712 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [rART IV
the advantage of two or more provinces. This power must
be read in connexion with subsection 11, which permits
the Provincial Legislatures to incorporate companies with
provincial objects.
In the case of Hewson v. Ontario Power Company} the
Supreme Court of Canada was divided in opinion, two judges
on one side and two on the other, as to whether a declaration
that a work was for the public advantage of Canada contained
in the preamble to a private Act fell within the meaning of
Clause (c), but the Court were unanimously of opinion that
when an Act provided for a power company connecting its
wires with the wires of foreign countries, it was clear that
it fell within the jurisdiction of the Dominion, and they
decided the case in question on that basis. This is in accord
with the view of the Privy Council in the case of Toronto
Corporation v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada?
The question was raised, though it was not formally
decided, as to whether the Provincial Legislature could have
incorporated the company in question. The Court appeared
to be of opinion that it could not have done so if the company
had been authorized to connect its wires with those of a
company in another province, in view of the terms of sub-
section 11, and they inclined to the view that a Provincial
Legislature could not authorize a company to connect its
wires with those of a company in a foreign country.
A distinction was drawn between the case of the Dominion
and the provinces. In both cases no doubt a legislation
empowering the company to do matters outside the boun-
daries was subject for its effect to international comity, but
in the case of a province the express power conferred on the
province was limited by the requirement that the object
should be provincial, and therefore, while the Dominion was
under no disability in law, the province was under an express
legal disability.
This view is paralleled by the constant criticisms of the
Ministers of Justice on Provincial Acts which permit railways
* 368. C. R. 596.
[1905] A. C. 52, overruling BR. v. Mohr, 7 Q. L. R. 183.
