CHAP. V] TREATY RELATIONS 1125 
wealth Constitution Bills of 1891 and 1897 included treaties 
with external affairs in the powers of the Commonwealth 
Parliament, but the words were omitted in the final Act? 
In the correspondence arising out of the Vondel case. 
Mr. Deakin, as Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, 
argued that the omission of the words made no difference to 
the legal position, but whether that is correct it is impossible 
to say. In any case, it is clear that no treaty can be adhered 
to except with the assent and at the request of the Common- 
wealth Government. Nor does it seem doubtful that in 
matters within the legislative competence, whether exclusive 
or paramount, of the Commonwealth Parliament, it would 
be legitimate to adhere to any treaty at the request of the 
Commonwealth Parliament alone. On the other hand, it is 
impossible to be certain what is the position in cases in 
which the Commonwealth has no direct legislative power. In 
those cases, while the assent of the Commonwealth to any 
adherence is obviously constitutionally necessary, could the 
Commonwealth adhere without the assent of any particular 
state,” and if so would it have legislative power under s. 51 
(xxix) to make good its adherence ? It appears that where 
the Commonwealth has not exclusive or paramount power, 
1t might adhere for some states who so desire, and not for 
others, but where the Commonwealth has power, presumably 
it would adhere as a whole or not at all. But it is possible 
that in any case the Commonwealth would not be willing to 
adhere partially, as this might be held to result in a dis- 
crimination between the states, which is contrary both to the 
spirit and the letter of the Commonwealth Constitution. 
* Quick and Garran, Constitution of Commonwealth, pp. 622 seq., restrict 
its effect—probably rightly——to the power to deal with the appointment of 
external agents (e. g. the High Commissioner Act of 1909), the conduct of 
Commonwealth business alone, and such matters as extradition (though 
the latter power has been questioned as regards fugitive offenders ; see 
McKelvey v. Meagher, 4 C. L. R. 265), e.g. the Extradition Act, 1903. No 
Fugitive Offenders Act has yet been passed. The views of Lefroy (Law 
Quarterly Review, 1899, p. 291), Jethro Brown (ibid., 1900, p. 26), and 
Harrison Moore (ibid., p. 39) are clearly wrong. Cf. above, p. 802. 
* Cf. Harrison Moore, Commonwealth of Australia,” pp. 461, 462,