215
which it is passed, has authority to legislate.
2. It is not to be assumed that the Legislature improperly belongs to it lature exceeds the powers which it has.
Taking these two canons of construction as my guide, I confess myself unable to see the force of the objections urged by the Secretary of State to the ordinance in question, and to this conclusion. I arrive
that no Court could rightfully hold that any of the offences contemplated by the Ordinance had been committed, unless all the circumstances constituting the same within the jurisdiction of the local Legislators,
in other words, had been complete.
The Ordinance must have received a construction similar to that which it would have received had the words creating such offence been preceded by words specifying the limits of the local jurisdiction.
But if, with submission, I may say so, I think the Despatch does not make the distinction sufficiently apparent between legislating in excess of our powers and legislating in respect of a subject matter which the Secretary of State deems too remote from our powers.
My opinion is that the latter was the true objection which the author of the Despatch intended to take. The distinction, however, is all-important, for the former objection can be met by the amendments which I have drawn, whereas nothing probably can cure the latter.