[BoURLNOT] A STUDY IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS 29 
of the republic. wisely provided an appointive federal judiciary, removed 
from the corrupt and degrading influences of election contests, and made 
them the chief legal exponents of their written instrument of govern- 
ment. It is, therefore, a happy circumstance for Canada that all its 
judges are entirely independent of political influences, as well as of the 
fluctuating conditions of a narrow range of provincialism. Asexponents 
of the constitution, the dominion judiciary has greater elements of 
strength than the judiciary of the United States, since it is federal from 
a most important point of view, while that of the latter country is 
divided between nation and states. In another respect the Canadian 
government has made a step in advance of their neighbours, with the 
view of obtaining a reasoned opinion from the higher courts in cases of 
legal doubt and controversy between the central and provincial govern- 
ments, and between the provinces themselves. The governor-in-council 
may refer to the supreme court for hearing and argument important 
questions of law or fact touching provincial legislation or any other con- 
stitutional matter; and the opinion of the court, although advisory 
only, shall for all purposes of appeal to her majesty-in-council, be treated 
as a final judgment between the parties. No such provision exists in the 
case of the federal judiciary at Washington, which can be called upon 
only to decide controversies brought before them in a legal form, and 
are therefore bound to abstain from any extra judicial opinions upon 
points of law, even though solemnly requested by the executive. A 
simjlar provision exists in Ontario for a reference to the provincial 
courts, and the question may be fully argued—a provision that does not 
exist in the few states of the federal republic where the legislative de- 
partment has been empowered to call upon the judges for an opinion 
upon the constitutional validity of a proposed law. Either house of the 
Canadian parliament may also refer a question of jurisdiction in the case 
of a private or local bill, but so far the senate alone has availed itself of 
what might, in many instances, be a useful check on hasty legislation. 
I have dwelt at some length on these carefully devised methods of 
obtaining a judicial and reasoned opinion in cases of constitutional con- 
troversy, with the view of showing that they are recognized as the best 
means of arriving at a satisfactory solution of legal difficulties that can- 
not be settled in the political arena. The necessity of making the courts 
in every way possible the arbiters in such cases is clearly shown by the 
history of the veto given by the British North America Act to the gov- 
ernment of the Dominion over the legislation of the provinces, Although 
the president and the governors of the states may by their veto prevent 
the passage of any act of congress or of their respective legislatures 
which they consider objectionable from a constitutional or public point 
of view, provided there is not a sufficient majority in those bodies— 
