in obtaining. Some of the other colonies had required the guarantee to be for each State individually, instead of for all in the aggregate, which would have thrown a far heavier obligation on the Commonwealth; but in view of the strong objections from New South Wales the lesser guarantee had been accepted.

Equality of Trade. In the clauses dealing with equality of trade, the prohibition of preferences was practically the same as before; but in place of empowering the Parliament to annul State laws derogating from freedom of inter-State trade, the new Bill contained an express provision that any law of the Commonwealth or a State which had the effect of derogating from such freedom should be null and void. Parliament was also empowered to establish an Inter-State Commission to maintain and execute, upon railways and inter-State rivers, the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce. The members of the Commission were to be appointed in the same way and on the same tenure as the Justices of the High Court, and the Commission was to have such necessary powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament should give it but with the important limitation that it was to have no powers in reference to any railway rates or regulations unless they were "preferential in effect and made and used for the purpose of drawing traffic to that railway from the railway of a neighbouring State." This was the first definite form of words proposed for the difficult purpose of forbidding unfair competition by the railways of the several States, whilst reserving to each State the control and general management of its own railway system.

State Debts. The clause empowering the Federal Parliament, with the consent of the States, to take over the whole or part of the debts of the States, was practically the same as in the Bill of 1891; though it seems that some members of the Finance Committee interpreted their instructions to the Drafting Committee as giving the power to take over the debts without such consent.-Conv. Deb., Adel., p. 453.

State Governors. In the chapter relating to "The States," the clause requiring that all communications by the Governors of the States to the Queen should be made through the Governor-General was omitted; as was also the clause empowering the State Parliaments to determine the mode of appointment of the Governors. Both these clauses were thought to be an unnecessary interference with the State Constitutions.

Amendment.-Lastly, an important change was made in the mode proposed for amending the Constitution. Every amending law was first to be passed, as before, by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament; but it was then to be submitted, not to State Conventions, but to the electors of the several States, and was not to be presented for the Royal assent unless approved by the electors of a majority of States, and unless the people of the approving States were also a majority of the people of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Barton having expounded the draft Bill, and explained that it represented not necessarily his own or his co-draftmen's views, but resolutions of the several Committees, no time was lost in general. debate, but the motion to go into Committee was carried, and Sir

Richard Baker, who had already been appointed Chairman of Committees, took the chair amidst cheers.

THE BILL IN COMMITTEE.-Proceedings in Committee opened with a motion by Sir John Forrest to postpone all clauses up to clause 52 in order that the Money Bill clauses might be taken first. The West Australian delegates, on account of a general election in that colony, would have to leave on 14th April. The burning question of the power of the Senate to deal with Money Bills was practically a battle between New South Wales and Victoria on the one hand, and the three less populous colonies on the other. As the Convention was constituted, the latter were in a majority; in the Constitutional Committee they had gained the day, and they could do so again in Convention. But with the West Australian delegates absent, the tables would probably be turned; hence their desire to settle the question at once. The propriety of taking this course had already been discussed some days before, when it had become clear that a large majority of the Convention would support Sir John Forrest's motion, and it was now carried with but little protest.

Money Bill Clauses.-Then, on 13th April, commenced the last great debate on the Money Bill clauses-a debate which, though it occupied but two days, was certainly the most momentous in the Convention's whole history. It established the recognition by the Convention of the fact that it was a negotiating, and not a legislative, body; that the decision of a majority of representatives within that Chamber went for nothing unless it were a decision which was acceptable to the people of all the colonies. Had that fact and its consequences not been recognized, the present prospects of Federation must have been wrecked, and at the outset there seemed some danger that this might happen. Sir John Forrest, for the small States, announced cheerfully and often that "we have a majority;" and it seemed for a time that the equal representation of the colonies in the Conventiona necessary principle in an assemblage of contracting States-would exercise an undue influence on the form of the Constitution. The recognition of the fact that they must defer to the wishes of majorities outside marked the turning point of the Convention, and the entry of the really federal spirit of compromise-a spirit which thenceforward grew, slowly but steadily, through all the sittings of the Convention, and spread from the Convention to the people.

The real debate began with an amendment by Mr. Reid to insert a prohibition against the Senate amending "laws imposing taxation," and thus revert to the "compromise of 1891." He was prepared to give the Senate-"not as an antiquated power, never to be used, but as a real living power"-the right of rejection; but the power of moulding finance must be with the House of Representatives. Sir George Turner followed, and said emphatically that he had gone a long way in conceding equal representation in the Senate, and that to give the Senate the power of amending taxation Bills was a proposition which he dare not submit to the people of Victoria, and which, if he did submit it, they would never accept. Sir John Downer, on the other side, argued that he was only asking for terms which existed in every legitimate Federation in the world. Mr. Kingston was the first

66

to stand out from his South Australian colleagues, and adhere to the compromise of 1891," which had been deliberately, arrived at after deep consideration, and any departure from which would imperil the cause of Federation. Mr. McMillan, on the other hand, differed from his New South Wales colleagues, on the ground that a revising Chamber, without the amending power, is ineffectual. With these exceptions the ranks of the opposing colonies seemed unbroken, till Mr. Glynn announced that as a representative, and not a delegate, he deemed it his duty to give way. Mr. Carruthers carried the war into the enemy's camp, proposed to deny the Senate even the power of suggesting amendments, and withdrew his assent to equal representation in the Senate. Later on Mr. Henry, the last speaker of the day, announced his secession from the fast dwindling majority, and thought that he could support Mr. Reid's amendment without emperilling State rights. Nevertheless, had the vote been taken that evening, the amendment would assuredly have been defeated. But Mr. Barton, thanks to a providential catarrh, induced the Committee to report progress, and a night's reflection turned the tide. When the Convention met next morning the battle was practically won, and Mr. Barton, clinched the victory by a forcible appeal to the representatives of the small States not to take a step which the people of the two great colonies would regard as an ultimatum, and which would inevitably imperil the chances of union. Mr. Kingston supported him, and scored a palpable hit by pointing out that the Parliament of South Australia, when dealing in Committee with the Bill of 1891, had raised no objection to the "compromise," and that there had never been any indication that the people disapproved of it. Two Tasmanians, Mr. Brown and Mr. Lewis, in the interests of Federation, declared for the amendment; and Mr. McMillan, for the same reason, determined to vote with his colleagues. On division, Mr. Reid's amendment was carried by 25 votes to 23.

The Federal Parliament.-The name "States Assembly" had already been rejected in favour of the more familiar "Senate;" and now Mr. Higgins proposed an amendment providing that each State should be entitled to a number of Senators to be determined by a sliding scale, intermediate between equal and proportional representation. His argument was that "State rights were protected by the limitation of federal powers in the Constitution, and that in the defined sphere of national legislation State lines ought to be obliterated. To this it was replied that the true justification of equal representation was, not that it was a theoretically ideal principle, but that it was a matter of terms and conditions between equal contracting parties. The amendment was defeated by 32 votes to 5. Soon afterwards Mr. Solomon proposed a similar sliding scale for the House of Representatives, but this was promptly negatived.

The question of the federal franchise raised some discussion. Mr. Holder first proposed an amendment to give every adult man and woman a vote; but this was criticized as being a rash experiment, and an attempt at dictation which would probably be resented in some of the colonies. It was negatived by 23 to 12. He then, by way of compromise, proposed that "no elector now possessing the right to

vote shall be deprived of that right"-the object being to ensure that the Federal Parliament, if it should exercise its powers of fixing a federal franchise, should not disfranchise the women of South Australia. This was strongly opposed, not only as being too wide, but also as preventing the Federal Parliament from framing a uniform franchise except by including women's suffrage. Mr. Holder eventually withdrew this in favour of a provision-drafted, though not approved, by Mr. Barton-which was carried on division by 18 votes to 15, and which now forms sec. 41 of the Constitution. In effect, it guarantees to every State elector a federal vote; so that the Federal Parliament, though it can give the right to vote at federal elections, cannot withhold that right from any elector of a State.

In the legislative powers of the Federal Parliament several changes were made. "Telephonic and other like services" were added to telegraphs; but an amendment by Mr. Holder, to limit the postal and telegraphic power to services "without the boundaries of the Commonwealth"-reserving to the States the control of internal and inter-State services-was defeated by 30 votes to 5. The power as to river fisheries was omitted. An effort by Mr. Higgins to insert a new sub-clause dealing with "conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of the State concerned" was negatived by 22 votes to 12.

The River Question.-The chief debate on Legislative powers was in connection with the sub-clause, inserted by the Constitutional Committee, "The control and regulation of navigable streams and their tributaries within the Cominonwealth and the use of the waters thereof." Mr. Gordon, who was responsible for the sub-clause, proposed to cast it into a somewhat less sweeping form by restricting it to the Rivers Murray, Darling and Murrumbidgee, and their tribu

taries.

The debate which followed, and which was only preliminary to a keener and more prolonged debate at the Melbourne sitting, needs for its explanation a short statement of the peculiarities of this great river system, and of the interests of the several colonies in it. The one great river system of Australia extends through four colonies -Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia. Its watershed embraces almost the whole of New South Wales, except the narrow strip east of the dividing range; whilst some of the sources of the Darling are in Queensland, and some of the sources of the Murray are in Victoria. The lower part of the united stream runs for some hundreds of miles through South Australia to the sea. Thus the chief catchment area is in New South Wales, and the outfall in South Australia. The peculiarities of these rivers, and the causes which affect their flow, are as yet very imperfectly understood. The Darling is intermittent; sometimes a broad navigable stream, stretching into immense backwaters and billabongs; sometimes a mere chain of waterholes. It is fed by the irregular tropical rainfalls of Queensland, and by the lighter and still more uncertain rains of New South Wales. The Murray has a more reliable source in the snows of the Great Divide, and is generally navigable as far as Echuca. In a country of vast distances, scanty rainfall, and unlimited thirst, these

rivers are of immense importance both as highways of commerce and as channels for the water necessary for the development and settlement of the land; whilst the problem of their best utilization for either purpose involves vast schemes and undertakings.

Of the colonies represented in the Adelaide debate, Tasmania was a disinterested onlooker, Victoria was concerned to a certain extent, and the real issue was between South Australia as claimant and New South Wales as defendant. South Australia's interest was mainly in the maintenance and improvement of a navigable highway of the utmost importance to her trade with New South Wales and Victoria; whilst New South Wales was impressed with the supreme importance of the waters of the rivers for the development of her territory. Extensive irrigation works in Victoria, and great conservation schemes in New South Wales, had alarmed South Australia; there had been much correspondence between the Governments and a Royal Commission in Adelaide, but South Australia's claim to definite riparian rights had not received much recognition.

Mr. Gordon's contention was that riparian rights between neighbouring States were based on natural justice, and recognized by international law; and that the great river system of Australia, with all its tributaries, could only be dealt with justly by federal control. There were riparian rights between States as well as between individuals, and they ought to be defined by the Federal Parliament. Mr. Carruthers, the New South Wales Minister for Lands, pointed out that the Australian rivers were unique, and English riparian laws utterly inapplicable. New South Wales was responsible for the settlement of territory, and could never be persuaded to give up control of the water. Mr. Gordon protested that he only asked for "a tribunal;" but Mr. Deakin pointed out that there were no settled principles which a tribunal could apply, and urged "the unwisdom of endeavouring to include in the Federal Constitution the settlement of a problem such as this-the acquirement, in point of fact, under this Constitution of a legal right where at present no legal right exists or is enforceable." The New South Wales delegates were prepared to grant federal control, for purposes of navigation, of rivers forming a boundary between States-practically, that is, of the Murray; but they protested against the Federal Government being able to impound waters wholly within a colony-against New South Wales being made, in Mr. Reid's phrase, "a catchment area for South Australia." John Downer and Mr. Symon were prepared to accept this, and Sir John Downer moved an amendment to make the sub-clause apply only to "rivers running through or on the boundaries of two or more States, so far as is necessary to preserve the navigability thereof." Mr. Reid, however, objected to the phrase "preserve the navigability," as being dangerous and ambiguous. To regulate navigation was one thing, to "preserve navigability" another; and in the case of rivers now intermittently navigable might mean anything. Sir John Downer's amendment was negatived by 24 votes to 10, and the subclause was then negatived by 25 votes to 10.

Sir

Mr. Gordon then proposed a new sub-clause, "The control of the navigation of the river Murray, and the use of the waters thereof.”