Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

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

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896935052

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-238139

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 2

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XI Seiten, Seiten 570-1100

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

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

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part IV. The federations and the union // Chapter I. The dominion of Canada

Collection:: Economics Books

CHAP. 1] THE DOMINION OF CANADA 675 always excited in Canada as elsewhere! In 1874 Ontario legislated (c. 32) to provide that a licence was needed under the Act to authorize the sale of liquor in the province. This Act was declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court of Canada : they denied that it was.direct taxation, and they thought it was fundamentally different from the power to impose licence duties on shops, saloons, taverns, &c., given to the provinces by 5. 92(9), and that it infringed on the power of Canada to regulate commerce. In 1897 the decision was reversed in The Brewers’ and Malisters’ Association case,® where the Privy Council held that similar licence duties on brewers Were a direct tax authorized by s. 92 (2), and that in any tase their imposition was a legitimate exercise of the power to impose licence duties, and therefore valid under s. 92 (9). In 1878 (41 Vict. c. 16) the Dominion Parliament legislated to encourage temperance : if the Act is brought into force in aly county or town in the Dominion, it becomes illegal to sell intoxicating liquors except wholesale or for certain limited Purposes, and in the excepted cases the sale is strictly regu- lated, sales in violation of the law are criminal, and for the third offence and any subsequent one imprisonment is legitimate. The Act was declared ultra vires in the City of Fredericton case by a New Brunswick Court in 1879,% but Was approved by the Supreme Court® and the Judicial Committee, which showed that as it did not raise revenue it could not fall under s. 92 (9) of the British North America Act, and that it was really a regulation similar to a regulation for the prevention of the use of noxious poison, being thus for order and good government, but not an exercise of any Specified power such as the trade and commerce power under 8. 91 (2). as Ritchie C.J. held in the Supreme Court. This ! See, besides Wheeler and Lefroy, Quick and Garran, Constitution of Commonwealth, pp. 544 seq. ? Severn v. The Queen (1877), 2 8. C. R. 70. Cf. Rey. v. Justices of King's County, 2 Pugs. 535, a decision on the New Brunswick Act, 36 Viet. c. 10. See on the whole question, Wheeler, Confederation Law of Canada, pp. 144 4.» 1042 seq. ; Lefroy, op. cit., pp. 372 seq., 401 seq. * [1897] A, C. 231. 4 (1879) 3 P. & B. 139, $38. CR. 505. T9

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