754 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [Part 1V 
Privy Council both by special leave and as of right. Fresh 
Orders in Council were issued in 1910-1 in respect of Nova 
Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba (where a new Court of 
Appeal has been established), British Columbia (also from the 
Court of Appeal), Prince Edward Island (hitherto without any 
appeal as of right), Alberta, and Saskatchewan. In Quebec 
and Ontario appeals as of right are regulated by local Act. 
It should be noted that the Canadian Court has been 
reluctant to exercise the very wide functions entrusted to it 
since 1890 with regard to examining the constitutionality of 
legislation. The matter was discussed at some length in the 
case of the references as to prohibiting Sunday labour! It 
was then urged that, under the jurisdiction then conferred 
upon it, the Court should only deal with matters which had 
formed the subject of actual legislation, and not with matters 
which had not yet formed the subject of legislation, and the 
wording of the Act was relied upon, the other matters referred 
to it being held by the majority of the Court, Idington J. 
dissenting, to refer to other matters of the same class as those 
enumerated specifically, which appeared to contemplate the 
examination of existing legislation, and not speculative 
questions. It was pointed out in that case that the matters 
in which they had been consulted, such as the question of 
prohibitory liquor legislation? the validity of the bigamy 
sections of the Criminal Code, the rights of the Dominion 
and the provinces in the fisheries,* the representation of the 
provinces in the Dominion House of Commons.? and so forth, 
' 358. C.R.581. It may be added that in the provinces also the Supreme 
Courts have imposed upon them by law the duty of giving opinions on the 
constitutionality of Acts, for the guidance of the Provincial Governments. 
In such cases, even by Provincial Act, no appeal lies to the Supreme Court ; 
see Union Colliery Co. v. Attorney-General of British Columbia, 27 S.C. R. 637. 
: 24 8. C. R. 170; carried to P. C., [1896] A. C. 348. 
} 278. C. R. 461 ; above, p. 376. 
+ 26S. C. R. 444; [1898] A. C. 700; at p. 717, the Privy Council declined 
to pass orders on abstract questions affecting private rights; and cf. 
Attorney-General for Ontario v. Hamilton Street Railway Co., [19031 A. C. 524, 
at p. 529, for the same doctrine. 
* 338. C. R, 475 and 594 ; carried to P. C., [1905] A. C. 37.