CHAP. 1] THE DOMINION OF CANADA 755 
all concerned actual legislation, but they consented on that 
occasion to give replies to the questions submitted. The 
Government, however, took the precaution of amending the 
Act by 6 Edw. VIL c. 50, so as to require an opinion on 
any question whether legislation had taken place or not, 
and the Court in a recent case ! decided to give an opinion 
upon that basis, although they intimated some doubt as to 
whether they were bound to do so, and whether the statute 
was within the constitutional powers of the Dominion 
Parliament ; indeed Girouard J. only concurred because the 
discussion bound nobody, not even themselves ! Idington, 
Davies, Duff, and Anglin all expressed dissatisfaction with the 
position, but deferred to the statute. The question has again 
been raised in a concrete form by the appeal to the Privy 
Council of the provinces from the decision of the Supreme 
Court that it is part of its duty to, and that it will consider the 
general reference made to it by the Dominion Government as 
to the powers of companies incorporated by provinces and of 
companies incorporated by the Dominion or other authority. 
It may be added that during the passing through the 
House of Representatives of the similar Commonwealth Act, 
No. 34 of 1910, some doubt was expressed as to the power of 
the Commonwealth so to legislate, but Sir John Quick did 
not press the matter, on the ground that the legislation was 
useful and desirable. 
There has been, of course, a very large number of cases 2 
* In re Criminal Code, (1910) 43 8. C. R. 434. Cf. Lefroy, p. 126, n. 1; 
586, n. 1; House of Commons Debates, 1890, pp. 4083 seq. ; 1893, pp. 1790 seq. 
* These cases consider merely interpretation of the statutes of Canada 
on the point, and are of no general importance ; see for example, Toronto 
Railway Co. v. Balfour, 32 8. C. R. 239; Finnie v. City of Montreal, ibid., 
335; Town of Aurora v. Village of Markham, ibid., 457 ; Rice v. The King, 
ibid., 480; Hartley v. Matson, ibid., 575; Union Colliery Co. v. Attorney- 
General of British Columbia, 27 8. C. R. 637 (no appeal lies from a decision on 
8 constitutional question submitted to the Court of British Columbia under 
34 Vict. c. 5, though it is deemed to be a judgement—for it is not really one) ; 
Lake Erie and Detroit River Radway Co. v. Marsh, 35 S. C. R. 197; Gilbert 
v. The King, 38 8. C. R. 284 ; James Bay Railway Co. v. Armstrong, ibid., 
S11; Hamel v. Hamel, 26 8. C. R. 7 ; Turcotte v. Dansereau, 24 S. C. R. 578. 
D2