immigrants of Chinese or other nationalities to land upon 

 our shores, although, on the other hand, Australians as 

 British subjects have claimed the right to enter China, 

 somewhat inconsistently. 



The powers vested in the Governor of a State, as repre- 

 sentative of the Crown and head of the executive govern- 

 ment of such State, form the sole basis of constitutional 

 government in the dependencies of Great Britain exercising 

 responsible self-government under a proper "Constitution 

 Act." Now in considering first, the legal aspect of the 

 White Australia question, we need only refer to the well- 

 known case of Chun Teong Toy v. Musgrove (Collector of 

 Customs) under the Chinese Act, 1881, of Victoria. In 

 this case Toy, one of a number of Chinese immigrants, was 

 not allowed to enter that colony, although the poll-tax of 

 £10 was tendered on his behalf; the Supreme Court of 

 Victoria, being called upon, decided in applicant's favour, 

 and damages were awarded to the extent of £150. Chief 

 Justice Higinbotham was one of the minority of the Judges. 

 The case was however carried to the Privy Council, with 

 the result that in terms of the judgment of the Lord Chan- 

 cellor, " No authority exists for the proposition that an 

 alien has a legal right, enforceable by actiou, to enter 

 British territory." 1 The sovereignty of the colony, within 

 the limits of the Constitution Act of 1855, was thus upheld, 

 and the position taken up by the Collector of Customs in 

 interpreting the Chinese Act, as practically preventing 

 any excessive numbers of Chinese aliens from landing in the 

 colony and not merely involving the imposition of a tax on 

 those desirous of entering it was maintained. The pre- 



