its fundamental 
principles. 
On the other hand, in the case of Webb v. Outirim ® the 
Privy Council held that a State Parliament could tax the 
salary of a federal officer. The case had come before the 
Supreme Court of Victoria? which had followed Deakin v. 
Webb, but which granted leave to appeal to the Privy 
Council under the Order in Council of June 9, 1860, despite 
the provisions of ss. 38 and 39 of the Judiciary Act, 1903. 
In reversing the judgement of the Supreme Court the Privy 
Council dealt with the objection which had been made as to 
the hearing of the appeal at all by the Privy Council. They 
accepted the view taken by Hodges J.* when the same 
+ 1 C. L. R. 585, overruling sn re Income Tax Acts, 29 V. L. R. 748. In 
Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving,[1905] A. C. 369, the issue was avoided. 
* [1907] A. C. 81. So the Supreme Court of Victoria in Wollaston’s case, 
28 V. L. R. 357. 
3719051 V. L. R. 463. 
4 Thid., at p. 467.