250 DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.
Committee held that the Act could not properly be said to
be a law in relation to property and civil rights in the sense
in which the words are used in section 92, but related to
the public order and safety, and therefore fell within the
authority of the Dominion Parliament to make laws for the
order and good government of Canada’,
Police This power of the Dominion Legislature does not prevent
Bogs. a province from making regulations in the nature of police
or municipal regulations of a local character for the good
government of taverns licensed for the sale of liquors by
retail, and such as are calculated to preserve in the muni-
cipality peace and public decency and repress drunkenness
and disorderly and riotous conduct, nor are such regulations
any interference with the general regulations of trade and
commerce”,
As an example of a Dominion Act held invalid as affect-
ing civil rights reference may be made to the 42 Vic. c, 48
applying to all building societies, whether solvent or not ®.
Bankruptcy and Insolvency. The effect of these words
was considered in L' Union St Jacques v. Belisle.
The scheme of enumeration in section 91 is “to mention
various categories of general subjects which may be dealt
with by legislation. There is no indication in any instance
of anything being contemplated except what may be pro-
perly described as general legislation: such legislation as
is well expressed by Mr Justice Cawn when he speaks of the
general laws governing faillite, bankruptey and insolvency,
all which are well-known legal terms expressing systems of
.egislation with which the subjects of this country and
probably of most other civilized countries, are perfectly
Bank-
cuptey.
1 Russell v. Regina, L. R. 7 App. Cas. 829; 2 Cart. 12. Griffith v. Riouz,
Q. 6 Legal News, 211.
* Hodge v. The Queen, L. R. 9 App. Cas. 117, see also Ex parte Pillow,
27 L. C, Jurist 216.
3 McClanaghan v. St Ann's Mutual Building Society, 24 L. C. Jurist 162;
2 Cart, 237.
