728 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART 1v 
verted the argument of the Secretary of State : he pointed 
out that from their local character the Acts were essentially 
those which did not require intervention onImperial grounds: 
and he laid stress on the fact that as the Queen could only 
disallow by Order in Council so the Governor-General must 
disallow by that means: if ministers wished to disallow 
they should resign if they wished to do so while the Governor 
refused, and conversely, if he desired to disallow he must 
obtain a Cabinet which would agree to his proposed action. 
The case of pardon was essentially different, and no doubt 
might include serious Imperial interests. The report was 
approved on February 29, 1876, and was forwarded on 
April 6, 1876, to the Secretary of State. Ina reply of June 1, 
1876, the Secretary of State intimated that in his view the 
use of the term Governor-General in s. 90, and not Governor- 
General in Council, was a sign of throwing personal responsi- 
bility on the Governor-General : otherwise the whole effect 
of the reservation of independent power to the provinces 
would be gone if the Dominion could deal as it pleased with 
their legislation. The matter could only be decided by the 
Privy Council. To this Mr. Blake replied that the omission 
of the words ‘in Council’ was for brevity and to avoid 
repetition, for else the power to disallow would be given to 
the Governor-General in Council. As to the argument of 
substance, it might at best be an argument for the alteration 
of the law, but even as that it was not conclusive, for the 
provinces were well able to punish any conduct infringing on 
their interests by the Dominion Government, and this was 
a much better safeguard against unsatisfactory legislation 
than an independent judgement on the part of the Governor- 
General, or his acting on instructions from home. The 
Secretary of State in a dispatch of October 31, 1876, still 
maintained his view, and suggested that if the Governor- 
General consulted his ministers he would be acting under 
their advice as laid down in the Lord President’s letter, 
though not according to their advice. In reply, Mr. Blake 
declined to accept the view that a man acted under advice 
when he rejected it, and pressed for the recognition that in