390 PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [PART m1 
The decision of the Court was reversed by the Privy 
Council in the cases of The Attorney-General for Canada v. 
Cain and The Attorney-General for Canada v. Gilhular This 
case again is of sufficient importance to justify quotation of 
the judgement. 
The question for decision in this case is whether section 6 
of the Dominion Statute 60 & 61 Vict. c. 11 (styled in the 
respondents’ case ‘ The Alien Labour Act’), as amended by 
1 Edw. VII. c. 13, section 13, is, or is not, ultra vires of the 
Dominion Legislature. 
In the events which have happened the question has in 
this instance become more or less an academic one, inasmuch 
as the two persons arrested under the Attorney-General’s 
warrant granted under the authority of section 6 were on 
the 17th of June, 1905, discharged from custody by order of 
Mr. Justice Anglin, and a year having therefore elapsed 
since the date of their entry into Canada they cannot be 
re-arrested. 
Section 9 of 60 & 61 Vict. c. 11 has been amended by 
61 Vict. c. 2, and sections 1, 6, and 9 of the Alien Labour Act, 
as amended, are in the terms following :— 
*(1) From and after the passing of this Act it shall be unlawful for any 
person, company, partnership or corporation, in any manner to prepay 
the transportation, or in any way to assist or encourage the importation 
or immigration of any alien or foreigner into Canada, under contract or 
agreement, parole or special, express or implied, made previous to the 
importation of such alien or foreigner, to perform labour or service of any 
kind in Canada.’ 
' (6) The Attorney-General of Canada, in case he shall be satisfied that 
an immigrant has been allowed to land in Canada contrary to the prohibition 
of this Act, may cause such immigrant, within the period of one year after 
‘anding or entry, to be taken into custody and returned to the country 
whence he came, at the expense of the owner of the importing vessel, or 
if he entered from an adjoining country, at the expense of the person, 
partnership, company, or corporation violating Section 1 of this Act.’ 
*(9) This Act shall apply only to the importation or immigration of 
such persons as reside in or are citizens of such foreign countries as have 
enacted and retained in force, or as enact and retain in force, laws or 
ordinances applying to Canada, of a character similar to this Act.’ 
The validity of section 6 was impeached on several 
grounds, and was held to transcend the powers of the 
Dominion Parliament, inasmuch as it purported to authorize 
the Attorney-General or his delegate to deprive persons 
against whom it was to be enforced of their liberty without 
“ [1906] A. C. 542. Followed as regards the deportation of Kanakas 
rom Queensland by the High Court in Robtelmes v. Brenan, 4 C., L. R. 395.