CHAP. 1] THE DOMINION OF CANADA 689
bion : on this matter the Imperial Government expressly
declined to give any opinion when the question was mentioned
by the Dominion Government! The end of the whole
matter has been, however, that in 1908 the Courts of British
Columbia 2 decided that the Provincial Act of that year
against Asiatic immigration was invalid as regards Japanese
because it contravened the provisions of the Act of 1907
(6 & 7 Edw. VIL. c. 50), by which the Parliament of Canada
ratified the adherence of Canada to the treaty with Japan of
1894 under the special protocol negotiated for the Dominion
by the Imperial Government, and which allowed the Japanese
free entrance into Canada, and as regards all other Asiatics
because it was not consistent with the requirement of the law
of Canada regarding immigration that under certain circumstances
every immigrant who had not been rejected by the
medical inspector for the Dominion should be allowed to
land. This provision is not indeed one which was framed
with any intention of it regulating the question of Oriental
Immigration ; it seems to have been intended to prevent
the occurrence of cases of detention for improper purposes
by captains of vessels, and it is satisfactory that it should
have incidentally served so useful a purpose. Ib is very
doubtful, in view of this decision, whether much useful purpose
will ever be served by a province attempting to legislate
regarding the question of immigration. Normally legislation
restricting immigration has been simply disallowed, as being
Contrary to Dominion policy, and in any case possibly
Invalid,
(8) Education
Education, on which the provinces have certain exclusive
Powers, but subject to definite restrictions, has formed a
subiect of great difficulty because of the vexed question of
: ’ 2.
* Lord Derby, May 31, 1884; Lefroy, op. cit., pp. 258, 259, 400 note =
Provincial Legislation, 1867-95, pp. 1092-4. As to immigration ot
see Sir J. Thompson, ibid. pp. 634, 635.
* Canadian Annual Torin 1908, p. 541; in re Nakane and Okazake.
\3B. C. 370; in re Behari Lal et al., 13 B, C. 415.
1279-2 i"
