82¢ THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART IV 
considered as a most welcome aid and assistance in con- 
struing the Constitution of the Commonwealth. 
Further, the Constitution of the Commonwealth had been 
adopted by a convention of representatives familiar with 
the Constitutions of the Dominion of Canada and of the 
United States, and if they found embodied in the Constitution 
provisions indistinguishable in substance, though varied in 
form, from provisions of the Constitution of the United 
States which had long before been judicially interpreted by 
the Supreme Court of the Republic, it was not an unreason- 
able inference that the framers intended that like provisions 
should receive like interpretations. 
The Court pointed out that the majority of the Supreme 
Court of Tasmania had been under a misapprehension in 
thinking that the doctrine laid down in McCulloch’s case 
had been modified by later decisions. They also pointed 
out that the Courts of the Provinces of Ontario and New 
Brunswick since the year 1878 had adopted the doctrine laid 
down in McCulloch’s case in the interpretation of the Con- 
stitution of the Dominion, and that their decisions, though 
uniformly adverse to the Provincial Governments, had not 
been made the subject of appeal, either to the Judicial 
Committee or to the Supreme Court of Canada? 
The Court also noted the suggestion that the doctrines 
enunciated in McCulloch’s case were not applicable to the 
Commonwealth, by reason of the power of veto reserved to 
the Crown by the Constitution. It was, however, the duty 
of the Court and not of the Executive Government to deter- 
mine the validity of an attempted exercise of legislative 
power, and it would be to impose an entirely novel duty 
apon the Crown’s advisers if they were to be required, 
before advising whether the power of veto should be exercised, 
* See Leprohon v. City of Ottawa, 2 O. A. R. 522; followed in ex parte 
Owen, 4 P. & B. 487; Ackman v. Town of Moncton, 24 N. B. 103; Reg. 
v. Bowell, (1896) 4 B. C. 498. Cf. Evans v. Hudon, (1877) 22 L. C. J. 268 ; 
and contrast Fillmore v. Colburn, 28 N. 8. 292. This decision was, how- 
ever, recognized by Lefroy, Legislative Power in Canada, p. 671, to be 
incorrect, and was in fact reversed by the Supreme Court in Abbott v. City 
of St. John. 40 8. C. R. 597, relying on Webb v. Cuttrim, [1907] A. C. 81.