120 THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT [parr II 
the Sovereign in person, or the honour must be conferred 
by letters patent. 
Again, it is doubtful what rights the Governor has as 
against aliens, that is, whether he can perform against them 
acts of State : the matter might have been determined in 
the case of Musgrave v. Pulido! had the question been 
presented in proper form to the Court. It was again dis- 
cussed by the full Court of Victoria in the case of Toy v. 
Musgrove? which involved the question whether the Governor 
had a delegation of the right of the Crown, which was assumed 
bo exist, to exclude aliens by virtue of the prerogative ; this 
was held to be the case by the Chief Justice and one other 
judge, but four judges could not see any ground for the view, 
and the case was decided by the Privy Council, as too often 
in most important constitutional cases, on grounds which 
excluded any decision on this exact point. But whatever 
may be the case with regard to the prerogative of excluding 
aliens,—and the doubtfulness of the existence of the preroga- 
tive combined with the doubtfulness of its delegation seems 
bo render appeal to it infinitely dangerous—there still remains 
bhe general question whether a Governor can commit an act 
of State, or whether his act must be ratified by the Crown. 
It seems most probable that even a Governor cannot commit 
such an act, but the matter cannot yet be said to be free 
from doubt. Only, if he did so, it is certain that the act could 
be ratified ex post facto,* and if the Colonial Government 
desired so to act it would obviously be wise that the action 
should be that of the Governor. 
It has been held by the Chief Justice of South Australia 
that the Governor has not without express words the right 
of declaring a ferry 5; whether this is sound law or not, it 
would be difficult to conjecture. The matter is fortunately 
hardly one of any consequence; the grant of ferries by the 
prerogative is obsolete. 
* 5 App. Cas. 102. 2 14 V.L.R. 349. ® [1891] A. C. 272, 
* Buron v. Denman, 2 Ex. 167. See below, pp. 134, 169. 
* Dewar v. Smith, 1900, S. A. L. R. 38, at p. 41. CE. in re international 
and interprovincial ferries, 36 S. C. R. 2086.