This was in accordance with the Colonial compact as expressed by Sir John A. Macdonald in the Legislative Assembly of Canada:

As I stated in the preliminary discussion, we must consider this scheme in the light of a treaty. We made the arrangement, agreed upon the scheme, and the deputations from the several Governments represented at the Conference went back pledged to lay it before their Governments, and to ask the Legislature and people of their respective Provinces to assent to it." Debates on Confederation, p. 31.

The distribution of powers between the Federal Parliament and the Local Legislatures is necessarily undefined in its details, and is rather complicated ; but this is to be found more or less in all such instruments.

Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the original American Constitution enumerated the functions which should be performed by the Congress of the United States, and no attempt had been made to define the powers of the individua! States. But in 1789 twelve amendments were made, the last of which laid down the principle that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of May 29, 1874, regulates some of the powers as follows:

Art. 2. The Cantons are sovereign in so far as their sovereignty is not limited by the Federal Constitution, and, as Sovereign States, they exercise all the rights which are not delegated to the Federal power.

The following articles contain the powers of the Federal authorities:

Art. 3. The Confederation has for its object to guarantee the independence of the country against Foreigners, to maintain peace and order at home, to protect the liberty and the rights of the confederated parties, and to increase their common prosperity.

Art. 8. The Confederation alone has the right to make war and peace, and Treaties and Alliances with Foreign States, especially Customs and Trade Treaties.

Art. 24 gives to the Federal power the right to regulate the damming of rivers and cutting of timber in high regions.

Art. 25. The Confederation regulates the right of fishing and hunting, for the purpose of preserving the fish and large game in the mountains, and of protecting birds useful to agriculture and sylviculture.

Art. 26. Legislation and working of Railways belong to the Federal power. Art. 27. The Federal authority have the right to create Federal Universities and other establishments for superior education, and to give subsidies to establishments of that class.

The Cantons are to provide for the primary instruction of children, which should be adequate, and placed exclusively under the direction of the Civil authority.

Primary instruction is obligatory, and in the Public Schools gratuitous. The Public Schools to be so managed that the adherents of every creed should be able to attend them without having their liberty of conscience or of belief in any way interfered with.

The Confederation will take such measures as may be necessary against the Cantons that will not comply with these obligations.

Arts. 28, 29 and 30.—The imposition and collection of duties on imports and exports belong to the Confederation.

Art. 33.-The Cantons can exact proof of capacity of those who desire to exercise any of the liberal professions, for whom provision is to be made by Federal legislation to enable them to obtain diplomas of capacity, valid throughout the whole Confederation.

In Re Niagara Election Case (29 U. C., C. P. 275), Gwynne, J., distinguishes between the distribution of powers in the Constitution of the United States and Dominion Governments as follows:

case.

The powers of the General Government are made up of concessions of the several States,-whatever is not expressly given to the former the latter expressly reserve. With us the very opposite of this is the The Dominion Government and the several Provincial Governments emanate from the one Sovereign Power, the Imperial Parliament. The Provincial Legislatures have no jurisdiction whatever but what is expressly conferred upon them by the Statute which calls them into existence, whereas by that same Statute, upon the Dominion Parliament is conferred the power of making laws not merely in respect of the particular subjects enumerated, but in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

1.-The Public Deb t and Property.

It is provided by Sect. 108, that the Public Works and Property of each Province, enumerated in the following Schedule, shall be the property of Canada. See also Sects. 102 and 107.

THE THIRD SCHEDULE.

Provincial Public Works and Property to be the Property of CANADA.

1. Canals, with Lands and Water Power connected therewith.

2. Public. Harbours.

3. Lighthouses and Piers, and Sable Island.

4. Steamboats, Dredges, and Public Vessels.

5. Rivers and Lake improvements.

6. Railways and Railway Stocks, Mortgages, and other Debts due by Railway Companies. 7. Military roads.

8. Custom Houses, Post Offices, and all other Public Buildings, except such as the Government of CANADA appropriate for the Use of the Provincial Legislatures and Governments.

9. Property transferred by the Imperial Government, and known as Ordnance Property. 10. Armouries, Drill Sheds, Military Clothing, and Munitions of War, and Lands set apart for general Public Purposes.

In Robertson v. The Queen, now pending in the Exchequer Court of Canada, it is contended on the part of the Suppliant:

That the word "Rivers" in clause 5 of Schedule 3 is a typographical error for "River," from the fact that in the original draft Constitution adopted at the Quebec Conference (Canadian Pamphlets, 137, in Parliamentary Library, Ottawa) the words used were "River and Lake Improvements," meaning River Improvements and Lake Improvements, as the words in Sect. 91, s.s. 12, "Sea Coast and Inland Fish eries," mean Sea Coast Fisheries and Inland Fisheries. See Sect. 108.

2.-The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.

In Regina v. The Justices of Kings Co. (2 Pugsley, 535). Held, by the Supreme Court of New Brunswick :-That a Local Legislature has no power under the B. N. A. Act of 1867 to pass a law directly or indirectly prohibiting the manufacture or sale of spirituous liquors,--that such law is in direct conflict with the powers of the Dominion Parliament as well over trade and commerce as with their right to raise a revenue by duties of Impost and Excise.

Ritchie, C. J., in delivering the Judgment of the Court said: To the Dominion Parliament of Canada is given the power to legislate exclusively on "the regulation of trade and commerce." The regulation of trade and commerce must involve full power over the matter to be regulated, and must necessarily exclude the interference of all other bodies that would attempt to intermeddle with the same thing. The power thus given to the Dominion is general, without limitation or restriction, and therefore must include traffic in articles of merchandise, not only in connection with foreign countries, but also that which is internal between different Provinces of the Dominion, as well as that which is carried on within the limits of an individual Province. As a matter of trade and commerce, the right to sell, is inseparably connected with the law permitting importation.

How can the Local Legislature prohibit (by arbitrarily refusing to grant any license) the sale of spirituous liquors of all kinds, without coming in direct conflict with the Dominion Legislature on the subject of Inland Revenue, involving the right of manufacturing and distilling spirits, &c., as regulated by 31 Vic. chap. 8, and the subsequent Acts in amendment thereof,-and the excise duties leviable thereby, and the licenses authorized to be granted thereunder.

The Corporation of St. Roch v. David Dion (1 Q.L.R., p. 241). This was an action for a penalty incurred for violation of the following by-law of a municipality :-"Every person not an inhabitant of this municipality and who by himself or by other persons may come hither to carry on the trade of delivering, offering for sale or selling bread, wholesale or retail, shall take out a license from the Council of this Municipality, for which license or leave every such person shall pay the sum of $12."

Stuart, J., held, that the by-law was in restraint of trade to the oppression of the subject, and absolutely void, and that consequently the action for the penalty under it must be dismissed.

In Morin v. The Corporation of the Village of St. Gabriel; HELD, by the Circuit Court, Torrance, J., Montreal, 30th April, 1880.

That a municipal by-law, in the words following, was void as being in restraint of trade, viz.: "The traders in general, whatever be the extent and kind of their commerce, who do not reside within the Municipality of the Village of St. Gabriel, and who have not therein a place of business, shall not be allowed to exercise therein their trade or commerce, without having previously obtained from the Secretary-Treasurer a license for that object." The plaintiff claimed $20 damages, because the defendants had, by a policeman, coerced him by threats of imprisonment, into paying them $10 for the privilege of plying his trade of pedlar. The evidence showed that plaintiff held a license from the Quebec Government, authorizing him under sect. 54 of the License Act, 1878, to ply his calling as pedlar, also that the police of St. Gabriel had arrested him on the order of the Council, and that on the 8th August he was fined costs of court, and again on the 25th August he was arrested, when he paid $10 for a license. I think the case of St. Roch v. Dion is exactly in point as to the invalidity of the by-law. The by-law should have exactly followed the authority of the Mun. C. 582. Instead of doing so, the by-law strikes at non-residents, which may be regarded as in restraint of trade. As to the sale of provisions or victuals not being protected by the provincial license, the by-law is clearly not intended for that particular case; and to operate against it, should have been otherwise framed. I think, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment. There is another case, being an appeal from the judgment of the Justices condemning him to pay the tax of $10, and praying that the judgment be annulled and the by-law be declared to be ultra vires. This case is also decided in favor of the appellant, Morin.

Hart et la Corporation du Comté de Missisquoi (Cour de Circuit) Caron, J., (2 Q.L.R., 170). Jugé :-

Que les pouvoirs accordés aux Conseils de Comtés par l'Acte de Tempérance de 1864, ne peuvent être ni modifiés ni abrogés par la Législature de la Province de Québec, puisque ces pouvoirs concernent l'industrie et le commerce, et les réglements concernant l'industrie et le commerce et la formation du revenu par le systême de taxes, sont sous le contrôle exclusif du Parlement du Canada.

Rien ne justifie l'autorité qu'une Législature Provinciale s'arrogerait en légiférant sur le commerce intérieur. Les Législatures locales peuvent à la vérité faire des lois relatives à l'octroi des licences pour magasins, tavernes, etc., mais seulement dans le but de se former un revenu pour faire face aux dépenses de la Province.

City of Fredericton v. The Queen (3 Can. S. C., 506). Held, by the Supreme Court of Canada:

1. That the Dominion Act (41 Vict., c. 16) cited as "The Canada Temperance Act, 1878," which makes provision by conditional legislation for the prohibition of the traffic in intoxicating liquors (in certain localities throughout the Dominion where a majority of the electors decide that the Act shall go into effect) is "a Regulation of Trade and Commerce," and within the powers conferred upon the Dominion Parliament by Sub-Sec. 2 of Sec. 91 of the B. N. A. Act, 1867.

2. That the power to regulate, carries with it the power to prohibit. 3. That the right to regulate trade and commerce conferred upon the Dominion Parliament cannot be overridden by any local legislation in reference to any subject over which power is given to the Provincial Legislatures.

4. That (affirming the ruling in Regina v. The Justices of Kings Co., 2 Pugs., 535) a Provincial Legislature has no power to pass a law prohibiting the manufacture or sale of spirituous liquors; that such law would be in direct conflict with the powers of the Dominion Parliament over trade and commerce.

5. That the power of a Provincial Legislature to authorize or prohibit a trade or business is repugnant to the power of regulation exclusively given to the Dominion Parliament over the same subject.

Ritchie, C. J., in delivering judgment, said :-(adopting the reasoning in the United States License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462) that the constitutional power of the Dominion Parliament to regulate trade and commerce can be exercised by means of licenses, and that would give authority to the licensee to do whatever business its terms authorized, but that the power conferred upon the Provincial Legislatures to raise