Mr. Justice Fisher dissented.
 Prior to his appointment to the court, he had been a Father of Confederation and participated in both the Quebec Conference and the London Conference which had produced the terms of Confederation and the text of the Constitution Act, 1867.
 He distinguished between the pre-Confederation New Brunswick statute which incorporated the railway company and the subsequent statute authorising the town of St. Stephen to contribute to the financing of the railway.
 The pre-Confederation statute remained in force by virtue of s. 129 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
 That statute was the authority for the construction of the railway.
 The subsequent statute simply provided a way for the inhabitants of St. Stephen to contribute to the construction of that portion of the railway which was within New Brunswick.
 In his opinion, that financial arrangement was a purely local matter and therefore would be within provincial jurisdiction.
 He would have ruled the statute was constitutional.
Mr. Justice Fisher dissented.  Prior to his appointment to the court, he had been a Father of Confederation and participated in both the Quebec Conference and the London Conference which had produced the terms of Confederation and the text of the Constitution Act, 1867.  He distinguished between the pre-Confederation New Brunswick statute which incorporated the railway company and the subsequent statute authorising the town of St. Stephen to contribute to the financing of the railway.  The pre-Confederation statute remained in force by virtue of s. 129 of the Constitution Act, 1867.  That statute was the authority for the construction of the railway.  The subsequent statute simply provided a way for the inhabitants of St. Stephen to contribute to the construction of that portion of the railway which was within New Brunswick.  In his opinion, that financial arrangement was a purely local matter and therefore would be within provincial jurisdiction.  He would have ruled the statute was constitutional.
Dow v Black