1076 ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATION [ParTvV
to be refunded if the immigrant left in three years. The
usual form of these Acts was to require a payment of £10
a head on Chinese immigrants, and to restrict the number
carried on any ship to one man per ten tons.
In 1878 the first anti-Chinese movement began in British
Columbia, when the Legislature passed an Act (c. 35) to im-
pose licence dues of $10 payable quarterly on the Chinese in
lieu of taxes paid by other members of the community, an
Act which was afterwards held by the Courts to be invalid.?
In 1884 three Acts (cc. 2-4) were passed, one of which, to
prevent immigration of Chinese, was disallowed by the
Dominion Government as possibly of Imperial interest,® and
as in any case a matter rather for Dominion legislation than
for provincial action; while the other two, one to prevent
them obtaining Crown lands, and the other to regulate their
habits, were allowed to remain in operation. But the
Dominion Government found it necessary to act, and accord-
ingly an Act of 1885 * imposed a poll-tax of fifty dollars a
head, and restricted the number of Chinese to be carried to
one for every fifty tons. The Dominion Government, how-
ever, disallowed the Act (c. 13) passed in 1885 to repeat the
berms of the disallowed Act of 1884 regarding immigration.
The same period saw the revival of Australian legislation ;
Acts were passed again in 1881 by New South Wales (No. 11),
Victoria (No, 723), and South Australia (No. 213), and New
Zealand entered the field for the first time with anti-Asiatic
! See Parl. Pap., C. 5448. All the Acts are printed or summarized in
the appendix,
* Tai Sing v. Maguire, 1 B. C. (Irving), at p. 109, The decision was
a curious one, based on views as to taxation which were incorrect, and
as to the exclusive powers of the Dominion as to trade and commerce which
were doubtful; cf. Lefroy, Legislative Power in Canada, pp. 254-9;
Provincial Legislation, 1867-95, pp. 1011, 1052, 1063.
* But see Lord Derby’s reply, May 31, 1884, and British Columbia Sess.
Pap., 1885, p. 464. The latter Act was held invalid in RB. v. Wing Chong,
1 B. C. (part ii) 150, and though leave to appeal was granted it was not
prosecuted. See above, p. 698,
* 48 & 49 Vict. ¢. 7; Sess. Pap., 1883. No. 93. See now Revised Statutes,
1906, c. 95,
