Page 20, n. 4.

127, n. 2.

TABLE OF ERRATA.

For constitution' read 'constitutions.'

Insert the word 'case' after the word 'Association.

130, n. 3, first line. For 322 read 222.

140, last line. For 'Hodgin's' read 'Hodgins'.

173, n. I. For '15 V.' read '15 V. L.R.'

231, n. 1, last line but two. For March 29th' read' March 25th.'

267, n. 2. For '7 O.A.R.' read '7 O.R.'

402.

'unrestricted.'

For Prop. 85' in margin read' Prop. 35.' For 'Note 2'

in sixth line from bottom read Note I.'

66 410. For License Act' in last line but one of text read

'Insurance Act.'

463, n. I, twelfth line. For Watson' read Wason.'

480. For 'other' in last line of text read 'others.'

559. For pp. 339' in eleventh line of notes read 'pp. 399.'

615. For No. 9 of section 92' in ninth line read No. 5 of

TABLE OF ADDENDA.*

Page 4, n. 1. and 12-14. As to the British North America Act being the reduction into legislative form of a compact or treaty, and the propriety of referring to the Quebec Resolutions in construing it, cf. per Gwynne, J., in In re Prohibitory Liquor Laws, 24 S.C. R. at pp. 204-10, (1895); per Sedgewick, J., S.C., at p. 231 et seq. Pope's Confederation Documents (Toronto, 1895) gives very imperfect minutes of the discussion at the conference at Quebec.

Pages 21-40.

In connection with Proposition 3, see, also, per
Sedgewick, J., in In re Prohibitory Liquor Laws, 24 S.C.R. at pp.
232-6, (1895); also, S.C., at pp. 175, 177-8. See, however, infra,
P. 552, n. 1.

Page 25. See pp. 652, 730 41.

Page 26. As to taxation by licenses being direct taxation, see pp.

361, n. 2, 723-4.

Page 27, n. I.

See pp. 725-6.

No. 27,

B.N.A. Act.

Pages 35-7. On the argument on the Liquor Prohibition Appeal, 1895, Lord Herchell is reported as saying of No. 27, of section 91:-"It is all the criminal law in the widest and fullest sense, except that part of it which is necessary for the purpose of enforc- Sect. 91, ing, whether by fine, penalty or imprisonment any of the laws validly made under the sixteen clauses, under which laws are to be made by the provincial parliament ": Printed report at pp. 280-1. See infra, p. 398, n. 1.

Page 40, n. I. See p. 748.

Pages 41-71.
to Proposition 4.
Page 45. As to No. 8 of section 92, see p. 398, n. I.
wholesale licenses, see pp. 719-20, 726-30.

See supra Addenda to pp. 21-40 which apply also

And as to

Page 45, n. I. Cf. per Taschereau, J., in Huson v. The Town

ship of South Norwich, 24 S.C.R. at p. 165, (1895). But see
infra, p. 398, n. I.

Page 46, n. I. And cf. per Strong, C. J., in Huson v. The
Township of South Norwich, 24 S. C. R. at pp. 150-1, (1895).
But see infra p. 398, n. J.

Pages 47-49.

As to No. 8 of section 92, see p. 398, n. I; and

as to No. 9 of section 92, see pp. 723-30.

Page 51.
See Thomas v. Haliburton in appeal, sub nom., Field-
ing v. Thomas, [1896] A.C. 600, infra pp. 746-50.

Page 52.

Page 54.

As to No. 12 of section 91, see pp. 562, 584-90, 615-6.

As to No. 8 of section 92, see p. 398, n. I.

Page 55, n. 1. Add: 66

infra pp. 705 9."

*As to this table of Addenda, see the Preface.

Power to appoint Queen's counsel.

Page 56, n. 2. Add: "And see per King, J., in In re Prohibitory Liquor Laws, 24 S. C. R. at pp. 259-61, (1895); per Strong, C.J., in Huson v. The Township of South Norwich, 24 S.C.R. at pp. 150-1; per Taschereau, J., S.C., at p. 152, et seq. But as to No. 8, of section 92, see infra p. 389, n. 1."

Pages 57-61. See p. 398, n I. And cf. per Gwynne, J., in In

re Prohibitory Liquor Laws, 24 S.C. R. at pp. 223-4; per Sedgewick, J., S.C., at p. 243, et seq.; po King, J., S.C., at pp. 259-61.

Pages 61-3. Cf. per Gwynne, J., in In re Prohibitory Liquor Laws, 24 S.C.R. at p. 217, per Sedgewick, J., S.C., at pp. 231, 237.

Page 64, n. 1. See pp. 746-9.

Pages 64-9. See pp. 741-9.

Pages 72-86. As to Crown's priority see, also, Att. General v. Clarkson, 15 O. R. 632; Re Bentinck v. Bentinck, [1897], Ch. 673. Page 81, n. I. For the recent Shortis case, where the Governor-General pardoned, the Council abstaining from advising one way or the other, see 32 C.L.J. 53.

Pages 87-8. As to the power to appoint Queen's Counsel, and the Ontario statute permitting a Superior Court judge to depute a Queen's Counsel to perform judicial duties see, In re Queen's Counsel, 23 O.A.R. 792, (1896), an appeal in which has been argued before the Privy Council and stands for judgment, and an Article in 33 C.L.J., 178.

Page 100, n. 2. As to No. 1 of section 92, see, also, pp. 698-9, 746-8, 755, n. I.

Pages 111-15. Cf. In re Queen's Counsel, 23 O. A. R., at pp. 799, 801-3, 805.

Page 115, n. See p. 320, n. 1.

Pages 123-84. As to Propositions 8 and 9, see the Indian Claims case, [1897] A. C., at p. 212; Mowat v. Casgrain, R.J.Q. 6 Q.B., at pp. 22-4, (1897); In re Queen's Counsel 23 O.A.R. at pp. 799, 801-3, 805, (1896); and infra p. 594, n.

Page 126, n. 2. See p. 586, n. I.

Page 127, n. 2. See p. 457, n. 2.

Page 128, n. 1. See pp. 159, 165.
Page 159. See pp. 128, n. 1, 165.
Page 161.

See pp. 522-5.

Page 174, n. 1. This refers to the first edition of Mr. Hodgins'
work. Since it was printed a second edition, bringing the reports
to the year 1895, has been published; and from p. 446 onwards
of this work the references are to the second edition.

Page 176, n. I. See Thomas v. Haliburton in appeal, sub nom.,
Fielding v. Thomas, [1896] A.C. 600, and infra p. 748, n. 1.

Pages 181-4. See the note of Kennedy v. Purcell in the
Addenda to pages 511-2, infra.

Pages 208-31. In connection with Proposition 12 it may be
noted that a long letter appeared in the Times of June 1st, 1876,

by Historicus, (doubtless Sir W. Vernon-Harcourt), arguing stren- Paramount uously that there was no renunciation of the paramount author- authority of ity of the Imperial parliament by the British North America Act, Imperial 1867, and showing that this view had been uniformly adopted parliament. and acted upon by both the Home and the Canadian authorities. The occasion of the letter appears to have been some pending Merchant Shipping legislation. It was reprinted in the Toronto Mail of June 13th, 1876. The subject was also discussed in a leading article in the Times of the same date, also reprinted in the Mail, and in one in the London Standard of June 3rd, 1876, reprinted in the Toronto Mail of June 17th, 1876. Page 209. In the letter of Historicus just above referred to in these Addenda, he says of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865: "It applies to the Dominion legislature of Canada as much as to the representative legislature of any other colony. It is only the declaration of that which has always been the law, (vide 7-8 Will. 3, c. 22, s. 10, and 8.9 Vict. c. 93, s. 63), and always must be the law between a colony and its metropolis." Cf., also, 6 Geo. 4, c. 114, s. 49; and see infra, pp. 746-9.

Page 212.

Page 223.

See p. 642, n. and Addenda thereto infra.

As to Sir J. Thompson's contention, cf. in reference to the Constitutional Act, 31 Geo. 3, c. 31, Gordon v. Fuller, 6 O.S. at pp. 182, 187, 192-3.

Page 243, n. 3. See 24 S. C. R. at pp. 204-10, 231 et seq., (1895).

Pages 250-1. For a useful review of the various decisions in refer

N.A. Act.

ence to power over education under section 93 of the British North Power over America Act, see Mr. Wheeler's note to that section in his Con- education federation Law of Canada, at pp. 332-88, in which he gives a very under sect. full report of the New Brunswick School case before the Privy 93 of Council. And as to the futility of a provincial legislature attempting to fetter its own future action, see the report of Sir John Thompson, of February 17th, 1894: Hodgins' Provincial Legislation, 2nd ed., at pp. 1227-8.

Pages 254-5. As to its not being necessary that taxation should be equal, see p. 720, n. I.

Page 256. It would seem from Wheeler's Confederation Law of Canada at p. 122, that there was an unsuccessful application made to the Privy Council for leave to appeal in Regina v. Wing Chong. Page 257, n. 2. Walker v. Baird is reported below, before the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, at p. 490 of Newfoundland Decisions; see infra Addendum to p. 321, n, 5. The judg ments draw a distinction between treaties of peace "which are Treaties and binding upon the nations even to the extent of the alienation of the Acts of vested rights of subjects," and such a modus vivendi as was there State. in question, which "stands upon a different footing as regards the constitutional rights of the subject," and the statement in Sir James Stephen's History of the Criminal Law, (Vol. 2, p. 61), that "the doctrine as to acts of State can apply only to acts which

Treaties and
Acts of
State.

Territorial limits of colonial jurisdiction.

affect foreigners, and which are done by the orders or with the
ratification of the Sovereign. As between the Sovereign and his
subjects there can be no such thing as an act of State. Courts of
law are established for the express purpose of limiting public
authority in its conduct towards individuals "-is referred to and
relied on. And authorities are collected showing that an action
will lie for a tortious act, notwithstanding it may have had the
sanction of the highest authority in the State. The case caine
up on the pleadings, and the Court held that merely setting
up that the trespass complained of was an act of State committed
under the authority of the modus vivendi with France was no
sufficient answer to the action; and the Privy Council on appeal
briefly expressed their concurrence: [1892] A.C. 491.

Page 260, n. I. And see per Tuck, J., in Wilson v. Codyre, 26
N. B., at pp. 524-5, (1886); and infra pp. 303-4.

Pages 273-6. In their recent judgment in the Liquor Prohibition
Appeal, 1895, [1896] A.C., at p. 363, the Privy Council say that
they are unable to regard the prohibitive enactments of the Canada
Temperance Act, 1886, as regulations of trade and commerce,
thus removing any doubt as to their view resulting from their
words in Russell v. The Queen, 7 App. Cas. at p. 842, 2 Cart.
at p. 26.

Page 291, n. 3. As to similar provisions in the Constitutions of

several States of the Union, see Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, 6th ed., pp. 169-74.

Page 292, n. I.

Page 294, n. 3.

But see p. 398, n. 1.

See pp. 618-26 as to provincial law in relation to Dominion, Imperial and foreign corporations. Page 308, n. I.

Add: "See especially pp. 647-9 infra, from which it appears that on the recent Liquor Prohibition Appeal, 1895, the Privy Council have very much supported Gwynne, J.'s reading of the clause in question. See, however, infra pp. 650-1." See further as to legislation in reference to railway crossings, p. 399, n. 1, and Addenda, and pp. 445-6.

Page 320.

Page 321, n. 5. In two cases reported in the recently published

volume of Newfoundland Decisions, (J. W. Withers, Queen's
Printer, St. John's N. F., 1897), the question of the territorial limits
of the jurisdiction of the local legislature is discussed, and found to
extend to, but not beyond, three miles outside of a line drawn
from headland to headland of the bays of Newfoundland. The
first is Rhodes v. Fairweather, p. 321, (1888), and was an action
for penalties against the master of a British ship, registered in
Scotland, for killing and taking on board seals previous to the date
fixed by the legislature of Newfoundland for sealing, the seals
in question having been all taken outside the above limits.
ship was British owned, and registered in Scotland, where the
owners and master resided, and also several of the crew, who
were engaged there. She cleared from St. John's for the seal
fishery, and returned there after the voyage for the purpose of
manufacture and shipment. Carter, C.J., after referring to Im-
perial Acts in reference to offences committed on board British
ships, says, at p. 325: "Has the legislature of this colony
authority to pass an Act conferring jurisdiction of the like char-

The