716 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART IV
an Act of Quebec (38 Vict. ¢. 47) was disallowed. Quarantine
has also been protected by disallowance of an Act of Mani-
toba (53 Viet. c. 31) from provincial interference. Collision
regulations are laid down by Canadian law, which follows,
but not absolutely, English legislation.
(uw) Provincial Taxation
The question of provincial taxation, which was mentioned
above under Trade and Commerce, was considered also in
The Brewers’ and Maltsters’ Association of Ontario v. The
Attorney-General for Ontario ® when a licence fee for brewers,
distillers, and others to sell in the province was held valid,
and in the case of Dow v. Black ® the purposes of the taxation
were asserted to cover all provincial purposes, not only
provincial as distinct from municipal, as has been suggested.
Apparently, therefore, the power given in s. 92 (9) is not one
of indirect taxation, but was merely included to render the
mode of raising revenue indisputably legal.
It is natural that the provinces should be confined to direct
taxation : ss. 121 and 122 remove clearly Customs and Excise
from their purview. But whether under subsection 16 they
have powers of indirect taxation is a vexed question, to which
Mr. Lefroy * tends to give an affirmative answer; if so,
possibly they have such powers under other: subsections,
e.g. 14, but the matter is doubtful, and the Manitoba Court
has negatived the power under subsection 14.5 It is clear,
however, that under the power of direct taxation there is no
rule in favour of uniformity ¢ as demanded by the United
States Constitution and apparently by the Constitution of
the Commonwealth (s. 51 (ii)). Nor can the class of licences
in respect of which fees can be charged be limited.”
t The * Cuba’ v. McMillan, (1891) 26 8. C. R. 651, a decision which seems
bo be invalid as the Canadian law is repugnant to the Imperial Merchant
Shipping Act, 1894. * [18971 A. C. 231. * (1875) 6 P. C. 272.
* Op. cit., pp. 730-40. where all the dicta then available are collected.
* Dulmage v. Douglas. 4 M. R. 495. overruling Dubuc J.. 3 M. R. 562.
} Lefroy, p. 720, note.
! Cf.[1897] A. C. 231 ; Lefroy, p. 725, note 3. Contra, Reg. v. Mee Wah.
(1886) 3 B. C. 403.
