CHAP. 1] THE DOMINION OF CANADA 675 
always excited in Canada as elsewhere! In 1874 Ontario 
legislated (c. 32) to provide that a licence was needed under 
the Act to authorize the sale of liquor in the province. This 
Act was declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court of Canada : 
they denied that it was.direct taxation, and they thought it 
was fundamentally different from the power to impose licence 
duties on shops, saloons, taverns, &c., given to the provinces 
by 5. 92(9), and that it infringed on the power of Canada to 
regulate commerce. In 1897 the decision was reversed in 
The Brewers’ and Malisters’ Association case,® where the 
Privy Council held that similar licence duties on brewers 
Were a direct tax authorized by s. 92 (2), and that in any 
tase their imposition was a legitimate exercise of the power 
to impose licence duties, and therefore valid under s. 92 (9). 
In 1878 (41 Vict. c. 16) the Dominion Parliament legislated 
to encourage temperance : if the Act is brought into force in 
aly county or town in the Dominion, it becomes illegal to sell 
intoxicating liquors except wholesale or for certain limited 
Purposes, and in the excepted cases the sale is strictly regu- 
lated, sales in violation of the law are criminal, and for the 
third offence and any subsequent one imprisonment is 
legitimate. The Act was declared ultra vires in the City of 
Fredericton case by a New Brunswick Court in 1879,% but 
Was approved by the Supreme Court® and the Judicial 
Committee, which showed that as it did not raise revenue 
it could not fall under s. 92 (9) of the British North America 
Act, and that it was really a regulation similar to a regulation 
for the prevention of the use of noxious poison, being thus 
for order and good government, but not an exercise of any 
Specified power such as the trade and commerce power under 
8. 91 (2). as Ritchie C.J. held in the Supreme Court. This 
! See, besides Wheeler and Lefroy, Quick and Garran, Constitution of 
Commonwealth, pp. 544 seq. 
? Severn v. The Queen (1877), 2 8. C. R. 70. Cf. Rey. v. Justices of King's 
County, 2 Pugs. 535, a decision on the New Brunswick Act, 36 Viet. c. 10. 
See on the whole question, Wheeler, Confederation Law of Canada, pp. 144 
4.» 1042 seq. ; Lefroy, op. cit., pp. 372 seq., 401 seq. 
* [1897] A, C. 231. 4 (1879) 3 P. & B. 139, $38. CR. 505. 
T9