CHAP. 1] THE DOMINION OF CANADA 661 
Queen. There was no constitutional anomaly in an executive 
officer of the Crown receiving his appointment at the hands 
of a governing body who had no powers and no functions 
except as representatives of the Crown. The act of the 
Governor-General and his Council in making the appointment 
was within the meaning of the statute the act of the Crown, 
and a Lieutenant-Governor when appointed was as much 
a representative of Her Majesty * for all purposes of provincial 
government as the Governor-General himself was for all 
purposes of Dominion government. 
The Privy Council added that ss. 109 and 126 of the Act 
specified the revenues reserved to the provinces. If the Act 
had severed the Crown and the provinces, the provisions in 
these Acts that the territorial revenues should belong to the 
provinces would not be consistent with their remaining vested 
in the Crown, but it had been held in several cases that all 
the subjects described in s. 109 were vested in Her Majesty 
as the sovereign head of each province; and s. 126, which 
embraces provincial revenues other than those arising from 
territorial sources and includes all duties and revenues 
raised by the provinces in accordance with the provisions 
of the Act, was expressed in language which favoured the 
right of the Crown, because it described the interests of the 
provinces as a right of appropriation to the public services. 
Seeing, therefore, that the successive decisions of the Board 
in the case of territorial revenues were based upon the 
' (f, his assent as the assent of the Crown in Théberge v. Landry, 
2 App. Cas. 102, at p. 108; Lefroy, op. cit, pp. 92 seq. In Molson v. 
Lambe, M. L. R. 2 Q. B. 381, 1 S. C. 264, the objection was actually taken 
to a Provincial Act that it ran in the name of the Queen, but it was 
abandoned before the Supreme Court, 15 S. C. R. 253. But in Lenoir 
Vv. Ritchie, 3 8. C. R. 575, the Supreme Court denied that the assent of 
the Lieutenant-Governor to a Provincial Act authorized the appointment 
of Queen’s Counsel and the grant of precedence, overruling the Supreme 
Court of Nova Scotia (Canada Sess. Pap., 1877, No. 86). And in 1875 the 
Minister of Justice said the use of the Queen’s name in the Acts was improper 
(Provincial Legislation, 1867-95, p. 99). There is no difference in the 
form of enactment by Queen or Lieutenant-Governor ; Jenks, Government 
of Victoria, p. 245. is wrong in this regard. Cf. above. p. 458. n. 1.