718 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART TV
of its negative voice in legislation! a difficulty often seen in
cases of municipal action in British Colonies against Indians
and natives, which cannot be controlled by the Crown.
(w) The Plenary Power of the Provinces
Similarly the Provincial Legislatures are not hampered by
considerations of non-interference with Dominion powers, or
vice versa, which have been used to regulate the division of
powers in Australia. That was laid down once and for all
in Bank of Toronto v. Lambe? when the analogy of American
decisions was decisively rejected, but it had been asserted
in a series of inferior Canadian cases® that the provinces
could not tax the salary of a Dominion official, a doctrine
decisively rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada 4 when
the point came before it. The same principle of the
equality of province and Dominion in their own lines is
asserted in The Liquidators of the Maritime Bank of Canada
v. The Receiver-General for New Brunswick? The principle
asserted in Coté v. Watson 8, that a Provincial Legislature
could not raise a tax on the sum realized from the sale of an
insolvent’s effects, cannot now be upheld in view of The
Brewers’ and Maltsters® Association of Ontario v. The Attorney-
General for Ontario.”
So again the wide sense given to the trade and commerce
power in Severn v. The Queen 8 as forbidding a licence fee
on brewers is shown to be untenable by the later decisions,
! Cf. Mr. H. Davey in Canada Sess. Pap., 1888, No. 30, p. 113. Similarly
in England there is now no veto on municipal by-laws, though such a veto
was contained in the Municipal Reform Act, 1835, 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 76.
3. 90. * 12 App. Cas. 575. See also Lefroy, op. cit., pp. 662-82.
! Leprohon v. City of Ottawa, (1877-8) 40 U. C. Q. B. 478; 2 0. A. R. 522;
cf. ex parte Owen, (1881) 4 P. & B. 487 5 Ackman v. The Town of Moncton,
(1884) 24 N. B. 103; Reg. v. Bowell, (1896) 4 B. C. 498.
Abbott v. City of St. John, 40 8. C. R. 597.
® [1892] A. C. 437. * (1877) 3 Q. L. R. 157.
" [1897] A. C. 231. For a curious case of an ineffectual attempt to over-
ride a Privy Council decision ([1907] A. C. 315), see Toronto Corporation
v. Toronto Railway, [1910] A. C. 312, as to Ontario Act, 1908, c. 112.
+ (1878) 28. C. R. 70. Cf. Gray J. in Tai Sing v. Maguire, (1882) 1 B, C.
(Irving), at p. 106.
