abrogation by the States of their existing local Uuvs in so 

 far as these do not become ipso facto invalid by the passage 

 of the principal Federal enactment itself. Of course, the 

 various State legislatures may at any time subsequently 

 deem it necessary to re-enact such supplementary provis- 

 ions as they may consider essential." 



It may perhaps be deemed necessary hereafter for the 

 Federal authorities to enter into a conference with the 

 State Governments, including New Zealand, and then 

 endeavour to arrive at some satisfactory arrangement as 

 to the practicable limits of their respective spheres of 

 legislation. That the Royal Commission has not made such 

 a proposal is I think matter for regret. What needs to be 

 aimed at is that the Federal and State powers should be so 

 carefully balanced that either the one or the other can be 

 relied upon to prove efficacious and energetic in putting 

 down evil-doing — for it is a necessary measure of restriction 

 which should be aimed at by any proposed legislation. As 

 the Royal Commission' have put it: — "The assurance and 

 annuity funds of the companies transacting life assurance 

 and annuity business are essentially trust funds, and should 

 in the interests of the public be subject to a certain measure 

 of legislative control," and few will be found to combat 

 entirely this averment. It has been said by someone that 

 really " there is no twilight zone between the nation and 

 the State." There ought not to be any, but judging by 

 American experience under conditionssomewhat resembling 

 our own, we may conclude that "State rights and Federal 

 rights have been played off against one another by people 

 whose only desire was to evade effective control by either." 

 An important illustration is afforded by the Canadian case 

 of King v. Willis, Faber & Co., in which Mr. Justice Leet, 

 of the Province of Quebec, decided only a few months ago 



