cmap.11] LIMITATION OF LEGISLATION 393 
vires of the Dominion Parliament. The enforcement of the 
provisions of this section no doubt would not involve extra- 
territorial constraint, but it would involve the exercise of 
sovereign powers closely allied to the power of expulsion 
and based on the same principles. The power of expulsion 
is in truth but the complement of the power of exclusion. 
If entry be prohibited it would seem to follow that the 
Government which has the power to exclude should have 
the power to expel the alien who enters in opposition to its 
laws. In Hodge v. The Queen! it was decided that a colonial 
legislature has within the limits prescribed by the statute 
which created it ‘an authority as plenary and as ample . . . 
as the Imperial Parliament in the plenitude of its power 
possessed and could bestow’. If, therefore, power to expel 
aliens who had entered Canada against the laws of the 
Dominion was by this statute given to the Government of 
the Dominion, as their Lordships think it was, it necessarily 
follows that the statute has also given them power to impose 
that extra-territorial constraint which is necessary to enable 
them to expel those aliens from their borders to the same 
extent as the Imperial Government could itself have imposed 
the constraint for a similar purpose had the statute never 
been passed. 
Their Lordships therefore think that the decision of 
Mr. Justice Anglin was wrong, and that the appeal should 
be allowed, and will so humbly advise His Majesty. 
Having regard to the arrangement as to costs made with 
the Attorney-General at the hearing of the petition for 
special leave to appeal, and to all the circumstances of the 
case, their Lordships direct the appellant to pay thé costs 
of the respondents as between solicitor and client. 
It will be seen that the Privy Council in this case in no 
wise derogate from the principle of the limits of the legis- 
lation within the territorial jurisdiction. As a general rule, 
what they do hold is in substance that the limitation must 
not be insisted upon in such a manner as to render the grant 
of legislative power ineffectual. That, it would seem, it is 
only fair to concede. The case, therefore, does not carry us 
beyond what is reasonably clear. A difficulty, however, is pre- 
sented by this case in its relation to the case of Reg. v. Lesley.” 
That case arose out of a revolution in South America. 
© 9 App. Cas. 117. 2 (1860) 1 Bell C. C. 220;.29 L. J. M. C. 97.