FEDERAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. 489 



amid a limitless ocean of doubt, over which generations of lawyers 

 have floated, and generations more will float, to affluence. And 

 still it is roughly true to say that nearly every new departure in 

 legislation by Congress of any importance is challenged in the courts > 



These facts prove a good deal more than the fallibility of con- 

 stitutional lawyers. They are attributable to some extent, no doubt, 

 to the infirmity of human language. They are attributable far 

 more, however, to the fundamental difficulty of defining and clas- 

 sifying the various subject matters of legislative activity. Our 

 social and industrial conditions to-day are so interwoven with one 

 another, so interdependent, that it is almost impossible beforehand 

 to assign any precise and definite limits to a power of legislating with 

 regard to a given subject matter. Legislation which in 

 one aspect deals with one subject, in another aspect 

 deals with another subject. Legislation, which in its direct 

 effects relates to this branch of social affairs, may have 

 almost equally direct effects on that. To say that a Legislature 

 shall have power to pass laws with respect to trade and commerce, 

 or industrial conditions, or taxation, is not to end, but only to begin 

 a discussion. The reports of our High Court and of the Supreme 

 Court of the United States abound with illustrations of this. Our 

 Constitution and also that of the United States provides that the 

 Federal Parliament may make laws with respect to trade and com- 

 merce among the States. How far does this enable the Parliament 

 to control the wages and conditions of the persons employed in 

 inter-State commerce ? Our central legislature has authority to- 

 legislate with regard to taxation. Does this authorise it to impose 

 penal taxes on a course of conduct otherwise outside its jurisdiction, 

 of which it disapproves ? It can pass laws relating to trade marks. 

 Does this power include the right to authorise the so-called " Union 

 Label " ? These are some of the questions that have been already 

 raised and discussed in our own court. The number of similar 

 questions which may arise, under a Federal Constitution such as 

 that of Australia or the United States, is limited only by the in- 

 genuity of lawyers. It may safely be said that there is hardly any 

 important and novel exercise of legislative power by the central 

 parliament in either case which is safe from challenge on legal 

 grounds. Similar questions arise, or may arise, though not to the 

 same extent, with respect to the exercise of legislative powers by 

 the States. 



These questions can only be determined by recourse to the 

 Courts — the authority ordained by the Constitution for restricting 

 the competing legislative and executive bodies of the Federation 

 to their prescribed sphere. Fortunately we have Courts in this 

 country to which we can resort with the highest confidence. We 

 know that these questions will be settled with all that authority 

 and success which the ability, high character, complete impartiality 

 and long experience of our Judges secure. Moreover, their dis- 

 cussion in the course of argument and their penetrating and careful 

 elucidation in the judgments of the High Court have undoubtedly 



