742 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART TV 
Dominion as regards the legislation of the provinces within 
their own sphere. In 1901 Mr. D. Mills, as Minister of 
Justice, said in reference to the Ontario Insurance Act 
1 Edw. VII. c. 21) -—1 
The undersigned conceives that your Excellency’s Govern- 
ment is not concerned with the policy of this measure. It 
is no doubt intra vires of the Legislature, and if it be unfair 
or unjust, or contrary to the principles which ought to 
govern in dealing with private rights, the constitutional 
recourse is to the Legislature, and the Acts of the Legislature 
may be ultimately judged by the people. The undersigned 
does not consider, therefore, that your Excellency ought to 
exercise the power of disallowance in such cases. 
In the same year,speaking with regard to certain ex post facto 
legislation (1 Edw. VIL. c. 45) of British Columbia. he said :—2 
The undersigned bases his refusal to recommend disallow- 
ance on the fact that the application proceeds upon grounds 
affecting the substance of the Act with regard to matters 
undoubtedly within the legislative authority of the province 
and not affecting any matter of Dominion policy. It is 
alleged that the statute affects pending litigation and rights 
existing under previous legislation and grants from the pro- 
vince. The undersigned considers that such legislation is 
objectionable in principle, and not justified unless in very 
exceptional circumstances, but your Excellency’s Govern- 
ment is not in anywise responsible for the principle of the 
legislation, and, as has been already stated in the report 
with regard to an Ontario statute, the proper remedy in such 
cases lies with the Legislature or its constitutional judges. 
A year later his successor, Mr. Fitzpatrick, in reporting on 
the same British Columbia legislation, wrote as follows :—3 
It appears that litigation was pending between the Govern- 
ment and the petitioners at the time of the passing of the 
Act with regard to the petitioners’ liability to pay these 
royalties, and no doubt a very strong case is made out by 
the petitioners in support of the view that the Legislature 
should have allowed the existing law to operate, and should 
not have undertaken to legislate so as to diminish or affect 
existing rights. The undersigned cannot help expressing 
! Provincial Legislation, 1901-3, p- 4 (wrongly ascribed to Mr. Fitz- 
patrick). * Ibid., p. 46. 3 Thid., p. 70.