CHAP. 1] THE DOMINION OFF CANADA 743 
his disapprobation of measures of this character, but there 
is a difficulty about your Excellency in Council giving 
relief in such cases without affirming a policy which requires 
your Excellency’s Government to put itself to a large extent 
in the position of the Legislature, and judge of the propriety 
of its acts relating to matters committed by the constitution 
to the exclusive legislative authority of the provinces. 
The principle has been well illustrated in two recent cases 
in Ontario, in both of which there was the question of the 
passing of Acts which took away a right claimed by private 
persons, and on which there was litigation. The former 
case involved a complicated question as to mining rights at 
Cobalt, and the facts were that some legislation of the 
province was clearly defective: the defects were taken 
advantage of by private persons, acting of course strictly 
within their legal rights, and the province legislated to defeat 
these rights, or pretended rights, at a time when the matter 
was before the Courts. In discussing the question of dis- 
allowance of the Acts 6 Edw. VII. ¢. 12 and 7 Edw. VII. c. 15, 
the Minister of Justice, Mr. Aylesworth, wrote as follows :—! 
It is not intended by the British North America Act that 
the power of disallowance shall be exercised for the purpose 
of annulling provincial legislation even though your Excel- 
lency’s Ministers consider the legislation unjust, or oppressive, 
or in conflict with recognized legal principles, £0 long as such 
legislation is within the power of the Provincial Legislature 
to enact it. 
He amplified this language in a speech made in the House 
of Commons, March 1, 19092 from which the following 
extracts are quoted as being in point — 
And in what I have to say upon the subject to-day I want, 
30 far as possible, to discover the point of view which should 
t Provincial Legislation, 1904-6, p. 8. The action of Ontario in this and 
the next case is denounced by Goldwin Smith in his Reminiscences, and 
here is an opinion on the cases by Dicey in 45 C. L. J. 459 seq. See 
Canadian Annual Review, 1909, pp. 378-81. In allowing the Act of 1906 
Mr. Aylesworth was certain that there was no intention of interfering with 
aXisting rights, and in fact the Privy Council in 1910 held that there was no 
existing legal right. 
* Canada House of Commons Debates, 1909, pp. 1750 seq. Cf. pp. 6920 seq.