244 DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER. 
Enforce. 
ment of 
Tempe- 
rance 
Laws. 
This limited power of criminal jurisdiction does not 
authorize a provincial Legislature to enforce a law of the 
province, made in relation to matters within the exclusive 
jurisdiction of a provincial Legislature, by declaring acts to 
be offences which are criminal offences at common law. 
When therefore the Ontario Legislature provided that 
tampering with a witness in the case of prosecutions under 
the Liquor License Act should involve a penalty, the 
Ontario Court of Queen’s Bench held the proviso ultra 
vires, inasmuch as tampering with a witness was an offence 
at common law’. In this case an attempt was made, similar 
to that in English cases?, to distinguish between acts that 
are offences, viz. those punishable by magistrates, and acts 
that are crimes, viz. those punishable on indictment, and it 
was suggested that the former were within the jurisdiction 
of the local Legislatures; but the decision was ultimately 
based on the principle that the act in question was a crime 
by common law and therefore not within provincial juris- 
diction. 
The validity of clauses in provincial laws relating to 
temperance has been questioned. 
In some cases® it has been held that the method adopted 
for enforcing the Act in question was ultra vires. and in other 
cases that it was valid*. 
A provincial law forbidding the compromise of offences 
against a law regulating tavern and shop licenses, and 
enacting that any party to such a compromise should on 
conviction be liable to imprisonment, was held not to be 
ultra wires® 
1 R. v. Lawrence, 43 U. C. Q. B, 164." 
2 Bee remarks of Martin B. in 4. G. v. Radloff, 10 Ex. p. 96, 
5 R.v. Prittie, 42 U. C. Q. B. 612; 2 Cart. 606; R. v. Lake, 43 U. C. Q. 
B. 515; 2 Cart. 616. 
4 License Commissioners of Prince Edward v. County of Prince Edward, 
0. 26 Grant, 452; 2 Cart. 678. 
5 Regina v. Boardman. 30 U. C, Q. B. 553: 1 Cart. 676.