Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1780159447

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Marx, Karl http://d-nb.info/gnd/118578537

Title:: Das Kapital

Place of publication:: Berlin

Publisher:: J. H. W. Dietz Nachf., G. m. b. H.

Year of publication:: 1926-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1780159595

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-188277

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Marx, Karl http://d-nb.info/gnd/118578537

Title:: Der Produktionsprozeß des Kapitals

Volume count:: 1.1928

Place of publication:: Berlin

Publisher:: J. H. W. Dietz Nachf., G. m. b. H.

Year of publication:: 1928

Scope:: XLVIII, 768 Seiten

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Dritter Abschnitt. Die Produktion des absoluten Mehrwertes

Collection:: Economics Books

876 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART 1v point was left unsettled in Russell v. The Queen,! but decided definitely in 1896.2 Moreover, the measure was not merely local : it might be applied only in a certain locality, but its aim was general, and not limited to one part of Canada so as to be purely local legislation, which is reserved by s. 92 (16) to the provinces. This decision led to the passing of the Federal Act of 1883 (46 Vict. c. 30), which provided a general licensing system throughout the Dominion. But this Act was not destined to pass unchallenged, for in the case of Hodge v. The Queen? it was held by the Privy Council that it was perfectly within the power of the Ontario Legislature to enact provisions for the licensing of taverns and the regu- lation of licensed premises, and as a consequence the Canadian Parliament referred under the provisions of an Act of 1885 the construction and validity of the Act of 1883 and an amending Act of 1884 (47 Vict. ¢. 32) to the Supreme Court and Privy Council, which declared them wlira vires except so far as they were merely ancillary to the Act of 1878, and except perhaps so far as they dealt with wholesale and ‘vessel’ licences. The ground seems to have been that the Acts regulated the trade as a municipal matter and made the net proceeds payable to the municipalities. In 1893 the Supreme Court were asked to advise as to whether the provinces could prohibit the sale of liquor, or its manufacture, oritsimportation. It wasalso asked whether the sale could be prohibited in such parts of the province in which the Canada Temperance Act was not in operation, and they were asked to say if sale in retail could be forbidden if whole- sale sale could not be forbidden, especially with regard to an Ontario Act passed in 1890 (53 Vict. ¢. 56), and explained by one passed in the following year. The Supreme Court 8 ! Russell v. The Queen, (1882) 7 App. Cas. 829; see also a list of the cases in Canada Sess. Pap., 1883, No. 80; 5 Cart. 663, 664, 668, 669. ? Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorney-General for the Dominion and Brewers’ Association of Ontario, [1896] A. C. 348, * 9 App. Cas. 117; Suite v. City of Three Rivers, 11 8. C. R. 25. See 48 & 49 Vict. ¢. 74 ; Lefroy, pp. 383, 403 ; Canada Sess. Payp., 1885. No. 85; 4 Cart. 342, note 2. 59248. CR. 170.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation