cap. mi] REPUGNANCY OF COLONIAL LAWS 415 
Dominion of Canada was constituted, declaring that the 
exclusive legislative authority of the Dominion Parliament 
extends (amongst other things) to copyrights, has reference 
only to the exclusive jurisdiction in Canada of the Dominion 
Legislature as distinguished from the Legislatures of the 
Provinces of which 1t is composed.? 
This opinion was adopted by His Majesty’s Government 
in Lord Carnarvon’s dispatch of June 15, 18742 That 
dispatch was based on an opinion of the then law officers of 
the Crown (Sir Richard Baggallay and Sir John Holker), 
given on May 22, 1874, in which they accepted the views of 
Sir Roundell Palmer and Mr. Herschell. Moreover, a similar 
opinion was given by the same two law officers on June 7, 
1875, and in consequence of this opinion the Canadian Act of 
1875 with regard to copyright was expressly confirmed by an 
Imperial Act, 38 & 39 Vict. c. 53. Despite these facts, Sir John 
Thompson, in the memorandum above referred to, stated 
that the people of Canada could not accept the interpretation 
which had been placed upon the Act of 1867 by His Majesty’s 
Government. In support of that opinion he urged not 
merely the view of the people and Parliament of Canada, 
but certain cases decided in the Privy Council. No answer 
to this argument was ever sent by the Imperial Government.? 
In the case of Hodge v. the Queen which was decided by 
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1883, it was 
held that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, in the exercise 
of the legislative powers granted to it by Section 92 of the 
British North America Act, 1867, did not act as a delegate 
from, or an agent of, the Imperial Parliament, but with 
authority as plenary and as ample within the limits prescribed 
by Section 92 as the Imperial Parliament in the plenitude 
of its power possessed and could bestow. 
Inthe caseof Powell v. The Apollo Candle Company, Limited ® 
! Parl. Pap., H. C. 339, 1872, p. T4. 
! Parl. Pap., H. C. 144, 1875, pp. 12, 13. 
! Nor does Lefroy, Legislative Power in Canada, pp. 224, 227, deal with 
the argument drawn from these cases by Sir J. Thompson, though (p. 229) 
he seems to admit that the contention is not sound in law. 
4 0 App. Cas. 117. ® 10 App. Cas. 282