t- 
 
 -r^\ 
 
 ■ I .•^••■.. J.-, 
 
 i^' 
 
 
24579 
 
 LETTERS 
 
 ON THE INTERPRETATION OK THE 
 
 mi\kl COMpTITUTION 
 
 (AI.I.RI) 
 
 THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT, 1867 
 
 BY 
 
 T. J. J. LORANOER 
 
 Si ris pitffin. fiiifii In lima. 
 
 SKCoX!) AND Tmi{|) F.mTKHS 
 
 MONTWKAI. 
 
 MKArCHKNIIN \- VAI,()IS, Muokski.i i k> \ni. I-kimirv 
 
 2."i<iftinl 25H, St. Piiiil Stn'.-t. 
 
 t 
 
■-r-.A^.^*^- 
 
 ••"oniu. Ifi33-7J00-7.17 
 
 Tn 
 
 1)863 
 
 « de la Villc de Montreal 
 
 ■21T,7\) 
 
 - II- 
 
SECOND LETTER 
 
 SUMMARY. — f. In countries whoro the form of novornment is ftxlorative, 
 as in the Dominion of Canada, tho Constitution lias tIinH»s<iurces 
 of interpretation— the legislative j)owor,tiioexncntive and tluijudi- 
 triary. Practical ai>plication of this doctrine to the juridical 
 interpretation of tho Canadian Constitution. — II. The Constitution 
 has a fourth source of interpretation in the jurisconsults. Motives 
 which induced the autiior of those letters to undertake the work. 
 — III. Utility of judicial decisions on constitutional conflicts in 
 the interpretation of the Constitution. Dissitrtation on the msiKH*- 
 tive jwwera of the Federal Tarlianient and of tho Ix^jfislature^ to 
 pass tavern license laws. — IV. Text of the jud^niont rendered on 
 the 15th of Docenilior, 1888, by the Privy Council in the case of 
 H(Kl|^e (VI. tho (iueen.— V. Ccmclusion from the present dissertation 
 and application of that jud<;ment. 
 
 In countries governed by a. single legislative body, the 
 
 authority of the law is supreme and no person can call its 
 
 lawfulness in question. Such is the principle that prevails in 
 
 England. Before confederation the same principle was in 
 
 force in the colonies of British North America, whoro laws of 
 
 the legislatures not disallowed commanded absolute obedience 
 
 from the populations and exacted a rigorous execution from 
 
 the tribunals. In unitary countries having a single government, 
 
 questions as to the validity, or, to employ the usual term, the 
 
 const Unt'mmlify of the law are unknown. It is otherwise in 
 
 confedevated States, such as the Dominion of Canada, where 
 
 the legislative power is divided into two parts, one of which 
 
 5 
 
66 Letters on the interpretation of tfie [Second 
 
 belongs to the central or federal government, and the other, to 
 local or provincial governments. So it is with the executive 
 power. . - 
 
 It necessarily follows from this division of powers that the 
 act of each legislature and of each executive raises a question 
 UH to the competence of the body passing it to do so, and may 
 thus create a conflict of authority between the parliament and 
 the legislatures, the central and the local governments. Before 
 receiving the definitive sanction of authority and being put 
 into execution by the tribunals, the competence of the law 
 must be subjected to three tests, each of which implies an inter- 
 pretation of the Constitution. The first test is made by the legis- 
 lative body itself, which is called upon to j udge of its competence 
 and before which every bill rai.ses implicitly the preliminary 
 question of jurisdiction. At the introduction of the bill, that 
 body must inquire whether the Constitution gives it comi)e- 
 tence, and to solve that question, that Constitution must be 
 interpreted. (.)nly when the answer is favorable to the bill, 
 does it come up for debate. To judge of its powers, the legisla- 
 ture, therefore, makes itself the interpreter of the Constitution. 
 
 The legislative power is thus the first of the constitutional 
 interpreters. (1). 
 
 The second interi>reter of the Constitution is the executive 
 authority which, before putting the law into execution, must be 
 convinced of its constitutional value and, in that sense, inter- 
 pret the (Constitution. Tt is true that, according to the usage 
 of responsible government, the ministers who advised the 
 
 (1) The r<}/(' of iiitori)rotor of tho Constitution thus attributed to legis- 
 latures, to executive govoruuients and to tribunals is adopted froai.Iudgo 
 Story, on the American Constitution, n. 87H et neq. 
 
Letter.] Federal ConsiUutiun. '- ' ► W 
 
 sanction of the law cannot oppose its execution, and tliat the 
 second question of interpretation is solved by the first and con- 
 founded with it. It is, however, no less true that, in the abstract 
 theory of powers, the legislative body and the executive author- 
 ity are distinct, forming two separate branches of the public 
 domain, and that, for the execution of any law, the latter must 
 be satisfied, by the interpretation of the Constitution, that the 
 former was competent to pass it. 
 
 It may, moreover, hapi)en that the mode adopted by the 
 executive for putting a law into operation is not warranted by 
 the Constitution. Just as the question of competence to pass 
 a law comes up in the legislative body, so before any particular 
 mode for its execution is adopted, the question of competence 
 of that mode must come before the executive council. And 
 here again it is l)y the interpretation of the Constitution that 
 a solution is found. 
 
 But the law, thus .sanctioned and (enforced, has not yet 
 received that definitive and final sanction which securer it 
 from contestation. To be put in force by the tribunals, the 
 latter must be satisfied as to its constitutionality, that is, as to 
 the competence of the legislative power to j:>as8 it, and the mode 
 employed by the executive power to put it into execution. If 
 one or other, or both of these qualifications be lacking, the tri- 
 bunals must not carry the law to execution. And since it is on 
 the interpretation of the Constitution that they rest their deci- 
 sion, it follows that thejudicial body is the third interpreter. 
 
 Thus it is evident that the Constitution has necessarily three 
 public and authentic interpreters. But. though they all possess 
 the same character, they are not invested with equal authority. 
 It is the judiciary that judges ultimately as to the soundness 
 
68 letters on the interpretation of the [Second 
 
 of the interpretation put by the others, and pronources defini- 
 tively on the constitutionality of their uct8. The nature of fede- 
 ral rule, which is a rule of contention and conflict of authority, 
 of poasible encroachment by one legislative body on the domain 
 of the other, — nece.ssary result of obscurity in the contitutions 
 themselves, of difliculties in interpreting them and often of 
 l)olitical ambition and passions, — makes it clear, therefore, 
 that there must be a sovereign tribunal or arbiter, invested with 
 authority to judge these questions in the last resort, and inves- 
 ted with the task of eliciting from the Constitution its true 
 meaning and of interpreting it with supreme and definitive 
 authority. Now where shall we find this final arbiter and judge 
 of the Constitution, if not in the judiciary ? 
 
 In principle it matters little whether that power be exercised 
 by a tribunal clothed with special authority to judge constitu- 
 tional cases, or by the ordinary tribunals. The mode of appli- 
 cation is of little consequence. 
 
 In some federations it is upon such special tribunals that the 
 duty of deciding constitutional questions devolves. Such was the 
 case with the (Jerman C/onfederation which came to an end in 
 1866, and the same usage is in force in the Swiss Confederacy 
 of the present day. In confederate states which have no such 
 special tribunals, or in those where the law is silent on that 
 point, that duty, with the other judicial attributes, is incumbent 
 on the common law tribunals. 
 
 In the United States of America, the Supreme Court judges, 
 in last resort, questions of constitutional law which, however, 
 are first taken before the inferior federal or State tribunals. 
 These questions are not, nevertheless, tlie main object of the 
 suit, inasmuch as there is no special court to which an origi- 
 
letter.] Federal OnistiUition. 69. 
 
 nary recourse may be had to declare unconstitutional a law of 
 CongresH or of any of the States. It is, generally speaking, only 
 incidentally and in the course ofa suit that, on the objection of 
 one or other of the parties, the question is raised as to the cons- 
 titutionality of the law invoked by either of the two, or as to 
 the conflict between a State law and the law of Congress or vice 
 vend. The same rule holds in the provinces of the Canadian 
 Confederation, and especially in the province of Quebec. 
 
 At first sight, wc might wonder at the silence of the consti- 
 tution on this pjint. The authors of Confederation might) 
 one would think, have expected such conflicts between the two 
 legislative l)odies and have provided a special plan for their 
 settlement. There is, nevertheless, nothing in the resolutions 
 of the Quebec Conference, or in the Constitution, which denotes 
 any such anticipation. The only arrangement that has refer- 
 ence to the tribunals is that which is found in clause 101, which 
 enacts "thut whenever occasion shall re<iuire, the Parliament 
 " of Canada may provide for the con.stitution, maintenance 
 " and organization of a general court of appeal for Canada and 
 " for the establishment of any additional courts for the better 
 " administration of the laws of Canada," and it is certain that 
 this clause has no particular reference to the settlement of 
 constitutional questions. 
 
 In virtue of the first portion of this clause, the federal par- 
 liament was able to establish the Supreme Court and to confer 
 upon it an appellate jurisdiction ; and in virtue of the second 
 clause, it created the Court of Exchequer, whose jurisdiction 
 extends to the collection of the revenue of the crown, the fines 
 due to it by the laws of Canada and other objects enumerated 
 in the law for the creation of that tribunal. But there the federal 
 
70 h'UerH on the interpretali.on of the [Second 
 
 authority onds. It does not inci'iilo the right to erect a tribunal 
 for the settlement of conflicts (>f power, for these are decided 
 not by the laws of Canada but by the constitution itself. 
 
 It is true that constitutional ([UPstions may bo brought 
 before the Supreme ('ourt of Canada, but that is in virtue of 
 its general nppellateattributes in causes within its competence, 
 and not on any ground of privilege. Tf the causes in which these 
 •lucstions are raised are such as would come before the Supreme 
 ('ourt in its appellate jurisdiction, that is, if in the province of 
 Quebec, the suit amounts to two thousand dollars, if it is a case 
 brought before the Exchequer Court, if it is a marnhmvn, a 
 habeas corpim, or a (luestion of municipal by-law, that 
 tribunal will take ctignizance of it. But in other coses, tliey will 
 stop within the jurisdiction pertinent to the cause in whicli 
 they are an incident, just as every other accessory follows the 
 course of its principal. 
 
 The legal theory on which the jurisdiction of tribunals on the 
 constitutionality of the laws is based, is the following: Every 
 law that is unconstitutional, for want of authority in the body 
 that passed it, is null, irreparably and absolutely void. Tt is a 
 nonentity, p?'o nihilo hahetur. Tt is the same with unconstitu- 
 tional acts of the executive power, and whenever the judiciary 
 is called upon to take cognizance of one or the other, its duty 
 is — not to annul them — what has no existence cannot be 
 annulled — but to declare them null and non-exi.stent. The 
 first condition of a judicial recourse is that it be founded on a 
 law in force. 
 
 As we have seen, in the absence of a special tribunal or of a pro- 
 cedure organized for denouncing these nullities to the ordinary 
 tribunals by demande principale, they are invoked during the suit 
 
I^ter.] Federal (hmtUtUion. ' It*^ 
 
 by tho advorao party opposed to that whioh founds its claim on 
 the law or act clttiined to he null. If an action or prosecution 
 before a civil or mixed triltunal, is based on a law or act tainted 
 with unconstitutionality, the defence, in denouncinp that un- 
 constitutionality, and inclniniing thai tliPsuit should bedecided 
 without regard to that unconstitutional law or act, obtains the 
 dismissal of the suit, without even being bound to put on spe- 
 cial conclusions to thateffect. If such unconstitutional law or act 
 is invoked by the defendant, the plaintinhas the same right in 
 reply, and so on through all the stages of the case. All judges, 
 Avhatever be their competence, civil, criminal or mixed, or 
 whatever be their rank in the judicial hierarchy, from the com- 
 missioner of the lowest courts and the justice of the ytence to 
 the judge of the Queen's Bench, have like jmwcr to reject an 
 unconstitutional law and to take no account of it. Tf the princi- 
 pal cause in which the difficulty arises is appealable or suscep- 
 tible of recourse to a higher court by ccrtwrari, the constitu- 
 tional question raised follows the same rule ; but it does so 
 not by virtue of a special privilege, but by virtue of the appeal- 
 able or evocable character of the main cause. Tf that main 
 cause be neither appealable nor evocable, the judgment of tho 
 inferior tribunal on the incidental point will also be final. 
 
 On the other hand, the want of appeal from one court to ano- 
 ther is not irreparable, since, definitively every colonial case 
 can be brought before the Privy Council, by virtue of the pre- 
 rogative of the Sovereign to revise every judgment rendere<l 
 throughout the empire, whatever be the jurisdiction of the 
 tribunal that rendered it. Thus, although no statutory appeal is 
 allowed to the Privy Council from the judgments of the Supreme 
 Court, they are frequently allowed, especially in constitutional 
 cases, and what takes place in relation to the Supreme Court 
 
72 Letters on the iiilei'jtretatwn of the [Second 
 
 may also happen in the case of the provincial courts, deciding 
 in last resort. Tt was, perhaps, to avoid the suspicion of trying 
 to abridge the royal prerogative that the authoi's of Confeder- 
 ation did not erect a tribunal for constitutional questions. 
 
 II. 
 
 IN THE .TURISCONSUI.TS THE CONSTITl ^TON HAS A FOmTH SOITRCE 
 OF INTERPRETATION. THE REASONS WHICH INDUCED THE 
 AUTHOR TO WRITE THESE LETTERS. 
 
 We have seen that the Constitution lias necessarily three 
 official and authoritative interpreters, — the legislative power, 
 the executive and the judiciary. It has also a fourth, the juris- 
 consult. 
 
 Under the federal regime, which is a limited government, 
 with defined powers, in order to paralyse the absolutism of 
 the legislative power, to prevent the central and provincial 
 governments from encroaching on one another, and to decide 
 such conflicts of authority as may arise between them, the 
 judiciary exercises a necessary supervision over both. From 
 another point of view, although the legislative and the 
 executive must yield to the judiciary, and although the law 
 which has been pronounced unconstitutional remains in- 
 valid, the judgment which has declared it to be so does not 
 the less, on that account, create a conflict between two great 
 bodies of the State. Those conflicts, if they be too numerous, 
 are of a character to create an unhappy antagonism between 
 powers, to alarm public opinion and to cast suspicion on the 
 correctness of judgments. Too frequent decisions in favour of 
 
Letter.] Federal Cbmtitiition. '■ '. * ' 73 
 
 the same legislative body, whether it be the central or the pro- 
 vincial government, may arouse suspicions of partiality on 
 the part of the tribunals towards the body too often victorious 
 in the judicial issue. 
 
 On the other hand, their too frequent accord may excite sus- 
 picions of connivance, and cause the judiciary to be charged 
 with excessive complaisance towards legislatures or govern- 
 ments — especialy towards the federal government, on account 
 of its patronage. Again, the judiciary must not become 
 absolute, for in all branches of social order absolutism and 
 despotism are near akin. 
 
 For all these reasons, a rational supervision of legislation, 
 and the discussion of the judgments of the courts are necessary 
 to guarantee to society a right administration of justice, and to 
 ensure it against the abuses of power. This supervision and 
 this discussion constitute a permanent appeal from the tribu- 
 nals authorized by the Constitution to a tribunal which, though 
 not so in the terms, is so in the spirit of the law — the 
 tribunal of public opinion. The grievance which is the object 
 of this appeal is the violation of the Constitution by one or 
 several of the three powers, sometimes by the three at the same 
 tim*); and the advocates who are entrusted with this appeal are 
 the jurisconsults, whom w..^ have characterized as the fourth 
 source of constitutional interpretation. These private interpre- 
 ters, — not invested with juridical authority, but who wield in 
 the legal world a moral power e(iual, sometimes superior, to 
 that of the public interpreters ; whose disinterested interpre- 
 tation — the result of study — carries with it the guarantee of 
 its impartiality and good faith ; who are not legislators, but are 
 the counsellors of legislators, not judges but the witnesses 
 
74 Letters on the interpretntion of the [Second 
 
 called upon to give evidence for or against the judges — are, 
 in certain respects, the real guardians of the Constitution. 
 
 What would be the science of the law and the moral authority 
 of the judgments inspired by its teachings, without the works of 
 the jurisconsults? The texts of the 'Roman laws were no more 
 known, the senatus-consults, the plebiscites and the edicts 
 of the pretors were lost or doomed to oblivion, when Justinian 
 by co-ordinating the writings of the great legal interpreters of 
 the law and the respnnsa prudent iiim, compiled the body of the 
 civil law. 
 
 Najioleon desired, but happily in vain, to prohibit any com- 
 mentaries being written on his Code, so as to avoid, as he 
 said, the obscuration of the text by the chicanes (Tavocats. 
 Yet, if his Code has remained the finest monument of legal 
 science in modern times ; if many nations of Europe retained it, 
 after they had been delivered from the armed force which first 
 imposed it on them ; in a word, if it has become the prototype 
 of European and American codification, is it not, in a great 
 measure, to its commentators, that that success is due ? 
 
 And for ourselves, can we deny the services rendered to legal 
 practice and to jurisprudence by our reporters and by the few 
 jurisconsults who have written on our law, however modest 
 and fragmentary their works may be ? Doctrinal interpreta- 
 tion is to authoritative interpretation what the theory of a 
 science is to the practice of an art. Tt guides, illustrates and 
 perfects it. Let us close this digression by saying that the 
 jurisconsults are in the legal world what the journalists are in 
 politics — the fourth estate ! 
 
 The jurisconsults have no longer, in modern times, the 
 autliority which they enjoyed in the early ages of Rome, Avhen 
 
I^etter.] Federal Oomtitution. - L ^ 75 
 
 they formed Ji privileged class and wore invested with poli- 
 tical power ; nor that which, under the name ofprudentcs, they 
 possessed in the days of Imperial Rome, when they were at 
 once rhetoricians, philosophers and advisers to the prince. 
 There was even a time when, in certain circumstances, their 
 responses had the force of law. (*) 
 
 It wa.s one of those jurisconsults who said : It is with good 
 reason that we are said to be invested with a certain sacred 
 character. We revere j ustice, we disseminate the notion of the 
 just and the unjust, and distinguish what is efjuitable from 
 what is ini(iuitous, what is lawful from what is unlawful. [Cujvh 
 inerito <[im nos sacerdoten nppellet ; juHtitiain naimiue colimva, et 
 Itoni et cpqui notitiam j>rojUem,ui\ mjumn af> inifpio scparnnten ; lici- 
 tnm ah iUicito discei'vcntes.'] 
 
 Modern jurisconsults do not pretend to this excellence, hut 
 they have not abandoned the right any more than they shrink 
 from the duty — right and duty consecrated by ten centuries of 
 noble traditions and of devotion to legal science — of ofi'ering the 
 help of their studies and the tribute of their lucubrations to 
 the interpretation of the laws whenever the public welfare 
 claims them at their hands. Now, has an occasion at once more 
 favorable and more urgent ever presented itself to the juris- 
 consults of Canada, of proving their zeal for the sacerdotium 
 spoken of by the Roman jurisconsult and their devotion to the 
 
 (*) It is probablp tliat the answers of tlie jurisi'oiisults had the author- 
 ity of law under Valentinian II 1, inasmuch as he ('ontirnied the wri- 
 tings of Uaius, of Illpiin.of TauhiN, of I'ajHuian and otliers; and forbade 
 the judfjes to dissent in <|ueKtion« of law from the opinion of those writers. 
 To ol)viate the inconvenience that niijrht arise from diversity of opinion, 
 on the same question, lie r>niered tliat in sucli a case, the judjies should 
 defer to the majority ami, if the division were eijual, that the opinion 
 of Papinian should prevail. — Ferridre: Iflftoiri <hi Droit Homuin,p. \\H\. 
 
76 Letters on the wierpretation of the [Second 
 
 interests of the country, than lending the aid of their pens to the 
 solution of difficulties of interpretation to which a Constitution 
 founded on new principles and destined to create a revolution 
 in the public law of British North America has already given 
 rise in the legislative bodies and in the tribunals? Has a nobler 
 cause ever solicited a nobler ardour ? 
 
 For myself, to whom a timely retirement from the judicial 
 career has left the leisure for it, and the exercise of functions 
 connected with the legislation of the province seemed to pres- 
 cribe it as a duty, I accepted, or rather I imposed on myself, 
 without hesitation, this mission as arduous as it is glorious. I 
 am not blind to the obstacles that T shall have to overcome in 
 the accomplishment of this task so bristling with difficulties 
 — a task which, moved solely by the ambition to be useful, I have 
 undertaken without fear and in which I hope to persevere 
 without weakness. T am aware that, sailing on a new sea which 
 is studded with shoals, it will not be easy for me to avoid mis- 
 takes, and that, traversing a route as yet unknown, it will be 
 almost impossible for me not to lose my way; but, strong in 
 the consciousness that, though T may deceive myself, T shall 
 not have attempted to deceive others, and animated by the sole 
 desire to arrive at the truth, T will claim from all the kind 
 recognition that is due to good will. From those who approve 
 of my undertaking, I shall ask indulgence for involuntary 
 errors ; and from those who condemn it, the justice which good 
 intentions deserve. 
 
Letter.] ■; . 'V r Federal Comtitntion. v \. , ' ->: 77 
 
 III. 
 
 UTIMTY OF JUDICIAL HECISIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAI- CONFLICTS IN 
 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. DISCU&SION OF 
 THE RESPECTIVE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL PARLIAMENT AND 
 THE LEGISLATURES TO PASS TAVERN LICENSE LAWS. 
 
 As in this interpretation of the Constitution, which should 
 come to pass in the same manner as the ordinary interpreta- 
 tion of other laAvs, that is, by the exposition of doctrine and 
 the discussion of precedents, the conflicts raised between the 
 legislative bodies themselves and between them and the tri1)U- 
 nals, must occupy a large place ; and, as in order to invest them 
 with actuality, the problems raised should be solved just Avhen 
 they present themselves, such questions deserve some attention 
 in these Letters, even at the risk of interrupting their didactic 
 order. 
 
 Thus, the discussion of the conflict raised between the provin- 
 cial license law and the law passed on the same subject by the 
 federal parliament (where a bill for its abrogation was only 
 lately introduced), — a law of which I have maintained else 
 where the unconstitutionality — will supersede in the present 
 Letter the discussion commenced in the preceding one. It is by 
 the application of the rules there set up for assigning to the 
 federal parliament and the legislature their respective attri- 
 butes of jurisdiction, that this conflict must be terminated. 
 
 The jurisdiction of parliament embraces matters of common 
 interest to the entire Dominion ; that of the legislatures 
 extends only to matters of special interest to each of the pro- 
 vinces. The powers of the two bodies are e(iually divided into 
 
78 Letters on the iiUerpretaiion of the [Second 
 
 two categories: powers specially or exclusively assigned to 
 each of them by articles 91 and 92, and general powers assigned 
 to parliament by the leading clause of the first of these articles 
 and to the provinces by paragraph sixteen of the latter. There are 
 only four classes of subjects on which parliament and the 
 provinces have concurrent power of legislation, in certain cir- 
 cumstances : direct taxation, agriculture, immigration and 
 public works. In all other cases the powers are mutually 
 exclusive. This last inference is drawn from the restric- 
 tive language of article 91, which says: "The exclusive 
 legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to 
 all matters coming within the classes of subjects hereinafter 
 enumerated," and from the equally restrictive language of 
 article 92, to the effect that " in each province the legislature 
 may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within 
 the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated." 
 
 The power to grant tavern licenses and to make them the 
 object of a law cannot at the same time belong to the Parlia- 
 ment and to the legislatures, and as whichever of the two bodies 
 it is as.signed to excludes the other, one or other of the two 
 laws, that of the Dominion or that of the province of Quebec, 
 is unconstitutional and ultra vires. 
 
 Since article 92 says that the legislature of each province 
 may exclusively make laws relative to " shop, saloon, tavern, 
 auctioneer and other licenses," it is evident that this power, 
 as proved by the text itself, belongs to the provinces only, and 
 to the exclusion of parliament. 
 
 The federalists, who in vain deny this power, elude its 
 application by a sophism. They say : supposing that the pro- 
 vinces had the power to pass laws relating to licenses, the ninth 
 
Letter.] Federal (hmtUution. ■-, . 79 
 
 ^ paragraph of article 92, which recognizes that they have such 
 power, restricts them to raising a revenue for provincial, local 
 or municipal objects. Therefore, they have not tho power to 
 regulate licenses, that is, to determine to what persons, on what 
 conditions and with what formalities, they shall be granted, 
 and to provide for the discipline of liquor saloons, &c. And 
 they urge as this second power has not been granted to the 
 provinces, it pertains to the parliament, in virtue of the prin- 
 ciple (which I not only do not reject, but which I have upheld 
 as one of my maxims of interpretation) that all legislative 
 power not recognized in the Provincial Legislatures belongs to 
 Parliament. 
 
 We shall see later on . dw, in addition to this pretention, 
 they contend that this license legislation is taken away from 
 the provinces, because it atfects commerce, which is a subject 
 exclusively within the jurisdiction of Parliament, and also how 
 this second argument, which is no more conclusive than the 
 tirst, may be refuted. 
 
 Let us first consider the former contention. 
 
 As in private concerns, the stipulation of a riglit implies the 
 obligation on the part of the debtor to allow the benefit of it to 
 the creditor, and the power of the latter to adopt means necessa- 
 ry to secure its exercise, so, in public law, a power granted to a 
 nation by a constitution or a treaty implies the faculty of em- 
 ploying all necessary and suitable agents to ensure its exercise. 
 These necessary agents, which as accessories follow the princi- 
 pal, constitute implicit powers, the action of which is a conse- 
 •luence of the concession of the explicit power and is confounded 
 with it. The right of building on the ground of other persons 
 comprises that of transporting thither and putting in order the 
 
80 Lettei'a (TXthehUerprelaXvj.v ojthc , '>•' [Second 
 
 materials for the purpose ; aud the power of declaring war, 
 recognized by a constitution, comprises that of carrying it on 
 successfully, of enrolling armiet;, of procuring munitioas and 
 of levying sufficient taxes for theso objects. On this correlation 
 of principal and accessory pOAvers, is based the doctrine of 
 powers express or explicit and of powers presumed or implicit, 
 the former of which comprise the second and to them impart 
 vitality. 
 
 Let us see how this doctrine, applied to the power of the 
 provinces to make license laws, has invested them with the 
 right of regulating their grant and operation. The sale of intox- 
 icating li(iuors being in its nature dangerous to good order and 
 to the public weal, it is the duty of the State which permits 
 it to licensed persons and forbids it to the others to 
 surround the license with precautions likely to diminish these 
 dangers and to protect public morality. The formalities im- 
 posed as to the granting of licenses, their number, the selec- 
 tion of persons to whom they are granted, the locality in which 
 the licence is to have force, the suitableness of the house in 
 which the sale is carried on and the maintenance of order 
 therein, are among those necessary precautions. 
 
 The persons \Mho obtain licenses should be persons of correct 
 morals. The taverns or inns ought not to be too numerous or 
 too near to each other. The houses ought to be respectable and 
 suitably furnished. Order must be maintained and no sale of 
 liquor must take place in the night time, on Sundays, on holi- 
 days or day.s when riot or disorder is likely to break out. 
 
 These are conditions the enforcement of which is necessary 
 to attain the ends of the law authorizing the raising of reve- 
 nue for provincial, local or municipal objects — without injury 
 
Letter.] ; Federal Constitution. 81 
 
 to public morals — which form the subject of the regulations 
 whose exercise is by some refused to the provinces. 
 
 But is it not evident that, by virtue of the maxim above cited, 
 to the intent that, in the application of a power, all the ordina- 
 nary and proper means for i)Utting it in action are deemed to 
 form an integral part of it, this regulation is in germ in para- 
 graph 9 of article 02, and is derived from it as logically as if 
 that paragraph had specially granted to the provinces the 
 faculty of enacting it ? Qui vcut la Jin veut les moyens, is a say- 
 ing the good sense of which, apart from any speculative prin- 
 ciples, would justify this interpretation. 
 
 As for the power of sanctioning the license law by the impo- 
 sition of penalties on those who infringed its provisions, if it 
 were not implied by virtue of the principle that authority to 
 enforce his law is a riglit inherent in the legislator, it would 
 be found in the fifteenth paragraph of article 92 which enacts 
 that "the imposition of punishment by fine, penalty, or impri- 
 sonment for enforcing any law of the province made in relation 
 to any matter coming within any of the classes of subjects 
 enumerated in this section (that is article 92.) is within the 
 jurisdiction of the legislatures." 
 
 To complete the demonstration that the power of regulating 
 
 the grant and operation of licences for the sale of liciuors is 
 
 inherent in the power to impose them, we need only imagine a 
 
 license law without such a provision. Would not such a law, 
 
 restricted to the mere granting of licenses and the imposition 
 
 « 
 of the tax, without any reference to the (qualifications of the 
 
 persons licensed, the conditions on which the license should 
 
 be granted and the manner in which the sale of liquors .should 
 
 6 
 
82 ' Letters on the iiitfrpretntion of the ' [Second 
 
 bo conducted, remain a d^ad letter, and would not the provi- 
 sion of the federal constitution which invests the provinces 
 with the powers of passing it, become illusory ? But we cannot 
 imagine a legislator so regardless of common sense ! 
 
 The folly of such an arrangement which would deprive the 
 law of ail its force, would be undisputed. But even, wore it so, 
 the maxim which dominates all legal interpretation, viagis 
 rnlcnt «piam percat, would eventually impart life and sense to it ; 
 and that sense, favoured by that other maxim of Roman law : 
 Ottijurudictw (by the term jurisdidio all public pow'er, legisla- 
 tive !ind judicial being designated) data est ea (juoque conccssa 
 esse mdentur, sine quihus jurisdictio erplicari non potuit, would be 
 the one which weare defending, namely : that to the jurisdiction 
 accorded to the Provincial legislatures as to liquor licenses and 
 the authority to grant them, is added by implication and as 
 the only means of putting the law into execution, the power of 
 regulating them. 
 
 To this absolute and final conclusion, the partisans of federal 
 competence in this matter, will reply, perhaps, — and it is the 
 only answer which they can make — that the federal constitu- 
 tion, if it has endowed the provinces with the licensing i)ower, 
 has partitioned the legislative autliority on that point, having 
 invested the Legislatures with the power of granting licenses 
 to raise a local revenue, and the Federal Parliament with the 
 power of regulation. This latter power, they may argue, not 
 having been granted to the provinces, belongs the Federal 
 Parlismient, not only implicitly, as Ave have seen, but also 
 explicitly by virtue of article 91, which clothes it witli the 
 power " to make laws for the peace, order and good govern- 
 ment of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within 
 
liOtter-l - Federal Chnstittition. ' . 83 
 
 the classes of subjects by tliis act assigned exclusively to tlie 
 legislatures of the provinces." 
 
 Tliere are many objections to be made to this reply. The 
 chief one is that the power of general legislation for the 
 peace, order and good government of Canada, refers only to 
 cases of common interest to the whole Dominion and of 
 general application, and that the peace, order and good 
 government of the provinces fall within the jurisdiction of 
 each of them hi particular, as being matters of municipal 
 police, on wliich the legislation of one province must differ 
 essentially from that of another ; l)ut, regarded from the stand 
 point of its intrinsic value, and of the collaboration which it 
 lends to the two legislative bodies on the same question, the 
 least that can be said of this pretention is, that it lacks likeli- 
 hood. 
 
 In fact, the two legislative bodies, organized separately as 
 complete and independent legislatures, may well naturally 
 aid each other. One of them may pass a law to give a more 
 effective sanction to the law of the other and extend its appli- 
 cation. A federal law may make it a crime to contravene a 
 local law and, on the other hand, a local law may attach a 
 civil sanction to a criminal laAV. This reciprocity of good offices 
 on the part of the legislatures is within the spirit o? the consti- 
 tution, and^llows and favours the ends it has in view. But 
 between the execution by the extension by an alien legislature 
 of a law perfect in itself and the perfecting of an incomplete law, 
 between the concurrence of two bodies to favour, within the 
 limits of their respective spheres, the execution of a law passed 
 by one of them (for example, the federal law voting a salary 
 to an additional judge appointed by the legislature), and the 
 
 V:.;^'- 
 
84 Letters on the interpretati<m of the [Second 
 
 participation of the two bodies in the same law, incomplete 
 without such collaboration, there is no resemblance. The two 
 hypotheses differ from each other toto coelo. 
 
 Theoretically, the Constitution cannot have established a 
 system requiring the participation of the two legislative bodies 
 in the same law, and, in practice, the arrangement would be 
 illusory, since, in the making of a law, one of the two bodies 
 would be subordinated to the good pleasure of the other; and 
 even those who find a concurrence of powers between the 
 Federal Parliament and the legislatures, never imagined that 
 such concurrence could be exercised by a common or twofold 
 legislation. 
 
 We have just shown that the power of licensing the gale of 
 liquors belongs to the Provincial Legislatures, to the exclusion 
 of the Federal Parliament ; that the regulation of licenses is 
 within their jurisdiction as accessory to that power; that to 
 the power of making the law is attached that of executing and 
 applying it in the manner most advantageous to the public, 
 by employing legitimate means, tending to elicit its due action, 
 and to attain the ends of legislation ; and that this second 
 power is an integral portion of the firf^t and is confounded with 
 it. As a corollary to these propositions we concluded that the 
 regulations established by the provincial license law were 
 constitutional. ' 
 
 We qualified, however, as legitimate the means not specified 
 in thfe laAV Avhich constitute a power, and which the legislator, 
 a corporation or an individual, in exercising it, may employ to 
 make the express power produce its due effects; for it would 
 jiever have entered the head of the legislator who granted the 
 
Letter.] Federal Gmsl'Uution. ' ■ 85 
 
 express power, to permit its sanction by unconstitutional 
 methods. 
 
 The eflect of tins restriction in such hiw as the license law 
 would be that, in investing the legi.slatures implicitly (by con- 
 ferring the power to license) with the accessory power of regu- 
 lation, the Federal Constitution cannot be deemed to have 
 permitted them to encroach on the domain of the Federal 
 Parliament by employing means within the sole jurisdiction 
 of that body, the exercise of which, it had refused to the pro- 
 vinces. 
 
 In this order of ideas, if the regulation of licenses has invaded 
 the federal domain by legislating on subjects of which, as is 
 pretended, the cognizance is reserved to it by paragraph 2 of 
 article 91, which includes the regulation of trade and romnicrcc 
 within the federal jurisdiction, that invasion has undoubtedly 
 rendered such regulations unconstitutional and ultra vires. We 
 must, therefore, turn our attention to the elucidation of this 
 point. 
 
 In regulating the grant and operation of licenses, has the 
 Quebec Legislature regulated trade and commerce in the sense 
 of that paragraph ? The first consideration presented in the 
 enunciation of this question, has to do with the signification of 
 the word regidation (reglemontation) here employed ; and the 
 second, with the character of the trade and commerce which 
 the Federal Parliament has the exclusive power to regulate. 
 
 At first sight the word regulation (reglementation) which liter- 
 ally means the act of making rules, seems undeterminate in its 
 significance and susceptible of divers meanings. Htill adminis- 
 trative usage has confined its application to the orders, rules and 
 
86 Letters on the interpretation of the [Second 
 
 statutes, made by different public bodies, legislative, judicial, 
 municipal, commercial, literary and others, to govern their 
 operations, settle their internal discipline, administer their 
 affairs and put in execution their charters and constitutions. 
 They call them reglementsio distinguish them from these organic 
 constitutions and articles which are named laws, and, as a gene- 
 ral rule, it may be said that reglements are intended to put the 
 laws into execution and are, in fact, their complement. 
 The rules, for instance, adopted by legislative bodies to main- 
 tain discipline during their sessions and order during their 
 deliberations, are called rules of the House, the regulations 
 of the courts by which the laws of procedure are enforced are 
 termed rules of practice, while those of municipal corpora- 
 tions are known as reglements miinicipaux, or by-laws. The 
 same name, regie or rcglcmcni (rule or regulation) is given to 
 the orders, rules and statutes of other bodies, religious, poli- 
 tical or civil, of whatever nature or denomination they may be. 
 
 These reglements (regulations) must, however, be authorized 
 by the organic law of the botly ; otherwise they would ' ve no 
 value. They are, therefore, the creatures of the law, and be- 
 tween the law and them there are the relations that exist 
 between cause and effect. Tn other words, the reglemenl (regu- 
 lation) depends upon the law, as the effect upon its cause. 
 
 It may be said, generally speaking, that the regulations are 
 accessories of the main provision which it is their aim to per- 
 fect and put in force. Tn the law in question, for instance, the 
 permission to sell liquors is the principal, and the regulation of 
 the sale, the accessory. 
 
 Whatever may be the correctness of the preceding remarks, 
 touching the nature of riglemcnts (regulations or rules) and the 
 
Letter.] Federal (JcmstUulion. 87 
 
 functions which differentiato tliom from tlic law, it is no loss 
 certain that it was not that regulation, but the power to make 
 laws on the subject oftrado and commerce which the Constitu- 
 tion had in view when it invested the Federal Parliament with 
 it. This is shown by article i)l and 92 in which the expression 
 is "to make law" on that subject. 
 
 It is, therefore, as a principal and direct object of its legisla- 
 tion that the Constitution has placed trade and commerce 
 under the o^gis of the Federal Parliament and has refused the 
 Legislatures the power to make laws touching those questions. 
 All legislation affecting commerce chiefly and directly, is for- 
 bidden to the Provinces. But who would nuiintain that that 
 interdiction applies to all provincial legislation that affects it 
 indirectly and consequently, in however remote a degree, as 
 for instance, the regulation of the sale of Iii[Uors. 
 
 The argument employed to support that extraordinary 
 pretention shows its futility. It is urged that the sale of 
 S[)irituous liquors is an act of trade stud the liquor business a 
 branch of it. By imposing conditions on the granting of licen- 
 ses, which are only granted after certain formalities and to 
 certain persons, you restrict the number of the latter and con- 
 sequently you interfere with trade, on which you ijm) fncli) 
 legislate, contrary to the provisions of paragraph 2 of article 
 91, and it is the same with the rest of the regulation. 
 
 Let us reduce this argument to a syllogism in order to test 
 its validity. 
 
 Constitution forbids Provinces to legislate on trade. 
 
 Now, by restricting the number of tavern licenses, legisla- 
 tures pass a law on trade. 
 
88 Letters on the interpretation of the [Second 
 
 Therefore legislatures infringe the Constitution. 
 
 This syllogism is evidently faulty on account of the falseness 
 of the minor proposition, for, by restricting the number of 
 licenses, the legislatures do not make laws on a matter of com- 
 merce, but on good morals and against drunkenness, encouraged 
 by the excessive number of taverns and the debauchery to 
 which their disorderly management invites those who frequent 
 them. If, in consequence of the diminution of those taverns, the 
 liquor trade suffers, it is only indirect) y and by reason of the 
 protection vouchsafed by the law to public morality against a 
 clandestine tralfic, which is not deserving of the honoraMe 
 name of commerce. 
 
 If this portion of the license law is ultra vires, we are forced 
 to conclude that the Provincial Legislatures have no right to 
 make police regulations for the protection of good moral and 
 public order, when such protection may injure commerce, how- 
 ever remote may be that consequence and however illicit that 
 conmerce. 
 
 As well might legislatures be refused the power to regulate 
 the sale of poisons because they are objects of trade, forlnd 
 hunting in certain seasons, and in certain places on the ground 
 of injury to the gunsmith business, and the right of placing 
 restrictions on marriage, because they have the effect of render- 
 ing such events less easy and numerous and thus, of doing 
 harm to the business of the dress-maker and the jeweller ! 
 
 We might go over the sixteen paragraphs of article 1)2 and, 
 by applying the same argument, declare unconstitutional, one 
 after the other, the laws made by virtue of the authority alloAved 
 to Provincial Legislatures by those paragraphs, because there 
 
Letter.] Federal Constitution. 89 
 
 is not one of those laws that does not indirectly affect com- 
 merce. 
 
 The consequences indicated, extreme though tliey be, are 
 only the logical and necessary deduction from the false 
 principle on which the federal license law is based — a princi- 
 ple Avhich takes as the criterion of the constitutionality of the 
 laws, not the direct main and nearest object of their provisions, 
 but their indirect, incidental and remote effects. On this false 
 principle almost all the federal laws would be, in their turn, un- 
 constitutional, for there are few of them that do not encroach 
 indirectly, accessorily or remotely on the domain of legisla- 
 tures — as to property and th'j civil laws, for instance — and 
 its application would be, in fact, the overthrow of the Cons- 
 titution. 
 
 It would be otherwise if the provincial law had imposed 
 conditions — in order to encourage the sale of those of domestic 
 manufacture — affecting directly the sale of liquors, if it had, 
 for example, forbidden persons licensed to sell imported liquors, 
 imposed a duty ou the sale, &c. In such and other like 
 cases, the provision enacted would bear directly and mainly 
 on commerce. This provision would not form part of the 
 license law and would no longer be the complement and 
 consequence of the power of granting licenses. It would not 
 constitute n»eans necessary to give effect to the license ; it 
 would, on the contrary, only figure in the regulation as super- 
 rogatory and superfluous. It might l)e removed without 
 injury to the operation of the license and Avithout diminishing 
 the sum or efficacity of the precautions taken by the legislator 
 to protect the public onler, by assuring the good conduct of 
 the houses licensed and the respectability of the li(iuor busi- 
 
.Y. iV.- T,*^ ■^■ 
 
 90 Letters on the interpretation of the [Second 
 
 ness. In fact, on all these heads, it is indifferent whether the 
 liquors sold be foreign or domestic, and the tariff on the sale is 
 an insignificant detail. 
 
 On the other hand, it cannot be doubted that those restric- 
 tions would constitute, in the sense of the constitution, a 
 regulation of commerce, since they would have the effect of 
 diminishing the importation of liquors and of tariffing the 
 retail trade which until then had remained unrated. They 
 would form in the license law an incongruity, and to introduce 
 them would be to confound with that law a law of commerce. 
 
 By this hypothesis, to which may Ije added several others 
 suggested as practical rules for the demarcation of legislation 
 affecting commerce directly and within the sole jurisdiction of 
 the Federal Parliament, and that which affects it only indi- 
 rectly by way of consequence and remains within the compe- 
 tence of the provinces, we do not mean to express an opinion 
 on the question whether interprovincial commerce is the only 
 branch of trade submitted exclusively to the legislation of 
 parliament or whether any commerce whatever is so submitted. 
 As that question does not come up at present, it would be 
 forestalling to deal with it now. 
 
 The principles above enumerated seem so evident that one 
 may well be astonished that the Federal Parlifiment should 
 have failed to recognize them, while making a law on the sub- 
 ject. But this astonishment will cease when it is remembered 
 that the introduction of that law was due to a misunderstand- 
 ing, and its adoption to a misappreciation of a judgment of 
 the Privy Council. The Federal Parliament held that the 
 judgment in question declared unconstitutional the license 
 
/r, , ': ■ 
 
 Letter.] Federal Constitution. 91 
 
 law of the Province of Ontario and deeitlcd that the legislation 
 on that suhject was within the jurisdiction of the Dominion, 
 while such was in no sense the case, and the cause of the 
 Queen and Russell (the cause in question) in which judgment 
 was rendered in June, 1882, had to do with points alien to the 
 question at issue which the decision in no way affected. 
 
 As that cause made a great stir and as it has been invoked 
 in different senses, it may be well, in order to enlighten pulilic 
 opinion regarding it, and to determine its real purport, to give 
 the full text of the ofhcial report delivered by the tribunal itself, 
 which is contained in the report of another case, that between 
 the Queen and Hodge, in which judgment was recently ren- 
 dered. By this double report it will be seen that in the latter 
 case, the supreme tribunal declared the license law of Ontario 
 constitutional and consequently proclaimed the unconstitu- 
 tionality of that of the Federal Parliament. 
 
 IV. 
 
 TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE PRIVY COUNCIL IN 
 THE CASE OF HODGE AND THE QUKEN. CONCLLSION OF THE 
 PRESENT THEORETICAL DISCUSSION AND APPLICATION OF 
 THAT JUDGMENT. 
 
 Present : Lord Eit/gerald, kSir Barnes Peacock, 8ir P. Collier, 
 Sir Richard Couch, Sir Arthur Hobhouse. 
 
 " The tribunal is called to pronounce on an appeal against 
 " the decision of the Appeal Court of Ontario, of the 30th 
 " of June, 1882, invalidating a judgment of the Court of 
 " Queen's Bench of the same province. 
 
^ *• * \ ' 
 
 92 Letters on the interpretalion of the [Second 
 
 " Although taken on a matter without pecuniary importance, 
 " the appeal raises questions of great interest between the Parlia- 
 " ment of Canada and the different legislatures of the confeder- 
 " ate provinces. The appellant, Arch. G. Hodge, is the proprie- 
 " tor of the St. James R[otel, of Toronto, and in that quality, lie 
 " possessed a license, issued under the authority of the'Ontario 
 " Licence Act, for the sale of liquors. He was also the holder 
 " of a billiard license, issued under the authority of the muni- 
 " cipal law by the corporation of Toronto. On the 2.5th of 
 " April, 1881, the Board of License Commissioners, by virtue 
 " of the License Act, passed certain resolutions touching the 
 " regulation of taverns and shops in that city, and, on the 
 " 11th of March following, the appellant was summoned before 
 " the police magistrate by the license inspector, for having 
 " illegally allowed the use of a billiard table in his hotel during 
 " the time prohibited by the License LaAv and by the commis- 
 " sioners' resolutions, to wit, after seven o'clock on Saturday 
 " evening. He was convicted of the offence, and condemned 
 "to a fine of $20, with expenses, and to imprisonment in 
 " default of payment. 
 
 " He obtained from the Court of Queen's Bench of Ontario a 
 " rule nisi, enjoining the police Magistrate to show cause against 
 " the quashing of the conviction, which was demanded for the 
 " following reasons : 
 
 "1. The resolution of the License Commissioners and the 
 " conviction on which it is founded are illegal and null. 
 
 "2. The License Commissioners had no authority to pass 
 " the resolution prohibiting tlie playing of billiards in the 
 " manner therein mentioned and had no power to impose a 
 
Letter.] Federal Oonstitidion. 93 
 
 " penalty, and in default of payment, imprisonment for oon- 
 " travention of the resolution. 
 
 " 3. The License Law by virtue of which the Commissioners 
 "had passed the resolution, exceeded the jurisdiction of the 
 " Ontario Legislature and did not authorize the resolution. 
 
 " 4. The conviction had no authority in law and was defec- 
 " tive in form and null on its face. 
 
 '• The rule was argued on its merits on the 25th of June, 1881, 
 " and the Court of Queen's Bench, composed of Chief Justice 
 " Hagarty, and Judges Armour and Cameron, declared abso- 
 " lute the rule to quash the conviction. 
 
 "The judgment of the court having laid down that the legis- 
 " lature of each province has the exclusive power to make laws 
 " relative to certain specific matters, among which are munici- 
 " pal institutions, shop, tavern and auctioneers' licenses, and 
 " others, for the purpose of raising a revenue, the administra- 
 " tion of justice in the Province, including the Constitution, 
 " maintenance and organization of the provincial courts and 
 " civil and criminal procedure, the imposition of punishment 
 " by means of fines and penalties, relating to all classes of 
 " subjects within its competence and touching matters purely 
 " local and of a private nature, added : the Court finds itself 
 " face to face with a very serious question, namely, the 
 " power of the Legislature of Ontario to vest the Board of 
 " License Commissioners with the power of creating new ofFen- 
 " CCS and imposing penalties on their Commission ! The Appcl- 
 " lant had contravened regulations made by the Toronto Board, 
 " but the eight or nine cities of Ontario might have different 
 " regulations relative to taverns, none of which had been 
 
,„VH^^^■ 
 
 94 Lntters on th» inierprdcUion of the [Second 
 
 " quashed by the legislature. Admitting the legislative power 
 " of Ontario on the subject, the ('ourt decided that it coult not 
 " delegate its powers to a local Board of Commissioners, that 
 " the Appellant hnd not contravened a law of the province and 
 "that the conviction was Avithout justification. 
 
 "Against this decision, the Queen, represented by the attor- 
 " ney-general of Ontario, appealed to the Appeal Court of the 
 " Province, on the ground tliat provincial legislatures had full 
 " competence on the subject in question and could constitu- 
 " tionnally vest Boards of liicense Commissioners and all other 
 " bodies of municipal or local creation with the power of pass- 
 " ing local resolutions or regulations within the sphere of 
 " their attributes and to enforce them by penalties ; that the 
 "power of making those regulations did not constitute an 
 " illegal delegation of legislative powers, but was a legal and 
 " customary exercise of the legislative authority of the provin- 
 " ces, constituted by virtue of Imperial Statutes, and that the 
 " fourth section of the liquor License Act fell within the powers 
 " of the Ontario Legislature. 
 
 "Against that proposition Hodge claimed that the Onrario 
 " Legislature had no legislative power to pass resolutions or 
 " regulations like those made by the Board of Commissioners 
 " by virtue of which the conviction of which he complained 
 " had been rendered, to create offences and to enforce them by 
 "penalties, as set forth in the resolutions; that even suppo- 
 " sing the Legislature of Ontario to have such authority, it 
 " could not delegate it to a Board of Commissioners or to any 
 " body outside of its own jurisdiction ; that the conviction and 
 " the resolutions on which it rested were illegal and unauthor- 
 " ized, and that the Board of Commissioners had no power to 
 
Letter.] Fede'>-%1 Constitution. 05 
 
 " impose fines for their violation and imprisonment in default 
 " of payment. 
 
 " The appeal was heard by Chief Justice Spragg and judges 
 "Patterson and Morrison, who reversed the judgment of the 
 " Court of Queen's Bench, thus confirming the conviction. The 
 " Appeal Court taking for granted the constitutionality of the 
 " Ontario law, consequently decided that the i)rovinciallegisla- 
 " ture had and alone had the power to pass laws for the imposi- 
 " tionof penalties or imprisonment for the violation of aprovin- 
 " cial law in relation to a matter falling within the class of 
 " subjects over which the provinces alone had jurisdiction, and 
 " that their legislatures had the right to delegate their authority 
 " as the Legislature of Ontario had done in the present instance. 
 
 '' On appeal to this tribunal against the judgment of the 
 " Court of Appeals, Mr. Kerr, Q. C, and Mr. Jeune, intimated to 
 " their lordships, in their able arguments, that the first and 
 " main point in the case is whether the fourth and fifth sections 
 " of the license act of Ontario, 1877, passed l)y tlie Ontario 
 " legislature, was uHra rivet, abiding tliat the point in question, 
 " being raised between the Parliament of the Dominion and 
 " the Provincial Legislature was a matter of importance. 
 
 " Their lordships do not think it necessary, in this case, to 
 " lay down any genei'al rule for the interpretation of the 
 " British North America Act. The remark of Chief Justice 
 " Hagarty, that in all those questions of the unconstitutionali- 
 " ty of laws by reason of exceeding powers, the wisest course 
 " is not to enlarge the field of discussioi:i by entering into con- 
 " siderations not absolutely raised by the question in dispute 
 " is a just one. They do not lose sight of the fact that in a 
 
•^iH •'.■;■•'• 
 
 96 Letters on the interpretation of the [Second 
 
 prectdinp case arising out of the same statute (Parsons vs. 
 The Citizen's Company), their Lordships advised those to 
 whom the difficult task of deciding tliose questions belonged, 
 to judge each case as far as possible on its own merits, without 
 engaging in broader interpretations of the statute than the 
 decision of the case demanded. 
 
 " The appellants have maintained that the Legislature of 
 Ontario was without competence to restrict the traffic in 
 spirituous liquors, that this competence ])ertains entirely to 
 the Parliament of the Dominion, and has been withdrawn 
 from the provinces l)y the British North American Act 
 (18G7) by virtue of section 91. The paragrai)li of that section 
 which they hold to have been infringed by the Liquor 
 License Law is paragraph 2 : " the regulation of trade and 
 commerce", and the decision in the case Russell vs. Regina 
 has been invoked in support of the principle that the entire 
 legislation on the sale of liquors Avas conferred on the Domi- 
 nion Parliament and taken from the Provincial Legislatures. 
 It appears, however, to their lordships that the decision ren- 
 dered by the tribunal in that case has not the effect supposed, 
 and thai when jyi'opcrly considered^ it should he taken rather as an 
 authority in svpport of the judgment (f tlie Court (f Appeals. 
 
 " The sole question there was, whether it was competent to 
 the Dominion Parliament, under its general powers, to make 
 laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Domi- 
 nion, to pass the Canada Temperance Act, 1878, which was 
 intended to be applica1)le to the several Provinces of tlie 
 Dominion, or to such partsof the Provinces as should locally 
 adopt it. Tt was not doubted that the Dominion Parliament 
 had such authority under sec. 91, unless the subject fell 
 
Letter.] Federal Conatitutbn. 97 
 
 "within some one or more of the classes of subjects whicli by 
 " sec. 92 were assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the 
 " Provinces. 
 
 "It was in that case contended that the subject of the Tcm- 
 " perance Act properly belonged to No. 13 of sec. 92, " Property 
 " and Civil Rights in the Province," which it was said belonged 
 " exclusively to the Provincial Legislatures, and it was on what 
 " seems to be a misapplication of some of the reasons of this 
 " Board in observing on thai contention that the appellant's 
 "counsel jmncipally relied. These observations should be 
 "interpreted according to the subject matter to which they 
 " were intended to apply. 
 
 " Their Lordships, in that case, after comparing the Tem- 
 " perance Act with laws relating to the sale of poisons, observe 
 "that:— 
 
 "//««!8 of this nature dcsigiicd for the p'rnmotion <f jmblir. order, 
 " safety, or morals, and which subject those who eontrarcve them to 
 " criminal procedure and •punishment, belong to the subject ofj)ubiic 
 ^^ wrongs rather than to that of civil rights. They arc of a nature 
 " which fall ivithin the general authority of Parliament to make laws 
 '\for the order of good government of Canada. 
 
 " What Parliament is dealing with in legislation of this kind 
 " is not a matter in relation to property or its rights, l)ut one 
 " relating to public order and safety. That is the primary 
 " matter dealt with, and though incidentally the free use of 
 " things in which men may have property is interfered with, 
 " that incidental interference does not alter the character of 
 " the law. 
 
 " The true nature and character of the legislation in the par- 
 
 7 
 
•.»»-s,'-.v- -■■I' .•'..,(■ 
 
 98 Inters on the inten^retation of the [Second 
 
 " ticular instance under discussion must always be determined, 
 " in order to ascertain tlie class of subject to wliich it really 
 " belongs. In the present case it ai)i)ears to their Lordships, 
 " for the reasons already given, that tlio matter of the Act in 
 " question does not properly belong to the vlasB of mltjecta ' Propeiiy 
 " and Civil Rights ' within the meaning of subsection 13. 
 
 " As already stated, it appears to their Lordships that Russell 
 "rs. the Queen, when properly understood is not an anthonty 
 ^^ in support of the appellant Hodge\s contention, and their Lord- 
 " ships do not intend to vary or depart from the reasons expressed 
 "for their judgment in that case. The principle which that case 
 "and the case of the Citizens' Insurance Company illustrate 
 " is, that subjects which in one aspect and for one purpose fall 
 " within sec. 92, may in an other aspect and for another pxirposefall 
 " within sec. 91. 
 
 " Their Lordships proceed now to (consider the subject mat- 
 " ter and legislative character of sees. 4 and 5 of 'The Liquor 
 " License Act of 1877, chap. 181, Revised Statutes of Ontario,' 
 '''' and it is entirely local in character and operation. Itauthorizes the 
 " appointment of License Commissioners to act in such muni- 
 "cipality, and empowers them to pass under thenameof reso- 
 " lutions, what we know as rule or rules to define the conditions 
 " and qualifications requisite for obtaining tavern or shoji 
 " licenses for sale by retail of spirituous liquors within the 
 " municipality ; for limiting the number of licenses ; for decla- 
 " ring that a limited number of i)ersons qualified to have 
 " tavern licenses may be exempted from having all the tavern 
 " accommodation required by law, and for regulating licensed 
 "taverns and shops, for defining the duties and powers of 
 " license inspectors, and to impose penalties for infraction of 
 
I<etter.] Federal Constihitum. 99 
 
 " their resolutions. Tliese peeni to be all matters of a merely local 
 ^^ nat^tre in the Province, and to be similar, though not ident- 
 " ical in all respects with the powers then belonging to muni- 
 " cipal institutions under the iirevioushj cxistivy laws passed hij 
 " the heal parliaments. 
 
 "Their Lordships consider that the powers intended to be 
 " conferred by the act in question, when prop* -ly understood, 
 " are to make regulations in the nature of police or municipal 
 " regulations of a merely local character, for the good government of 
 " taverns, &c,, licensed for the sale of liquors by retail, and such 
 " as are calculated to jjreserve, in the municipality, })eace and 
 " I^ublic decency, and repress drunkenness and disorderly and 
 " riotous conduct. As such they cannot he said to interfere with 
 ^'■the general regulation of trade and commerce which belongs to 
 " the Dominion Parliament, and do not conflict with the pro- 
 " visions of the Canada Temperance Act, which does not appear 
 " to have as yet been locally adopted. 
 
 " The subjects of legislation in the Ontario Act of 1877, sees. 
 " 4 and 5, seem to come within the heads Nos. 8, 15, and 16 of 
 " sec. 92 of British North America Statute, 1867. 
 
 " Their Lordships are, therefore, of opinion that, in relation 
 " to sees. 4 and 5 of the act in question, the Legislature of Ontario 
 " acted within the jwwers conferred on it by the Imperial Act 0/1867, 
 " and that in this respect there is no conflict with the -powers of 
 " the Dominion Parliament. 
 
 " Assuming that the Local Legislature had power to legis- 
 " late to the full extent of the resolutions passed by the 
 '• License Commissioners and to have enforced the observance 
 " of their enactments by penalties and imprisonment with or 
 
100 Letters on the interpretation of the [Second 
 
 " without hard labour, it was further contended that the 
 " Imperial Parliament had conferred no authority on the Local 
 " Legislature to delegate those powers to the License Commis- 
 " sioners or any other persons. In other words, that the power 
 " conferred by the Imperial Parliament on the Local Legisla- 
 " ture should be exercised in full by that body, and by that 
 " body alone. The maxim delegatus non potest delegare was relied 
 " on. 
 
 " It appears to their Lordships, however, that the objection 
 " thus raised by the Appellants is founded on an entire miacon- 
 " ception of the true character and position of the Provincial Legis- 
 " latures. They are in no sense delegates of or acting under any 
 " mandate from the Imperial Parliament. When the British 
 " North America Act enacted that there should be a Legis- 
 " lature for Ontario, and that its Legislative Assembly should 
 " have exclusive authority to make laws for the Province and 
 " for provincial purposes in relation to the matters enumerated 
 " in sec. 92. it conferred powers not in any sense to be exercised 
 " by delegation from or as agents of the Imperial Parliament, "but 
 " authority as plenary and as ample within the limits prescribed 
 " by Sec. 92 as the Imperial Parliament in the plenitude of its 
 " power possessed and could bestow. Within these limits of 
 " subjects and area the Local Legislature is supreme, and has the 
 " same authority as the Imperial Parliament, or the Parliament of 
 " the Dominion, would have had under like circumstances to confide 
 '''' to a municipal institution or body of its own creation authority to 
 " make by-laws or resolutions as tj sid)jects specified in the enactment, 
 " and 'With the object of carrying the enactment into operation and 
 " effect. 
 
Letter.] Federal Const it lUion. 101 
 
 CONCLUSION OF THE PRESENT DISCUSSION AND APPLICATION OF 
 THE JUDGMENT. 
 
 We have here reached the end of the considerations directly 
 relating to the questions raised as to the character of the 
 Dominion Temperance Act and the provincial license laws. 
 The rest of the judgment is devoted to a demonstrat) a of the 
 principle that the Ontario law could delegate to License Com- 
 missioners the powers that it possessed itself as to the sale of 
 liquors and enact imprisonment with or without hard labour — 
 in the enforcement of their decisions. Those remarks, valuable 
 in other respects, as establishing the legislative authority of 
 the provinces, bear only indirectly on the subject of the report 
 and may, therefore, be omitted here. Let it sufKce to say that 
 the Lords of the Council were of opinion that they should 
 recommend Her ALijcsty to confirm the judgment in the case 
 of Hodge vs. Regina. 
 
 The report of the two cases of Russell and Hodge vs. Regina 
 clearly shows that in the former, the Privy Council maintained 
 the constitutionality of the Dominion temperance law 
 for two reasons. The first reason is that the law consti- 
 tutes as criminal offenses violations of the regulations prohi- 
 biting in certain cases the sale of intoxicating liquors by virtue 
 of its provisions ; and the second is that it belongs to the class 
 of subjects relatives to the peace order and (jood (jovcrnment of 
 Canada; that the Federal Parliament was authorized to pass it 
 by the first portion of section 91, which confers that power to it, 
 
102 Letters on the interpretation of the [Third 
 
 and by paragraph 27 of that section which places the criminal 
 law within its jurisdiction, and for these two reasons only, while 
 in the second case, the same Privy Council has declared the 
 license laws to be within the jurisdiction of the local Legisla- 
 tures. 
 
 Now, as this latter law could not be the attribute of two juris- 
 dictions, it results from this double adjudication that the 
 Federal law on the same subject is unconstitutional and ultra 
 rires, and that it was passed in consequence' of a false inter- 
 pretation of the judgment rendered in the former of the two 
 cases. 
 
 Not only does the judgment in this first case declares the law 
 of the Ontario Legislature not to be unconstitutional, but the 
 Lords of the Council decided in the second case, that of Hodge, 
 that far from supporting the pretention of the latter as to the 
 invalidity of the provincial law, the precedent in the Russell 
 case, rightly understood, tended to establish its validity. 
 
 From tlie twofold standpoint of doctrinal interpretation and 
 the jurisprudence of the Privy Council, the provincial law is, 
 therefore, alone valid, and the federal law is unconstitutional. 
 
THIRD LETTER 
 
 SUMMARY. — I. Bill for the reixial of the Federal License J^aw presentetl 
 to tlie Federal Parliament. Reference to the Privy Council or to 
 the Supremo Court ordered by the House of Commons. — IT. How 
 this reference may be etrect<5d. — IH. There is no method by which 
 this reference may be given efl'oct to, by the ordinary action of those 
 two tribunals, on the prosecution of the Federal < tovornment, which 
 would be the only legal mode of obtaining that object. — IV. Tha 
 reference enact^'d by clause 52 of the Supremo Court Act would not 
 be a suitalilo mode of putting the reference in force. — V. That 
 clause r)2 relates only to administrative and executive matters. — 
 VI. Proof of this proposition by several English precedents on refer- 
 ence to the Privy Councul, which reference dictated that of our 
 clause 52. Interpretation of clause 4 of Guil. 4,c. 41, which [Kninits 
 reference by the Crown of administrative questions to the judicial 
 comnntt(»e of the Privy Council.— Vll. I'oference of clause .VJ of the 
 Supreme Court law cannot have wider aiiplication than clause 4, 
 Guil. 4, c. 41, from which it is borrowed. Direct reference to the 
 Privy Council is not authorized by the Constitution. Development. 
 — VIII. By virtue of clause 52 of the Supreme-Court Act tlu^ Fede- 
 ral Government has no [)ower to refer legislative quastions to that 
 tribunal. — IX. Diversity of opinion in the House on the mode of 
 reference. Two parliamentary s|»echcs on the subject. 
 
 The constitutionality of the Federal License Law has recent- 
 ly been the subject of debate in the House of Commons. To 
 the proposal of a member, Mr. Houde, to abrogate the law, vSir 
 Hector Langevin opposed the following amendment : " In 
 the opinion of this House, it is advi8al)lo that the com- 
 petence or Parliament to pass the Liquor License Act of 1808 
 be submitted as expedlitously as possible to the Supreme (hurt 
 
1 04 Letters on the interpretation of the Third 
 
 of Canada or to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council 
 or . to both." This amendment having been voted by the 
 majority of the House had the effect of setting aside the origi- 
 nal proposition^ 
 
 Some salient features were brought out in the debate. The 
 most important of these was that among the Quebec members 
 who voted for the amendments of the minister of Public Works, 
 a large proportion recognized, some explicitly and otlicrs by 
 imjilication, the validity of the provincial law and consequently 
 the invalidity of the Federal law. 
 
 The second feature of the debate which merits attention 
 relates to the discussion, dealt with in the preceding pages of 
 these Letters, on the Russell and Hodge precedents. Home 
 speakers, few in number, including Sir Hector Langevin, 
 maintained, firstly, that in the first of these two cases the ques- 
 tion of the validity of tlie Federal law was not raised, and, 
 secondly, that if it had be'jn put in issue, the decision of the 
 Privy Council was not unfavorable to it. 
 
 At the risk of repeating myself, I must anew combat these 
 two assertions. In the Russell case the competence of the 
 Federal law and of the power of Parliament in connection with 
 it was so clearly brought in question, that it was on the 
 decision of that case in favour of that body, that the Govern- 
 ment based its law, and that it was on account of the pretend- 
 ed incompetence of the legislatures as declared by that deci- 
 sion, that the House of Commons concluded that Federal legis- 
 lation was necessary. We have shown, what the Privy Council 
 in the Hodge case also made clear, the false Miterpretation 
 given by the Federal Parliament to that decision. It would 
 be idle to return to that branch of the subject, 
 
Letter.] Federal Constitution. 105 
 
 The second point, that which relates to the Hodge case, is 
 more important, in as much as, in that last case the validity of 
 the provincial law, expressly and pronounced upon in that 
 judgment, necessarily implied the invalidity of the federal 
 law, since, as I have already shown, there is no concurrent 
 power in the matter of licenses between the two bodies, and 
 the attribution of jurisdiction to one of them necessarily 
 imi^lies the exclusion of the other. 
 
 To show that the validity of the federal law was in question 
 in the latter case, it suffices to repeat that the prosecution of 
 Hodge was undertaken for his violation of the regulation of the 
 License Commissioners of the city of Toronto, such regulations 
 and commissioners having been made and elected in accordance 
 with the provision of the Ontario license law. It has been 
 urged with regard to those regulations that the prosecution 
 had reference to municipal by-laws and that, therefore, it was 
 a municipal matter which could not l)ring into question the 
 validity of the Federal law. It ; true that these regulations 
 had a municipal character, but it was the provincial law 
 which gave them existence and imparted that character to 
 them. To recognize their validity, it was necessary to recog- 
 nize the competence of the law. 
 
 It was on this plea, invoking the validity of that federal 
 law as opposed to the provincial 'statute, that Hodge had taken 
 a, certiorari against the judgment of the magistrates rendered 
 in acoordance with that statute The Privy Council, in rejecting 
 this certiorari and in declaring the regulations valid and the 
 provincial law constitutional, maintained the converse pro- 
 l)osition, in other words, declared the federal laAV unconstitu- 
 tional. In view of these facts, how can it be pretended that 
 
106 Letters mi like interprelatmi of the [Third 
 
 the Russell case did not constitute a prejudgment and the 
 Hodge case a positive judgment against the Federal law. 
 
 Hitherto the discussion in the House of Commons has inter- 
 ested us only from the standpoint of the legal question, raised 
 on the conflict between the two powers in the matter of the 
 license laws, and of the correction of false interpretations that 
 had been given to them. We shall now discuss the o^ lortune- 
 ness or legal value of the conclusion at which it arrived, namely 
 to refer the question to the Supreme Court or to the Privy Coun- 
 cil, or to both tribunals. 
 
 II 
 
 » HOW THIS REFERENCE MAY BE ENFORCED. 
 
 This reference raises questions of graver significance and of 
 much more dilHcult solution than the members who voted it 
 seemed to suspect. One member, when asked by another mem- 
 ber which mode of reference the government would adopt, 
 replied : "A bill, I suppose." This mode is clearly impracti- 
 cable. 
 
 Parliament is incompetent to pass a law to refer the question, 
 apart from the legal processes created by the Constitution or ex- 
 isting at the time of its formation, that is to say, proceedings in 
 common or statutory law, — to the Supreme Court or Privy 
 Council. Neither could it create a new tribunal or confer on 
 existing tribunals extraordinary powers for the purpose of 
 trying the constitutional question; because the only power 
 confered upon it by the federal compact is as we have hereto 
 
Letter.] Fedei-ai ConslUution. 107 
 
 seen, that of creating a general Court of Appeal and all other 
 tribunals necessary for giving effect to the Federal laws. Now, 
 as the question is whether the power to pass license laws is 
 federal or local, it would be simply prejudging or begging the 
 question to legislate on that subject. But let us not anticipate. 
 That point will come up later on. 
 
 On the other hand, what the House of Commons is deemed to 
 have enacted for its guidance — not wishing to take the initiative 
 itself and to pronounce authoritatively as to its competence or 
 non-competeuce — is the necessity of a decision regularly ren- 
 dered by a competent tribunal implying the authority of chose 
 jugee, that is, an ordinary judgment in common law, rendered 
 between the litigants and in the exercise of the contentious 
 jurisdiction of the tribunal rendering it. It could not be a ques- 
 tion of an opinion asked ex parte by the Federal (iovernment 
 to the .Supreme Court or Privy Council, which, far from ending 
 the difficulty, would only aggravate and prolong it. We must, 
 therefore, ask how the end of the resolution of the House is to 
 be reached ? 
 
 Taking for our start'.ng point the rule already established, 
 that in default of a cor.stitutional tribunal, the courts can take 
 cognizance of constitutional questions only as incidental to the 
 principal suit, in cases tried before the inferior tribunals, let us 
 see whether the Supreme Court, acting under the judicial 
 conditions which have been explained, may take cognizance of 
 the question which the House of Commons had decided to reiser 
 to it. 
 
 In the province of Quebec what are the lawful proceedings 
 to that effect under the Dominion or Provincial License Law ? 
 Suppose that both laws be simultaneously enforced, aud this 
 
108 Letters on the intei'jyretation of the [Third 
 
 may easily happen as neither of tliem has been repealed and 
 as, so long as the question remains unsettled, each of the 
 Governments, we may presume, will enforce its own laAV. These 
 proceedings are three in number: penal action, redress by 
 means of quo warranto or information in the nature of quo 
 warranto, and mandamus. 
 
 The penal action may be instituted by virtue of either law 
 against any retailer of liquors who sells without license (and, 
 when thus prosecuted, it is lawful for the defendant to plead 
 the unconstitutionality of whichever law may be invoked 
 against him) ; or against any holder of a single license obtained 
 from one of the governments, for violation of the law of the 
 other. The holder of two licenses would alone enjoy immunity 
 from such penal proceedings. 
 
 The prosecution must be taken before the justices of the 
 peace, and recourse may be had to the .Superior Court by 
 certiorari at the prosecution of the condemned defendant. 
 There is no such recourse for the non-suited prosecutor. More- 
 over, according to article 1115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 
 there is no recourse to the Court of Ap])eals in cases of certiorari, 
 and by the terms of section 17 of the Supreme Court Act, the 
 case of certiorari is not, like that of mandamus, excepted from 
 the provision Avhich limits appeal to the latter court to cases 
 in which the matter in dispute amounts to $2000. It follows 
 that there cannot be recourse to the Supreme Court in penal 
 actions, and that the reference decreed by the House of Com- 
 mons is in this instance without application. 
 
 The second legal recourse is the quo warranto or informa- 
 tion in tie nature of quo ivarranto, instituted in accordance 
 with article 997 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which 
 
Letter.] Federal Ckmstitution. 109 
 
 enacts "that when a public corporation, body or board 
 assumes any power, franchise or privilege which does not 
 belong to it oris not conferred upon it by the law, Her Majes- 
 ty's Attorney-General for Lower-Canada is bound to proceed 
 against such infraction in the name of Her Majesty, when there 
 is reason to believe that these facts can be established in a 
 matter of public interest." But, as this prosecution cannot be 
 entered in any other name than that of the Attorney-({eneral, 
 it is evident that it can only be laid against the commissioners 
 of the Federal Government and that it exists in that case only. 
 Besides, although, in these cases there is recourse to the Court 
 of Queen's Bench, from the rendered court no appeal is allowed 
 to the Supreme Court. 
 
 There remains the mandamus which is lawful by virtue of 
 article 1022 which, among other provisions, enacts that: " 2. 
 
 when a public functionary omits, neglects or refuses to 
 
 perform a duty jiertaining to his function or ofhce, or an act 
 that the law imposes on him, any person interested may apply 
 to the Superior Court for a warrant enjoining the defendant to 
 perform the duty or act required or to give ifcasons to the con- 
 trary on a day fixed for the purpose." 
 
 The enumeration of all the persons interested being need- 
 less here, it will sutlice to say that the Government of the 
 Dominion and the Government of Qnebec, which are per- 
 sons in the legal sense of the term, and which, on account of 
 their conflicting laws on the subject, have an interest in main- 
 taining their authority, are enabled respectively to take out a 
 mandamus against their own commissioners in case, and this 
 is the onl}' one, the latter should refuse to enforce the 
 law, which is a hypothesis at least extremely improbalile. 
 
110 Letters on the interpretation of the [Third 
 
 This case of mandannis which, according to the Supreme Court 
 Act, is nevertheless, the only one which admits of appeal to 
 that tribunal, is also the only one in which a government can 
 take proceedings before the inferior tribunal and bring before 
 it incidentally the constitutional question. 
 
 Ill 
 
 THEKE EXIST NO MODE BY WHICH EFFECT CAN BE GIVEN TO THE 
 REFERENCE BY THE ORDINARY ACTION OF THE TRIBUNALS, 
 FOR THE PROSECUTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Is there any further argument necessary to show that, in the 
 province of Quebec at least, there is even incidentally, on behalf 
 of the Dominion, no recourse either ordinary or by way of 
 appeal, for the enforcement, in its name, of the reference to the 
 Supreme Court, ordered by the House of Commons. 
 
 I say in its own name, that is to say, in the name of the 
 Federal Government, because some persons seem to think that 
 that Government may avail itself of intermediates to bring 
 actions in their name, but at its own risk, and have them 
 appealed to the Supreme Couit, so as to lay the question before 
 that tribunal. 
 
 But besides that such a course would be possible only in the 
 case of the mandamus ixxst mentioned, such a proceeding would 
 be ill advised in itself, it being unworthy of a Government and 
 opposed to the spirit of the resolution which voted the refer- 
 ence to have it carried out by private persons. 
 
 It is true that under the heading, special jurisdiction, the 
 
Letter.] Federal Gonstitution. Ill 
 
 Supreme Court Act, as amended by 39 Vict., chap 26, section 
 17, contains the following provisions : 
 
 " 54. When the Legislature of any Province forming part of 
 Canada shall have passed an Act agreeing and providing that 
 the Supreme Court, and the Exchequer Court, or the Supreme 
 Court alone, as the case may be, shall have jurisdiction in any 
 of the following cases, viz. : — (1st) Of controversies between 
 the Dominion of Canada and such Province ; (2nd) Of con- 
 troversies between such Province and any other Province 
 or Provinces, which may have passed a like Act ; (3rd) 
 Of suits, actions, or proceedings in which the parties 
 thereto by their pleadings shall have raised the question of the 
 validity of an Act of the Parliament of Canada, when in the 
 opinion of a Judge of the Court in which the same are pending 
 such question is material ; (4th) Of suits, actions, or proceed- 
 ings in which the partieS thereto by their pleadings shall have 
 raised the question of the validity of an Act of the Legislature 
 of such Province, when in the opinion of a Judge of the Court 
 in which the same are pending such question is material ; then 
 this section and the three following sections of this Act shall 
 be in force in the class or classes of cases in respect of which 
 such Act so agreeing and providing, may have been passed." 
 
 " 55. The procedure in the cases firstly and secondly men- 
 tioned in the next preceding section shall be in the Exchequer 
 Court, and an appeal shall lie in any such case to the Supreme 
 Court." 
 
 " 50. In the cases thirdly and fourthly mentioned in the 
 next preceding section but one, the Judge who has decided 
 that such question is material, shall at the request of the parties, 
 and may without such request if he thinks fit order the case 
 
112 Letters on the interpretation of the [Third 
 
 to be removed to the Supreme f-ourt in order to the decision 
 of such f[uesti(m, and it shall be removed accordingly, and 
 after the decision of the Supreme Court, the said case shall be 
 sent back, with a copy of the judgment on the question raised, 
 to the Court or Judge whence it came, to be then and there 
 dealt with as to justice may appertain." 
 
 " i57. The next two preceding sections apply only to cases 
 of a civil nature, and shall take effect in the cases therein pro- 
 vided for respectively, whatever may be the value of the matter 
 in dispute, and there shall be no further appeal to the Supreme 
 Court on any point decided by it in any such case, nor on any 
 other point unless the value of the matter in dispute exeeeds 
 five hundred dollars." 
 
 By virtue of these sections the question might l)e ultimately 
 referred to the Supreme Court, but as long as the Quebec legis- 
 lature has not passed the laAV mentioned in the first of the four 
 sections, it remains impossible in that province. 
 
 Section 52 of the same Supreme Court and Exchequer Court 
 Act contains also the following provision: 
 
 " 52. It shall be lawful for the (Jovernor in Council to refer 
 to the Supreme Court for hearing or consideration, any matters 
 whatsoever as he may think fit; and the Court shall thereupon 
 hear and consider the same and certify their opinion thereon 
 to the Governor in Council : Provided that any Judge or Judges 
 of the said Court who may differ from the opinion of the 
 majority may in like manner certify his or their ojnnion or 
 opinions to the Governor in Council." 
 
Letter.] Federal OonatiiiUion. 118 
 
 IV 
 
 THE REFERENCE ENACTED BY CLAUSE 52 OF THE SUPREME COURT 
 ACT IS NOT A SUITABLE MODE FOR GIVING EFFECT TO THE 
 REFERENCE. 
 
 If it were held that by virtue of this provision, the Federal 
 Government could submit to the Supreme Court the question 
 of the validity of the Federal license law, the reply would be 
 that this reference is not what was contemplated by the House 
 of Commons, since it is not a juridical reference en viatihe con- 
 tentieusi (1) and that such reference or appeal in the exercise 
 of contentious jurisdiction can alone satisfy the desire of the 
 House and accomplish the object of the resolution. 
 
 The contentious nature of the reference ordered by the 
 House of Commons is easily proved. A bill had been submitted 
 to it for the repeal of the license law of the last session, on 
 
 (1) In order that these Letters, which are not written merely for law- 
 yers, may be clearly understood, it will be necessary from time to time 
 to expound certain matters of legal and judicial practice. The distinc- 
 tion made in the text between the reference in matter of volontary or 
 gracimis jurisdiction, and contentious jurisdiction calls for some explanation. 
 In civil law, it is called voluntary jurisdiction when justice is administered 
 on a demand voluntarily made by a party without being directed by 
 summons against another party, and which does not seek the condom- 
 nation of any person — in a M'ord, which does not institute a law suit. An 
 exemple of such jurisdiction is afforded by the appointment of a tutor 
 or curator on thedemand of the father of the minor or of those interested. 
 In this case, the demand, although judicial, in so far as it asks for the 
 intervention of the judicial authority, is not directed against any one nor 
 does it require the assignation of a defendant. The judgment necessitated 
 by such a demand is not coercive ^nd is rendered by a sort of grace. It is, 
 therefore, termed graciom { juridiction gracieuse or jurisdiction of grace). An 
 has been seen, it is also called voluntary, because there is nothing con- 
 
 8 
 
) ••;■> 
 
 1J4^ Letters on the interpretation of the ' [Third 
 
 account of the false interpretation given to the judgment of 
 the Privy Council rendered in the Russell case, by which 
 judgment the last law had been prompted. The falseness of 
 that interpretation, according to the author of the repeal bill, 
 had been recognized by a judgment subsequent to the license 
 law, rendered by the same tribunal, the judgment in the 
 Hodge case. This appreciation of the two judgments was 
 shared in by a good many members. 
 
 On the other hand, a section of the House maintained that 
 the judgment in the Hodge case was not susceptible of the 
 application attributed to it; that it had neither shown 
 the false interpretation put by Parliament on the judgment in 
 the Russell case, nor proved the unconstitutionality of the 
 license law. 
 
 The real question, therefore, had to do with the nature of 
 the decision of the Privy Council as to the constitutionality of 
 this latter law, some holding that the supreme tribunal had 
 
 tentious in it, it requires no oxamiuatlon and the parties interested submit 
 to it voluntarily. 
 
 Oontentiom jurisdiction is that which is exercised against a party who 
 is obliged to submit to it, whose condemnation is sought, who must be 
 in which there is a trial — in other words, which brings on a suit. 
 
 According to this distinction, the reference of a constitutional or legal 
 question by the Federal Government to the Supreme Court, or by the 
 Queeu in Council to the Judicial Committee, is a matter of volmitary or 
 gracious jurisdiction, and this same reference made to tribunals in a 
 suit is made in contentious jurisdiction. We will also call (he former 
 direct reference Mid the latter indirect, because, in the one case the 
 opinion of the ^Supreme Court is the chief and direct object of the 
 reference ; in the other the judgment of the tribunal on the question is 
 brought out incidentally in the course of the suit and the reference or 
 submission of this question is indirect, with regard to the suit in which 
 it occurs. 
 
Letter.] Federal Constitution. 116 
 
 pronounced it invalid, while others affirmed the contrary. 
 When the House ordered the reference on the constitutionality 
 of that law, it must have looked for a decision like that ren- 
 dered by the Privy Council in the Russell and Hodge cases, on 
 the very point expressly raised in the case submitted, and on 
 which the tribunal would be forced to pronounce expressly, so 
 as to judge it, no longer by implication, but explicitly. 
 
 V. 
 
 THIS CLAUSE 52 RELATES TO ADMINISTRATIVE AND EXECUTIVE 
 MATTERS. 
 
 To have its full effect, which is to direct the action of the 
 
 Federal Parliament as to the repeal or maintenance of the law, 
 and that of the Legislatures, on the subject, and serve as a 
 precedent to the tribunals, this decision should, therefore, 
 have the same character of contentious juridicitj'' as the two 
 decisions afore-cited, and be in the legal conditions requisite 
 to create la chose jugh, that is, be rendered in a contradictory 
 suit between legitimate parties. Now, is it necessary to say 
 that the report made by the Supreme Court by virtue of section 
 52 of the Supreme Court Act above cited, on demand made by 
 the Governor in Council, that is by the Federal Executive, 
 would have none of these juridical conditions? That report 
 would not be made in a suit undertaken between legitimate 
 parties and would be in no wise obligatory. According to the 
 Supreme Court Act and the English practice, of which we are 
 about to speak, such a report is demanded voluntarily and 
 made ex parte, for the iuibrmation of the executive and the 
 
116 Letters on the interpretation of th3 [Third 
 
 guidance of its administrative action. It could not, especially, 
 exercise any influence on the action of the Federal Legislature 
 which is not even vested with the power to ask for it, and to 
 which section 52 does not extend (1). Created for the needs 
 of the administrative service, this reference cannot pass the 
 domain of the latter. ''' " 
 
 In the juridical usages of England, clause 52 does not, more- 
 over, constitute a novel practice. It is borrowed from the Impe- 
 rial Statute 3 and 4 Guil. 4, c. 41, entitled : " An Act for the better 
 administration of justice in His Majesty's Privy Council," 
 clause 6 of which is to this effect : "It shall be lawful for 
 His Majesty to refer to the said Judicial Committee forbearing 
 or consideration any such other matters whatsoever as His 
 Majesty shall think fit, and such committee shall hear or con- 
 sider the same, and shall advise His Majesty thereon in manner 
 aforesaid." 
 
 There can be no doubt that, in its application as in its con- 
 text, the effect of this clause is restricted to the administrative 
 jurisdiction of the Executive Government of England and that 
 it was not intended for legislative purposes. In fact, the Execu- 
 tive Government is without control over the legislative domain, 
 and it is not in the power of the sovereigns to refer a legisla- 
 tive question to any body politic whatever, any more than to 
 the tribunals of the empire, otherwise than in the ordinary 
 juridical form, and in the same way as any other party having 
 
 (1) We shall see later on in what circnmstances and on what condi- 
 tions, British legislative bodies may ask for the opinion of judges on 
 special questions of law, and the effect of that opinion. 
 
*•■■,- 
 
 Letter.] Federal Constitution. / 117 
 
 recourse to the judicial authority. Setting aside the eminence of 
 the tribunal and the special character ofthe argument, which is 
 made by the parties as in an ordinary suit, this administrative 
 reference is in its nature and effects assimilable to the refer- 
 ences made by the Crown to its law officers. 
 
 VI 
 
 PROOF OP THIS PROPOSITION BY SEVERAL ENGLISH PRECEDENTS AS 
 TO REFERENCE TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL, WHICH REFERENCE 
 DICTATED OUR CLAUSE 62. INTERPRETATION OF CLAUSE 4 
 GUIL. 4, C. 41, AUTHORIZING A LIKE REFERENCE BY THE 
 SOVEREIGN TO THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL. 
 
 The following cases referred by the Crown to the Judicial 
 Committee by virtue of clause 4 of Guil. 4, c. 41, above cited, 
 may give an idea of the nature of the subjects which are thus 
 dealt with. 
 
 " When a public functionary has been suspended, the matter 
 is generally referred by the Crown to the Judicial Committee 
 on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, although not 
 invariably, for in certain cases the latter takes upon himself the 
 responsability of advising the Crown to confirm or reject the 
 suspension." 
 
 (22 Geo. 3, c. 75. Ex parte Robertson 11 Moo. P.C.C. 258.) 
 
 "The Judicial Committee has also, on the special reference 
 
 of the Crown, made through the Secretary of State, heard a 
 
 case based on a memorial presented to Her Majesty by the 
 
 representatives ofthe Island of Grenada, asking for the dismis- 
 

 
 118 Letters on the interpretation of the [Third 
 
 sal of the chief justice for bad conduct, and a counter-memorial 
 from that functionary." 
 
 (Representatives of Grenada, 6 Moo. P. C. C. 38.— The parties were 
 heard by counsel before the Judicial CJommittee. 
 
 The case of judge Elz6ar Bedard, also heard by Judicial 
 Committee, on special reference of the Crown, is particularly 
 interesting. 
 
 Judge Bedard had been, since 1836, a judge of the Court of 
 King's Bench for the District of Quebec. Transferred in 1848 
 to Montreal, as judge of the same court, for the latter district, 
 he wished, at the opening of the succeeding term, to take 
 his rank on the bench according to seniority and claimed pre- 
 cedence over judges Day and Smith, who had been appointed 
 after him, but who were his seniors in the District of Montreal. 
 The latter protested against his pretention, notwithstanding 
 that the Commission appointing him judge for the latter dis- 
 trict had accorded him that precedence. The four judges, 
 namely, Chief Justice Rolland and the three other judges who 
 have just been mentioned, having deliberated on the matter, 
 the majority, that is. Chief Justice Rolland and judges Day 
 and Smith, decided against judge BMard and gave their deci- 
 sion in the form of an order, bearing date July 1st, 1848, and 
 entered at that date in the records of the court. Judge BMard 
 appealed against this order, by a petition addressed to the 
 Queen who referred the point in dispute to the Judicial Com- 
 mittee. 
 
 The Attorney-General and Sollicitor-General intervened in the 
 case and were heard on the petition, in support of which they 
 pleaded. The judges who had delivered the order also sent a 
 
Letter.] Federal CkmstiM/Um. 119 
 
 petition sustaining their opinion but were not heard by Coun- 
 sel before the Judicial Committee, who made a report favora- 
 ble to judge B4dard and hostile to the order against which he 
 had appealed, and the report was confirmed by order in Coun- 
 cil. 
 
 {In re B^dard, 7 Moo. P. C. C. 23). 
 
 A person who thought he had a right to be admitted as an 
 advocate in the Royal Court of Jersey, presented a petition to 
 the Queen in Council, asking for the issue of an order to the 
 bailiff of the island, enjoining him to admit the petitioner to 
 take the oath as an advocate and to practice before the Court. 
 
 The petition was referred to the Judicial Committee and 
 made known to the bailiff who produced his reply, and the 
 two parties were heard by Counsel before the Judicial Com- 
 mittee who refused to entertain the conclusions of the petition. 
 
 (D'AUain v. LeBreton, 11 Moo. P. C. C. 64). 
 
 A Frenchman, by name Adam, having been banished from 
 the island of Mauritius by the Governor of the colony, referred 
 his complaint to the Secretary of State for the Colonie8,and,with 
 the concurrence of the Government, this complaint was sub- 
 mitted to the King on Council and referred to the Judicial 
 Committee for exa mination as to (1) the status of the petitioner ; 
 (2) as to whether the juridical rights inherent in that Status 
 had been infringed by expulsion from the colony. 
 
 It is to be noted that it was only on these two points of law, 
 and not to lay before the Judicial Committee the question of 
 justice or competency in the Governor, or the question of com- 
 
120 Letters on the interpretation of the Third 
 
 pensation due the petitioner, in case he should be shown to 
 have been illegally expelled, that the reference was made. 
 
 The opinion of the Committee on both points was favorable 
 to the petitioner. 
 
 (460 In re Adam, 1 Moo. P. C. C). 
 
 A number of the inhabitants of the island of Cape Breton 
 petitioned the Crown for the restoration of the Constitution 
 which had been granted to them in 1784, and the rescission 
 of their annexation to the Province of Nova-Scotia which had 
 
 been eflfected in 1820. 
 
 The petition was based in part on legal arguments, and in 
 part supported by reasons of policy. It was referred to the 
 Judicial Committee with instruction to limit the hearing to law 
 questions and to avoid all political discussion. Notice was 
 also given of the reference of the petition to the House of 
 Assembly and to the Legislative Council of Nova Scotia and 
 they were authorized, if they deemed fit, to be represented by 
 Council in opposing it. They did so and after hearing of the 
 law officers of the Crown, of the people of Cape Breton and of 
 the legisl^ure of Nova-Scotia, the committee made a report 
 unfavorable to the petition. 
 
 (In re Island of Cape Breton, 6 Moo. P. C. C. 259). 
 
 Two colonies having entered into difficulties with each other 
 on account of an extent of territory that was in dispute be- 
 tween them, their respective governors agreed, with the consent 
 of their councils, to submit the matter to the Queen in Coun- 
 cil. After having proceeded with their evidence by means of a 
 
Letter.] Federal ComtUviion. 121 
 
 joint commission and having transmitted it to the imperial 
 authorities, each governor presented his petition soliciting the 
 royal decision, and this was delivered on the report of the Judi- 
 cial Committee, to which the dispute had been referred. 
 
 (Case of Pental Island, O. C. January, 1872.) 
 
 The seven precedents which we have just cited show that 
 it is only in the exercise of the executive power and on q\ies- 
 tions of law, that the Queen in Council consults the Judicial 
 Committee and that the application of clause 4 of Guil. 4, c. 
 41, is limited to these matters. 
 
 The Crown does not refer to the committee even petitions for 
 the exercise of the royal prerogative of pardon, although such 
 petition may be submitted to it to obtain its opinion on some 
 point of law raised by the petition. 
 
 (The Queba vs. Eduljee Pyramjee, 5 Moo. P. C. C. 276.) 
 
 This clause, strictly speaking, was not even necessary to 
 authorize the reference which it sanctions, since, before the 
 reorganization of the Privy Council and the creation of the 
 Judicial Committee, reference of questions of law to the tribu- 
 nals was a frequent usage. It is a maxim of common law, 
 according to Sir Edward Coke, as cited by the authors who 
 have written upon the royal prerogative, and especially by 
 Blackstone and Chitty, that *' a council belonging to the King 
 are his judges in law matters." 
 
 (1 Ins. 110 — 1 Bla. 229, Chitty Prerogatives of the Crown, ch. 27, p. 
 409.) 
 
 It was only, therefore, to regulate the application of that 
 maxim to the Judicial Committee that the clause in question 
 
'■;,:« ;,. _v;.V , ■' ■ y i; ■ . 
 
 122 LeUers on the interpretation of the [Third 
 
 was introduced. Besides, the members of the Judicial Commit- 
 tee who were not privy councillors before, become so by their 
 nomination. 
 
 VII. 
 
 THE REFERENCE OF CLAUSE 52 OP THE ACT OF THE SUPREME COURT 
 LAW CANNOT HAVE A WIDER APPLICATION THAN THE REFER 
 ENCE OP CLAUSE 4 GUIL. 4, C. 41, PROM WHICH IT IS BORROWED 4 
 
 DIRECT REFERENCE TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL IS NOT AUTHO- 
 RIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION, DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 The reference made by the Government of Canada to the 
 Supreme Court not having more effect than that made by 
 the Crown to the Privy Council, from which it is borrowed, it 
 follows that it cannot have more extension ; that it must be 
 limited to executive and administrative matters, and cannot 
 be applied to those that are within the jurisdiction of the legis- 
 lature, any more than to questions that arise as to the compe- 
 tence of the Federal and Provincial Legislatures, and which 
 relate to the extent of their respective powers, that is, to consti- 
 tutional questions. 
 
 The resolution of the House of Commons also mentions the 
 Privy Council as a tribunal to which the question may be 
 referred instead of the Supreme Court or conjointly with it. 
 Is such reference authorized by the laws of the Empire or by 
 the Federal Constitution? By the former it is not so expressly 
 and there is nothing in the Federal Constitution that could 
 directly or indirectly furnish a pretext for it. 
 
 We maintain that there is nothing in the laws of the Empire 
 
*!• 
 
 letter.] Federal ComtUution. 123 
 
 relative to the colonies which, beyond appeals, authorizes the 
 reference to the Privy Council of questions arising as to the 
 extent of the powers of their legislatures ; but, possibly, it is so 
 authorized by implication through the practice of the Judicial 
 Committee. The jurisdiction of that committee is mainly an 
 appellate jurisdiction* but it possesses also a jurisdiction of 
 first instance or an original jurisdiction. 
 
 The reference of the question by way of appeal to that 
 tribunal has been already adverted to and perhaps, we shall 
 revert to it later on. At present the question is whether it is 
 not of its competence as a tribunal of first instance, that is to 
 say, whether the Federal Parliament or the Legislatures may 
 not carry directly thither their conflicts as to their respective 
 jurisdictions. 
 
 We must, therefore, inquire what this original jurisdiction 
 or jurisdiction of first instance is, and in what cases it is exer- 
 cised. The authors who have written on the subject assert 
 that it takes place by virtue of statutory or common law, and 
 that it is exercised in two cases. The first of these cases relates 
 to causes concerning the confirmation and extension of patents 
 for new inventions, in accordance with 5 and 6 Guil. 4, c. 83, 
 passed in 1835, and which created this jurisdiction; the second 
 is thus defined by a modern author in a work on the subject, 
 who has borrowed his opinion from Blackstone: " The subject 
 of the following pages is the form and manner in which the Queen in 
 
 Council practically exercises her jurisdiction in appeal and her 
 
 original jurisdiction founded upon the principles of feodal sovereign- 
 ty, in the case of dispute between two provinces out of the realm, or of 
 any rights claimed under i. 'Ms from the Crown. 
 
 (Macpherson, Practice of the Judicial Committee. Introduction,page X.) 
 
124 Letters on the interpretation of the [Third 
 
 Wheneoer also a question arises between two provinces in America 
 or elsewhere as concerning the extent of their charters and the like, 
 the King in his Council exercises original jurisdiction therein upon 
 the principles of feudal sovereignty. And so likewise when any person 
 claims an island or a province in the nature of a feudal principality, 
 hy grant from the King or his ancestors, tJte determinaiion of that 
 right belongs to His Majesty in Council : as was the case of the Earl 
 of Derby with regard to the Isle of Man in the reign of Queen Eliza- 
 beth, and the Earl of Cardigan and others as representatives of the 
 Duke of Montague with relation to the Island of St. VincerU in 1764. 
 
 (1 Bla., 131 Com. 426.) 
 
 The application of this opinion of the prince of English juris- 
 consults, which is found to be supported by no other precedent 
 than the island of Pental above cited, seems at first sight rather 
 obscure. Nevertheless, the nature of this precedent compared 
 with the text and with the development that the author has 
 made of it leaves hardly any doubt that by " the extent of 
 their charter ", the author meant the territorial extent, that is, 
 the territorial extent of the charters of provinces and not the 
 extent of their legislative powers. Every one knows that in 1765, 
 which is the year of the publication of the first volume of Black- 
 stone's commentaries which comprises this opinion, there were 
 between the British colonies in America and especially those 
 of New England, numerous conflicts relative to their territorial 
 limits, and it was quite natural that those conflicts should be 
 referred to the British Privy Council. Two other reasons, fur- 
 nished by the author himself, agree with this interpretation. 
 The first is drawn from the very nature of the question sub- 
 mitted to the jurisdiction of the Council, consisting of a dispute 
 between two American provinces, which dispute could have no 
 
Letter.] Federal QmstitiUion. 125 
 
 reference to conflicts of legislative jurisdiction at that time, 
 since each legislature was independent of the others and that 
 in the unitary governments to which the English provinces were 
 then subjected, such conflicts were impossible. 
 
 The second reason is deduced from the title attributed to the 
 King in taking cognizance of the dispute, namely his title to 
 the feudal sovereignty, or, in other words, his title of suzerain 
 or dominant lord of the fief. In feudal law, the principles or, 
 at least, the fictions of which are still in usage in England, 
 there is the following provision : that the King is universal lord 
 and primary proprietor of all the lands of the Kingdom, and 
 that no person possesses any portion of them which does not 
 proceed from him as a gift and at the charge of military ser- 
 vice. Thence arises the right of the British Sovereign to pro- 
 nounce judgment as to disputes arising between provinces 
 touching the extent of the territories covered by their charters 
 as well as questions regarding the ownership of fiefs. It was 
 this principle which directed the reference in the matter of the 
 Island of Pental, and the decision rendered by the King in 
 Council in the cases of the Earls of Derby and Cardigan, cited 
 by Blackstone. 
 
 In the third place it is impossible to suppose that in enacting 
 the reference, the House should have meant to do so in a case 
 not recognized by law, and that, on the other hand, it should 
 have wished to efiect an abdication of sovereignty and to aban- 
 don to the British Privy Council a decision which is one of its 
 grandest constitutional privileges, that of making its own laws ; 
 that, in order to elude an embarrassing question the members 
 for the provinces to the Federal Parliament, those for Quebec 
 
126 Letters on the interpretation of the [Third 
 
 especially, should, in a moment of deplorable forgetfulness, 
 have sacrificed the fruit of labours which had engaged their 
 fathers for generations, that of self-government, and, for a 
 transitory interest, have made shipwreck of a liberty so dearly 
 won! 
 
 This language, however severe it may be, would be more 
 than justified by the event, if those who voted the reference, 
 had meant to make it direct and not rather await the ordinary 
 and contentious action of the tribunals, to model their legisla- 
 tive conduct upon the decisions thus rendered I 
 
 We have seen how reference is made by the Federal Govern- 
 ment to the Supreme Court whose opinion is sollicited, and that 
 this opinion, not obligatory for the Government, is still less so 
 for the legislature. Of that reference to the Supreme Court it 
 may be said, as has already been said of the reference to the 
 Privy Council, that it participates in the nature of references 
 to the law oflftcers of the Crown. 
 
 Need it be said that it is otherwise with the contentious ju- 
 risdiction of the Judicial Committee, in cases in which 
 that jurisdiction has been conferred upon by statute — the 
 above mentioned case of confirmation or extension of patents, 
 for example — or by common law, as in the somewhat obscure 
 case of the dispute between the provinces cited by Blackstone ? 
 It is true that in these latter cases as well as in that of admi- 
 nistrative reference, the committee renders no judgment, pro- 
 ceeding simply by report, but the report is a matter of form 
 and the sovereign would not be justified in refusing to confirm 
 it by a formal judgment, while it is not so in the case of 
 
Letter.] Federal Cbnstitution. 127 
 
 voluntary reference, in which, though there is almost always 
 confirmation by the Privy Council, that confirmation is only 
 discretionary and does not become legally binding. 
 
 If we apply these considerations to the reference to the 
 Supreme Court, what would be the result ? Would that refer- 
 ence made in a matter of legislative jurisdiction, be lawful for 
 the Federal Government? 
 
 VIII 
 
 BY VIRTUE OP CLAUSE 52 OF THE SUPREME COURT ACT, THE FEDE- 
 RAL GOVERNMENT HAS NOT THE POWER TO REFER LEGISLA- 
 TIVE QUESTIONS TO THAT TRIBUNAL. 
 
 Let us specify the question. 
 
 In the actual state of legislation, has the governor in coun- 
 cil, or, which amounts to the same thing, the Federal Govern- 
 ment, the constitutional power, by virtue of clause 52 of the 
 Supreme Court act, to refer to that court questions arising 
 out of legislative conflicts or between the Federal Parliament 
 and the Provincial Legislatures, and, especially relating to the 
 competence of the former on any given subject, and what would 
 be the effect of the court's opinion on the deliberations of Par- 
 liaments? 
 
 First of all, the terms of clause 4, which says " that it will be 
 lawful for the Governor in Council to submit to the Supreme 
 Court for hearing or examination all questions whatever that it 
 may judge fit," are so coir»prehenaive that they do not seem to 
 
128 Letters (m th£ interpretcUwn, of the [Third 
 
 admit of distinction. Nevertheless the spirit of a law modifies 
 and restricts its range, and the execution of a similar law 
 passed in England will aid our inquiry into the intention of 
 the legislator and exercise a great influence on its interpreta- 
 tion. 
 
 On that score, clause 4 of the Imperial Act 3 and 4 
 Guil. 4, c. 41, to the intent that "it shall be lawful for the 
 King to refer to the said Judicial Committee for hearing and 
 consideration any other such matter whatever as His Majesty shall 
 think fit," from which our clause is copied, is restricted in prac- 
 tice to executive and administrative matters, as we have 
 already seen. The seven cases of reference made in virtue of 
 this clause which we have quoted all relate to questions of 
 that kind. If we examine all the precedents on the subject, 
 we shall not find a single one relating to legislative matters. 
 Not even all administrative afi'airs or everything trenching on 
 the executive domain is included in it, as the exercise of the 
 royal prerogative of pardon is never referred, as we have 
 already seen. 
 
 The application of Statutes is everywhere subject to a 
 necessary restriction, whenever their literal application extends 
 beyond the circle of subjects foreseen by the legislator or exceeds 
 the aim of the law. Simple good sense commands this limita- 
 tion. A law may subject the subordinate functionary to the abso- 
 lute authority of the magistrate, a soldier to that of his general 
 officer, an employee of a public department to all orders of 
 his chief of whatever nature, but is it not evident that this 
 authority and those orders must be executed only for the 
 needs of the judicial, military and civil service ? The object 
 and aim of the provision in those cases restricts its application 
 
letter.] Federal Constitution. 129 
 
 The Governor in Council, that is, the Federal Government, 
 is authorized to refer any question whatever to the Supreme 
 Court. This reference, to have a useful purpose, must be sub- 
 ordinated to the objects that fall within the sphere of its powers 
 and duties, and be ordered to favour the execution of the 
 former and the accomplishment of the hitter. It is in the inte- 
 rest of the Executive Government of the Dominion and to 
 ensure its efficiency, that the Executive Council is authorized 
 to consult the Supreme Court on doubtful questions of law and 
 to profit by its superior legal knowledge. But the subjects on 
 which the opinion of that Court is requested must be circum- 
 scribed within the sphere of the Government's own functions. 
 Now those functions are all administrative and limited to the 
 domain of the Executive Power, without authority in any way 
 to encroach on the legislative domain. The Legislative Power 
 and the Executive Power being essentially distinct, it is only 
 by an accident attributable to the exercise of responsible gov- 
 ernment and not to the nature of the attributes of the two 
 powers, that ministers, as members of the legislatures, take 
 part in legislation, which, according to the doctrine of publi- 
 cists on the division of powers, is altogether alien to them. 
 
 The reference of article 52 is not. then, made for legislative 
 questions, not to guide the legislatures, whose independence 
 would be unfavorably afiected or even destroyed bv an alien 
 influence. 
 
 Tt matters little that the House should have .«eemed to hav*' 
 
 but a vague idea of the nature of tlie reference and that thf 
 
 author of the amendment proposing it, Sir Hector La ngevin. 
 
 and Mr. Girouard, who supporter! that amendment and niain- 
 
 9 
 
130 Jjetters on the interpretation of the [Third 
 
 tained the constitutionality of the Federal License Law, should 
 both have seemed to ignore the contentious reference and sus- 
 tained the voluntary and direct reference to the Crown ; the 
 presumption that the House did not mean to adopt a measure 
 legally impossible and unconstitutional will always prevail. 
 
 IX. 
 
 DIVERSITY OF OPINIONS IN THE HOUSE AS TO THE MODE OP 
 REFERENCE. TWO SPEECHES ON THAT SUBJECT. 
 
 It would, however, be difficult to reconcile the diversity of 
 views of the two members as to the steps to be taken in order to 
 legiilize the reference. The report of V Etendard, to which we 
 are indebted for an account of the debate, makes the Minister 
 of Public Works say : " In this manner we shall obtain a deci- 
 " sion from an adequate tribunal. We shall obtain a decision 
 '• from the Supreme Court on the question that the Government 
 " Avill submit to it," and if we are not satisfied with that court, 
 '■ we can go to the Judicial Committee of the Priv> Council. 
 " or we can have a decision from both tribunals ; but. at any 
 '■ rate, we shall obtain a legal decision of authority on the 
 " constitutionality of that Act." 
 
 " Mr. Girouard. — 1 will vote withtiut hesitation for the 
 " amendment of the Minister of Public Works. Not having 
 '• before us a decision on the constitutionality of the Dominion 
 " License Act, I think we ought to thank the (Government for 
 " preventing so much discussion between the Provincial Gov- 
 '' ernments and the inhabitants of the provinccH (sic)." (I pre- 
 sume that the speaker has been wrongly reported and that he 
 
Letter.] Federal Constitution. 131 
 
 said : " between the Federal Government and the provinces.) 
 " Instead of having numerous suits and special pleadings in 
 " the different provinces, we shall have only one case and the 
 •■ suit will not commence in an inferior court to be after- 
 " wards carried to a higher court. We shall proceed at once 
 '• before the highest court in the country, the Supreme Court 
 '* of Canada. 
 
 • Mr. Blake.— How? 
 
 '' Mr. Girouard. — We shall provide for it by a bill. It cannot 
 '' be done otherwise. I say that it shall be by a bill, for I do 
 •• not know of any other way in which it can be efifected.... I 
 " will not take the opinion of this Parliament en constitutional 
 " (lucstions as a binding authority. I maintain that the tribo- 
 " nals of the country constitute the only known authority for 
 •' the decision of constitutional questions. 
 
 '' Last year when we had a debate on the King's County (P. 
 •• E. I.) election, certain statutes were cited as unconstitutional, 
 " but I said then that we were not the authority which should 
 " decide the unconstitutionality of those statutes, and that, 
 " consequently, as far as I was concerned, I would consent to 
 '' accept them as the authority of the country until the consti- 
 " tuted authority, that is, the courts of justice of the country, 
 " had decided that they were not constitutional. 
 
 " We have no authority to do that. The courts of justice 
 '' alone have the right, and T approve of the measure proposed 
 " by the Hon. the Minister of Public Works, which is to carry 
 '* the case before the Supremo Court, and to do so immediatly. 
 " This case will Vje taken before the Supreme Court and the 
 
132 Letters on the interpretati' n, of the [Third 
 
 " local legislatures shall have the right of being represented by 
 " counsel and to lay their case before that tribunal. I hope 
 " they will do so and that the wliole question of jurisdiction 
 " between the Dominion Parliament and the Local Legislatures 
 " will be discussed. We have an admirable Constitution. We 
 " hear the cry of centralizing tendencies in the Dominion Par- 
 " liament, but such centralization is impossible. 
 
 *' We have courts of justice to decide with whom the power 
 " lies, whether with the Provincial Legislatures or the Doini- 
 " nion Parliament. In that case the Supreme Court and, I 
 " also hope, the Privy Council will take the question into con- 
 " sideration; for, as the honorable member for Quebec Centre 
 " (Mr. Bosse) has remarked, the people of this country have 
 
 " the utmost confidence in the decision of the Privy Council, 
 " and that is another reason why this question should be finally 
 " referred to the Privy Council. 
 
 " If we wish to have a final decision, if we wish the inhabi- 
 " tants of the country to submit to the settlement of this case, 
 '' we ought to have the decision rendered by the Privy Coun- 
 " cil; without that, they will not submit to the decision of the 
 " Supreme Court and they will ultimately appeal it, in their 
 " private cases, to the Privy Council, for the settlement of the 
 •' question now under consideration. 
 
 " For this reason, I will vote in favour of the amendment of 
 •' the honorable Minister of Public works, and, as I have said, 
 " the members for the Province of Quebec, who are more 
 •' anxious, perhaps, than those of the other provinces, to have 
 " their rights maintained, will vote for this amendment; for, 
 
Letter.] Federal Cmstitution. 188 
 
 " in the future, when certain rights more sacred than the liquor 
 " trafic shall be in question — I hope that time will never 
 '• come — the members for the Province of Quebec will be able 
 "to rise in Parliament and say: 'Lei m refer this important- 
 " question concerning our insiiiutlons, our religion or our language 
 " to the decision oj the Supreme Court and of the Privy Council," 
 " and I have no doubt that, berore that tribunal, the Province 
 " of Quebec will obtain jusL^ce as well as the other provinces. 
 " For these reasons I shall vote for the amendment of the 
 
 " Minister of Public Works." 
 
 ft 
 
 T. J. J. LO RANGER.