38 ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 
what would be really a dependency of the French empire. It would, 
perhaps, be quite in accord with the ambitious aspirations of Australians 
were they to substitute the words “ United Australia” for a word of 
dubious significance like ‘‘ commonwealth.” \ 
In leaving to the “states” the right of appointing or electing their 
‘“ governors ’—not lieutenant governors as in Canada—we see also the 
desire to follow the methods of the states of the American republic ; and 
we may be sure that, when once the commonwealth is in operation, it will 
not be long before the heads of the executive authority will be chosen by 
popular vote, and we shall see the commencement of an extension of the 
democratic elective principle to all state administrative, executive and 
even judicial officers, now appointed by the crown under the advice of a 
ministry responsible to parliament for every appointment, and other acts 
of administrative and executive authority. 
We see also the imitation of the constitution of the American repub- 
lic in making the central government alone one of enumerated powers, 
and leaving the residuary power in the “states.” The word “ parliament ” 
is also generally applied to the legislative bodies of the federal and state 
governments, another illustration of the dominant influence of the respec- 
tive colonies—hereafter “states’”’—in the proposed constitution. 
We see the same American influence in the provision that, “when a 
law [sic] passed by the parliament” [sic] is presented to the governor- 
general “ for the queen’s assent,’ he may ‘return it to the parliament 
[sic] with amendments which he may desire to have made in such law ” 
[sic]. One cannot understand the reasoning which justifies the giving 
of such a power to the executive head : it is quite irreconcilable with 
the principles and practice of responsible government. The governor- 
general must, in all cases affecting the government of the colony, act under 
the advice of ministers. In this case, however, he is to assume the dubious 
position held by similar officers before there was a ministry responsible to 
him and the two houses for all legislation. One may also humbly inquire 
how a bill becomes a “law” before it has received the assent of the queen, 
through the governor-general. When did “parliament” mean only the 
two houses in any legal or constitutional document ? Such loose phraseo- 
logy might do for common parlance, but not for a proposed statute, especial- 
ly when in a former clause “ parliament” is said to “ consist of her majesty, 
a senate and a house of representatives.” We think that here at least the 
draughtsmen of the bill might advantageously have copied the correct 
language of the American republican constitution, which never uses “law ” 
in so incorrect a sense, if they were not prepared to accept the British 
North American Act as their model, though it was prepared under so high 
an authority as Lord Thring. 
Again, while the bill provides for a supreme and other federal courts 
to be appointed and removed by the authorities of the commonwealth— 
