876 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART 1v
point was left unsettled in Russell v. The Queen,! but decided
definitely in 1896.2 Moreover, the measure was not merely
local : it might be applied only in a certain locality, but its
aim was general, and not limited to one part of Canada so as
to be purely local legislation, which is reserved by s. 92 (16)
to the provinces. This decision led to the passing of the
Federal Act of 1883 (46 Vict. c. 30), which provided a general
licensing system throughout the Dominion. But this Act
was not destined to pass unchallenged, for in the case of
Hodge v. The Queen? it was held by the Privy Council that
it was perfectly within the power of the Ontario Legislature
to enact provisions for the licensing of taverns and the regu-
lation of licensed premises, and as a consequence the Canadian
Parliament referred under the provisions of an Act of 1885
the construction and validity of the Act of 1883 and an
amending Act of 1884 (47 Vict. ¢. 32) to the Supreme Court
and Privy Council, which declared them wlira vires except
so far as they were merely ancillary to the Act of 1878,
and except perhaps so far as they dealt with wholesale and
‘vessel’ licences. The ground seems to have been that the
Acts regulated the trade as a municipal matter and made
the net proceeds payable to the municipalities.
In 1893 the Supreme Court were asked to advise as to
whether the provinces could prohibit the sale of liquor, or its
manufacture, oritsimportation. It wasalso asked whether the
sale could be prohibited in such parts of the province in which
the Canada Temperance Act was not in operation, and they
were asked to say if sale in retail could be forbidden if whole-
sale sale could not be forbidden, especially with regard to an
Ontario Act passed in 1890 (53 Vict. ¢. 56), and explained
by one passed in the following year. The Supreme Court 8
! Russell v. The Queen, (1882) 7 App. Cas. 829; see also a list of the
cases in Canada Sess. Pap., 1883, No. 80; 5 Cart. 663, 664, 668, 669.
? Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorney-General for the Dominion and
Brewers’ Association of Ontario, [1896] A. C. 348,
* 9 App. Cas. 117; Suite v. City of Three Rivers, 11 8. C. R. 25.
See 48 & 49 Vict. ¢. 74 ; Lefroy, pp. 383, 403 ; Canada Sess. Payp., 1885.
No. 85; 4 Cart. 342, note 2. 59248. CR. 170.
