854 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART IV
a state law laying down a different rule was necessarily
antagonistic to the award itself.
Isaacs J. considered that this view was strengthened by
the case of the arbitration as to the assets and debts of Upper
and Lower Canada under s. 142 of the British N. orth America
Act, 1867. In that case there were to be three arbitrators
representing Canada, Ontario, and Quebec. The Quebec
arbitrator resigned owing to a dispute, and the other two
delivered a decision. It was contended by Quebec before
the Privy Council that the arbitration was stayed by resigna-
tion of its arbitrator, but this obligation, which would have
been fatal to an ordinary arbitration, was held by the Privy
Council not to be fatal to the award of the other two
arbitrators.1
There was no state law which could be applicable to a
dispute extending beyond one state. When a quarrel
attained national proportions, when the discordant laws of
the states proved powerless to restrain the strife and to
prevent its extension, when the other states were directly
involved in the actual dispute, and the whole industrial and
domestic system of the continent was deranged, when
internal trade was everywhere obstructed, and interstate
and foreign commerce impeded and imperilled, was it con-
ceivable that the Commonwealth power at such a crisis was
at the caprice of the states, possibly of one against the will
of all the rest, to stand in danger of paralysis and defeat ?
He also pointed out that if the principle accepted by the
majority of the Court was sound, why should it be restricted
bo state statutes 2 Why should the arbitrator be empowered
to disregard the common law, which was as much the law of
the state as the statute law ? And again, assuming that the
award of the Federal Court was a mere judgement, why
should it be held to be superior to the award of a State
Court ? It was not appellate, and it was not the interpreta-
tion or enforcement of any Commonwealth law. He was,
therefore, disposed to hold that the proposed award could
override any state law, but he agreed in any case that there
' See 4 Cart. 712; 28 8. C. R. 609.
