S^^J\%

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

< Cx

C/a

1.0

I.I

1.25

■' IM 1 22
^ %'2. IIIII2.0

1.4

1.6

Photographic

Sciences
Corpordtion

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, NY. 14580

(716) 872-4S03

^9)

*^^

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHIVI/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiq

UBS

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuverit modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la mithode normale de filmage
sont indiqu^s ci-dessous.

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

I I Covers damaged/

Couverture endommagde

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde

Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur

Pages damaged/
Pages endommag6es

Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes

I I Cover title missing/

D
D

n
□

Le titre de couverture manque

Coloured maps/

Cartes g^ographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations nn couleur

Bound with other material/
Relid avec d'autres documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along int^-ior margin/

La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge int^rieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, iorsque cela ^tait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 film^es.

Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqudes

Pages detached/
Pages d6tachees

Showthrough/
Transparence

Quality of print varies/
Quality in^gale de I'impression

Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du materiel supplementaire

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont 6t6 film^es d nouveau de fagon d
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

T
si

rl|
re
m

Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppl^mentaires;

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous.

10X 14X 18X 22X

26X

SOX

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

32X

tails
; du
odifier
une
mage

rrata
o

>elure.

The copy filmed here hes been reproduced thenks
to the generosity of:

Douglas Library
Queen's University

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first pegs with a printed or Illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol —»> (meaning "CON-
TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely Included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

L'exemplaire fllmA fut reproduit grAce A la
gAnirosIt* de:

Douglas Library
Queen's University

Les images suivantes ont At* reproduites avec le
plus grand soin. compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettet6 de Texemplalre film6, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couvertura en
papier est imprimAe sont filmAu en commengant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernlAre pege qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustratlon, soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont filmAs en commen^ant par la
premlAre pege qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustratlon et en terminant par
la derniAre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la
dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbols — «*> signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbols V signifie "FIN".

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent dtre
filmAs A des taux de reduction diffArents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre
reproduit en un seul clichA. il est film6 A partir
de Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche d droite.
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mAthode.

32X

-TTW

THE ONTABIO BOUNDABIEI!.

A Conspiracy to Despoil the Province of Half

its Territory.

Sir John SCaodoaald'i OroOktd Beeovd on the Subjsot-Qusbae
TorioM hstxnt Affftlnit Ontario— Btpudiatioa of a Soleaa
Award— ▲ Qneition of Ctood Tftlth and PaUio Sonor.

There are higher consideTations inrolved in the Ontario Boundary
question than the territory in dispute between the Province and the
Dominion, and declared to be part of the Province by the unanimous
award of the arbitrators to whom the dispute was referred for settle-
ment. The honor and good faith of the Dominion are higher consider'
ations, and both are at stake ; the permanency and future well-being
of the Union are of greater consequence, and both are in jeopardy.

Sir John Macdoitald and his Tory adherents have done their part,
fio far as any act of theirs could do so, they have committed the Do-
niinion to a policy of dishonor. They have by resolution of Parlia-
ment repudiated a solemn award ; it is now the people's turn to
repudiate thera. They have broken faith with one of the Provinces
of the Union by violating a compact made and ratified as between one
nation and another ; it is now the ppople's turn to declare by an em-
phatic voice and vote that it has no faith in them. The time has come
to wipe oiit the stain of a shameless act by punishing the authors of It

The facts of the Boundary question, as they are set forth in the
following narrative, show how utterly unworthy of public confidence
Sir Jo)iii Macdonald and his Tory supporters in the late Parliament
are. They have done what they could to humiliate the country, and
to trample its honor in the dust The people can redress that great
wrong, and the leaders of the Liberal party have confidence that ther
will.

AN OLD CLAZM TO TSWUTOBT.

It is well known that Old Canada always disputed the pretension!
of the Hu<<son's Buy Company to right of ownership in the North-
West Territories. The people of the United Provinces alwavs main-
tained that they were the successors of France in the North- West, and
,in the country north of the water-shed to Hudson's Bay. Upon thia
and other grounds the North- West Company contesited the claims of
2. the^ Hudson's Biy Company, and continued to do so until the dispute
^ was settled by their partnership. |

f ^ 7 TBI OmUTION BAI8BD AOAIN.

As the territories lay far beyond the limits of settlemaut in Upper
Canada, the que-ition was not again raised until the time arrived for
considering the renewal of the lease granted to the Company in 1838.

This was late in 1856, when the Secretary of the Colonies infonned the
Governor-General of Canada that Her Majesty's Government had
determined on bringing the whole subject under the investifi;ation of
a Committee ot the House of Commons ; and His Excellency was in-
etructcd to consider, with the advice of his Council, the question
whether it might be desirable to send witnesMes to appear before the
Committee, or in any other manner to cause the views of his Govern-
ment and the interests of Canada to be represented there.

CANADA'S CLAIMS ASSXRTXD.

In reply to the Colonial Secretary's despatch, a minute of Council
was transmitted, stating amongst other things that " the general feeling
here is strongly that the tvestem boundary of Canada extends to the
Pacific Ocean ; that the Committee of Council wer*^ most anxious that
Cana<lian interests should be properly represented before the proposed
Committee of the House ; that situated as Canada was, she necessarily
had an immediate interest in every portion of British North America ^
and that the question of jurisdiction and title claimed by the Hudson's
Bay Company was to her of paramount importance. The Canadian
Prime Minister of that time, it may be remarked, was Mr. John A.
Macdonald.

THX LXBIXTS NORTH AND WEST.

In the same year (1867) an official paper was prepared by the
Commissioner of Crown Lands, claiming that the westerly boundary of
the Province extended as far as British territory not otherwise organ-
ized would carry it, u^hich would be to the Pacific; O' , if limited at all,
it would be by the first waters of the Mississippi, Vitiich a due west line
from the Lake of the Woods intersected, which would be the White
Earth River. With respect to the northerly boundary, the Commis-
sioner pointed out as the only possible conclusion that Canada wa&
either bounded in that direction by a few isolated posts on the shore
of Hudson's Bay, or else that the Company's territory was a myth,
and conse({uently that Canada had n^ particular limit in that direction,

CANADA'S SPECIAL AGENT TO ENGLAND.

In response to the Colonial Secretary's invitation, the Government
sent Hon. Chief Justice Draper as a special agent to represent Cana-
dian interests bef<»re the House of Commons Committee. He wa»
examined before the Committee, and gave evidence against the claims
of the Company. Afterwards Justice Draper reported to the Canadian
Government, and gave as his opinion that Canada had a clear right,
under the Act of 1774 and the proclamation of 1791, to the whole
countrj' as far west as the line of the Mississippi, and to a considerable
distance north of the water-shed ; and he recommended that the
opinion of thf Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be ob-
tained upun the merits of the dispute.

AN ABORTIVE MOVE.

In August, 1858, a joint aildress of both Houses was forwarded
to the Queen, in which it was stated that, in the opinion of Parliament,
Canada had a right to claim, as forming part of her territory, a consider-
able portion of the country then held oy the Hudson's Bay Company,
and that a settlement of the boundary line was immediately required.
The law officers of the Crown were consulted on the subject oy the
Colonial Secretary during the previous year, and they expressed the
Opinion that, while a decision of {the Judicial Committee of the Privy

Council might \ye \iseful in showinfi; what were the merits of the prc^
tensiona of the respective parties, it could have no binding effect, and
that an Act of the Imperial Parliament would be necessary to finally
settle the question. But the Company, though strongly urged thereto
by the Secretary, refused to be parties to a reference which would raise
any question as to the validity of their charter, and no issue was
reache<l. Sir John Macdonald, from inattention to the subject, seems
to have fallen of late into the error of supposing that the Queen, upon
the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, could give a
decision binding on every body, which of course it could not.

A COBfPKOBUSX SXTTLXHKNT ADVISBD.

The time of the Judicial Committee is so largely taken up with
the consideration of '".dicial questions referred to them by appeal, that
the propriety of inviting a report upon the matter in dispute between
the Canadian Government and the Hudson's Bay Company was felt to
be more than doubtful. The question was complicated, the evidence
was voluminous, and it was feared that a long time must elapse before
a decision could be had. Accordingly, in 1865, the Canadian Ministers,
in a report made to the Governor-General, expressed the opinion that
it would be in the interest of the country to grant to the Company a
moderate compensation rather than submit to the evils of delay conse--
<|uent upon a reference to the Committee ; but no action wab taken upon*
the report.

stua asskbtino Canada's biohts.

After Confederation the claims to the territory made by the old
Province of Canada continued to be made by the Dominion Govern-
ment, Sir John Macdonald being Prime Minister. In the hrst session
of Parliament a joint address was presented to Her Majesty by the
House of Commons and Senate, praying that she would be graciously
pleased to unite Rupert's Land and the North- Western Territory to
the Dominion. So little value did Sir John Macdonald then place
upon the title of the Company that he urged the transfer of the whole
country to Canada, leaving the Company no right, except the right of
asserting their title in the best way tney could in the Canadian courts.
"And what," he asked, "would their title be worth the moment it was
known that the country belonged to Canada, and that the Canadian
Government and Canadian courts had jurisdiction there, and that the
chief protection of the Hudson's Bay Company and the value of their
property, namely, their exclusive right of trading in those regions, was
gone forever ? The Company would only be too glad that the country
should be handed over to Canada, and would be ready to enter into any
reasonable arrangement." He failed to get the territory handed over
to Canada on those terras, but he succeeded in incurring the ill-will of
the Company's agents, and of the settlers in the North- West, and in
stirring up a rebellion which cost the country more than a million of
dollars.

SQUATTXHS ON THK 80II..

In October, 1868, Sir George Cartier and the Hon. Wm. Mac-
dougall proceeded to England to press the views of the Government on
the Colonial Secretary. In their correspondence with the Colonial
Office the rights of Canada were asserted in strong terms. Referring
to a road between Lake of the Woods and Fort Garry, on Red River
upon which the Dominion Government had expended $20,000 in 1868^
Sir George Cartier and Mr. Macdougall said there uku no doubt that it.

lay within the limits of Canada ; ami, concerning the extent of the
Province, they declared in the snnie letter to the Secretary that " No
impartial investigator of the evi<lence in the carte can doubt that it ex-
tended to and included the cttuutry between Luke of the Woods and
Ked River." The Government of Canada, they .*-aid, denied and had
always denied the pretensions of the Company to "any right of soil
beyond that of wpiatters " in the territory through which the Lake of
the Woods and Fort Garry road wa^^ being constructed .

THE COMPANY'S CLAIM GIVEN UP.

So strong were the grounds on which the contention of the Cana-
dian Government rested that the Kudson'.s Hay Company, composed of
Bome of the shrewdest business men of England, and acting under advice
of the ablest counsel, gave up their claim to 1,300,000 square miles of
territory in consideration of being allowed to retain 12,000 8(iuare
miles of it, and of receiving £;iOO,tK)0 sterling— about one-fifth ol the
.sum j)aid by the United States for the comparatively barren regioii of
Alaska, of less than one-fourth the area. The company feared that the
legal boundaries of Ontario, if submitted to an impartial tribunal,
would be held to include the bulk of territory which Canadian Minis-
ters claimed for it ; hence the small sum for which they agreed to
release their interest.

ADMITTED INTO THE UNION.

Rupert's Land and the North- West Territory were admitted into
the Union by an Imperial Order-in-Council, dated 2:ird June, 1870,
subject to the provisions of the British North America Act. The
Order-in-Council did not and could not take away any part of Ontario's
territory, for the B. N. A. Act specifically declares that the territory
"which formerly ctmstituted the Province of Upper Canada shall con-
stitute the Province of Ontario." There is, therefore, no doubt what-
ever that the boundaries of Ontario to the north and west are the old
boundaries of Upper Canada.

A NEW DEPARTURE.

It has been shown that up to the time of the admission of the
North-West into the Union the successive Governments of which Sir
John Macdonald was leader maintained for Upper Canada (the Ontario
of Confederation) limits far to the west and to the north of tho.se which
his Government is willing to allow her. But, within the brief period of
two years after the bargain with the Hudson Bay Company was con-
cluded, the views of Sir John Macdonald and his fellow-ministers under-
went a great and suddeii change ; a new departure was taken, and they
sought to grasp from the Province a territory many thousand scpiare
miles in extent, a part of which the Company had never claimed under
its charter. Some steps had been taken for defining the boundary in
1871, and Commissioners had been named by the Local and Federal
Governments to locate the line. Nothing further was done that year,
and before its close a new Administration was formed in the Province
with Mr. Blake at its head. Then

THE POLICY OF HOSTILITY

towards Ontario began to develop itself. Sir John Macdonald was bent
on breaking down the Liberal Government of the Province if he could,
and from that day to the present he has shown himself to be the un-
ceasing enemy of Ontario and its rights. On the 6th of January, 1872,
the new Government a.sked that a draft of the instructions to the
Dooiinion Commissioner be transmitted for consideration. The request

was complied witli on the 14th of Miirch, and then it became known
that tlie Dominion Qovenimentin8isted on a line drawn due north from
the junction of th»^ Ohio and MissisHipju livt-rs as the westerly bound-
ary, and on the height of land dividing the waters which flow into
Hutlson'fl Bay From those emptying into the valley of the great lakes as
the northerly boundary of the Province. The Ontario Government
declined to accept those limits, claiming that the boundary line waH
very diflerent from the one defined by the Dominion Government's
instructions, and its Commissioner was instructed to abstain from any
further action under his conunission. A conventional or compromise
boundary proposed by the Provincial Government met with no re-
sponse — Sir John Macdonald apparently ttn<,'etiing the fact that the
Government of which he was a member was prepared to make a com-
promise with the Hudson's Bay Company in 1865.

SUOaXSTION AND COUSTHK SUOOX3TIOM.

In a memorandum of 1st May, Sir John M icdou dd suggested that
the (lovernment of Ontaiio be invited to concur in the statement of a
case for immediate reference to the Ju<licial Committee of the Privy
Council of England, with a view to settle the boundaries by a judg-
ment or decision of that tribunal. On Slst May the Ontario Govern-
ment in reply stated that the settlement of the ipiestion depended upon
numerous facts, the evidence as to many of which was procurable only
in America, and the collection of which wouhl involve the expendi-
ture of much time. They therefore recommen'levl asa counter suggestion
that, should the Government of Canada decline to negotiate for a con
ventional line, the more satisfactory way of settling the question would
be by reference to a Commission sitting on this side of the Atlantic.
On November 7th the proposition of the Dominion Government for a
refertnice to her Majesty in Council was renewed, but no further nego-
tiations took place until the accession of Mr. Mackenzie to office.

THX ARBITRATION.

In 1874 both Governments agreed to leave the question to arbitra-
tion, and to accept the award as final and conclusive. Ex-( Jovernor Wil-
mot, of New Brunswick, waschosenfor the Dominion, and Chief Justice
Richards for Ontario — Sir Edward Thornton, the British Ambassador
at Wjishinyton, being accepted by the two Governments as third arbi-
trator. Information was from time to time given to Parliament and
the Legislature with, respect to the progress of arrangements for this
reference, and the policy of fixing the boundaries by arbitration was
never (luestioned. Sir John Macdonald once, in the debate on the
North-West Territories Bill in 1875, expressed regret that the matter
had not been referred to the i^rivy Coumil, but added that the arbi-
trators " would be acceptable, he was satisfied, to the country, as they
were to himself." The sura of ^15,000 was also voted by Parliament
for defraying the expenses of the arbitration, and no ([uestion was
raised or objection made. The death of one arbitrator and the resigna-
tion of another was followed by the appointment of Sir Francis Hincks
for the Dominion, and Chief Justice Harrison for Ontario. Both ap-
pointments were confirmed by Ordevs-in-Council, and it was again de-
clared that the determination of the three referees should be final and
conclusive ; and by the Order-in-Council of 1874, each Gacemment
agreed icith the other for concurrent action in obtaining such legislation
as might be necessary for giving binding effect to the conclusions tfr-
rived at.

THK AWARD OF THX AKBITBATOBft;

From 1874 to 1878 both Goveminents wereocctipitid in making an
exhaustive collection of all the «locumentH, facts and evidence bearing
upon the controversy, all of which were printed for the purpose of the
Arbitration. Counsel for the two Govemnienta were heanl by the
arbitratf)rM, and on August 3rd, 1878, n unanimouH award wcu delivered,
deUrmxninij and dtscidimj what are and shall be. the northerly a,*d
%ve»lerly boundaries of Ontario. The westerly boundary was tleclared
to be a lino drawn due north from the most north-westerly angle of
Lake of the Woods, and the northerly boundary the southern shore of
JauoH' Bay, the Albany River, and the English River. It gave to the
Province on the westerly wide the least favorable limit that on the facts
and evidence was possible, as was demonstrated by », mass of evidence
which there appears no danger of ever seeing overcome.

The Government of Ontario accepted tlie award, not because it
assigned to the Provinceall that was claimed on its behalf, but because,
consistently with good faith and public honor, neither party to the
arbitration could refuse to abide by the decision.

BBILLY-SHALLYINO.

Mr. Mackenzie's Administration was defeated at the general elec-
tions of September, 1878 — less than two months after the l)oundary
award was made — and a few weeks later Sir John Macdonald formed a
new Administration. One of his first acts as Minister of the Interior
was to publish a map in which the boundaries of Ontario were laid
<iown as fixed by the award ; but the old hostility soon manifested itself
•afresh, and, backed by Sir Hector Langevin and the phalan.x of Quebec
Tories, the Premier found courage to pursue towards the Liberal Gov-
•«rnment of Ontario a policy of studied contempt. At least c^ight
•despatches from the Lieutenant-Governor of that Province, bearing
•on the award and urging the necessity of action being taken by
tihe Dominion Government in the interests of law and order in the
tiisputed territory, were

TREATED WITH UNMANNERLY NEGLECT.

Their receipt was formally acknowledged, but no answer was made nor
further notice taken of any of them. It made no difference that law
was being set at defiance in the territory, .tliat crime went unpunished,
that drunkenness and immorality prevailed, that ])ul)lic lands were
being robbed of their timber, or that there was no security for life or
property. For three years Sir John Macdonald and his colleagues
refused to have any dealings with the Government of Ontario on the
subject. A ninth despatch was sent on the 31st December of last year,
And on the 12th January this year the Legislature of the Province
met. The debate on the address opened out a discussion of the whole
situation and all the circumstances, and then the Tory Premier of the
Dominion discovered that he could pursue a policy of silent contempt
aio longer. He was forced to show his colors openly, and in the light
\)i day.

REPUDIATION OFFICIALLY DECLARED.

A reply to the despatch ol 31 at December was sent on the 27th
January, and the Government and people of Ontario were infonned
officially, what had been evident for some time, that the Dominion
Government had determined, in violation of good faith and public
honor, to re'pudiate the award. This course had been indicated by the

kg an

^ring

the

\ered,

a,*d

fared

[loof

lie of

the

[facts

ience

conduct of the (lovcruinent in the Ression of 1880, in consenting to a
Purliuiuentary (*ouunittoe fur the prnfeiuied object of inciuirinK into
und ruuorting upon all inatterH connected with the Ontario boundaries.
No new or material evidence was obtained by the committee, but by a
party vote the opinion was expressed in its report that the awanl did
not de8cril)e the true boundaries of Ontario, ana that it incluJe<i within
that Province territory to which, the Committee asHertcd, the Province
was not entitled.

ENIJkROZNO MANITOBA.

This action was followed up in the session of 1881 by a Govem-
inenk muaaure enlarging the boundaries of Manitoba. Sir Alexander
Oampbell, when intruaucing the Bill in the Senate, plainly aiiiruied
that the intentiim was* to give to that Province the whole tract of
country eastward as far a.s the meridional line claimed by the Dominion
Government to be the westerly limit of Ontario, embracing a temtory
iJ9,()0<) stpiare miles in extent, which hail been declared to be part of
<Jntario by the award of the arbitmtors. In the Iloube of (Commons
Sir John Macdonald avowed as an object of the Bill that it would
*' compel" the Government of Ontario not to insist on the awarded
boundaries, and he assured the House that the (jlovernment of that
Province would " come to terms <[uiokly enough when they ttnd they
must do so." This undertaking to "bulldoze" Ontario was of a piece
with the undertaking to " bulldoze " the Hudson's Bay Company ten or
twelve years i)reviously.

ALLBOED RBASONS FOR REJECTING THE AWARD.

The alleged reasons of the Dominion Governnient for rejecting the
awanl are, that the reference to arbitration " transcended the power
of the Government of the day ;" that the matter should be " consid-
ered rigidly as one of law ;" and that His Excellency's present advisers
were opposed to *' disposing of the question by arbitration," con-
ceiving that mode to be " inexpedient and lacking in legal authority,"
It is a sufficient answer to those objections to say that the reference
was made with the knowledge of the Dominion Parliament ; that the
Dominion Parliament not only made no objection, but in 1878 voted
^15, (XK) to pay the expenses of the arbitration without a word of dis-
sent ; and that both Governments concerned pledged their good faith
to a settlement of the question procured in this way. A further an-
swer is, that arbitration is the usual way of settling such disputes, and
that it is a reasonable way. The bounilary between Canada and New
Brunswick was settled by arbitration ; so also was the San Juan dis-

Jute. Sir John Macdonald himself was a party to referring the San
uan question. Even now he proposes, after repudiating tiie award
of one set of arbitrators, to refer the dispute to another set — to some
" eminent English legal functionary," or to the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council, neither of which couM give a decision in any way
more binding than the one already given.

THE TRUE LEGAL LIMITS DECLARED.

But it is said the award established a conventional line instead of
A legal one. That is not true. All the evidence was considered and
the arguments of counsel heard. The arbitrators were appointed to
find the true legal limits of the Province, and their award declares that
they found it. They did not give advice, but they •prommnced a decision.
On what pretence, then, of reason or justice can a demand be made for
re-opening the case ? If the Government of Canada do not feel them.

•elyes in honor and good faith hound hy the award which has nlrea<ly
been made, Ontario han no reason to suppi-.t that they would not
qxAte as rtudily repudiate any mbiyfqueut deciswn.

ATTITUDE OP THB QUIBXC TORIES.

Sir Hector Langevin has put hia foot on the award bt'cause he
profeflKes to fear that it would give Ontario too ^rt'at Btrongth in the
Confederation, which would incn'ane with the developiuunt of itM terri-
tory. His real motive i» a desire to break down the Liberal dovtm-
nient of Ontario, and so euHure the contiimance of Tory misrule in
the Dominion. lie and his Tory follounnif hare ivjlneneed the press of
their Province to create a feeling against the award and to cnj dmrn as
h-aitors the Qiiehe.c Liberals who voted ayainst re.-opening the. Imandary
$ase and breaking faith with one of the I'rovinret of the Union. It i»
hatred and jealousy of Liberal progress in Ontaiio that prompts the
hostility of Quebec Tories to the award, and Ontario Tories, obedient
to the crack of Sir John Macdonald's whip, have joined hands in repu-
diating it by their votes on Mr. Plumb's motion to re-opeu the case and
to refer it to another tribunal.

IS ONTARIO TOO LARGE T

But is Ontario too large, as the Quebec Tories profess to fear (
Whatever was her extent as the Province of Upper Canada, that is her
extent now, and she is entitled to her full measure of territory, be it
great or small. She has never shown a disposition to be unjust to other
Provinces of the Union, or to rule by the right of the strongest. How
doss she compare in area with the other Provinces I The diagrams on
the folded sheet annexed will illustrate at a glance their relative extent^
and will show that Ontario, with all the territory given by the award, i»
still pmaller than Quebec or British Columbia. The estimates of tim-
ber in the district have been given in public documents published
under the anthority of both Governments, and they have not been
challenged.

The loss of the territory in dispute, it will be seen, would reduce
the area of Ontario to 100,000 square miles. Why should the area of
ihat Province be reduced to less than half the area of Quebec !f or to len
ihan one-third the area of British Colnvibia ? Or why should tJie area of
Ontario be reduced, and that of Manitoba extended, until Manitoba shall
have an area one-half greater than Ontario ? Can Sir Hector Langevin
and the Quebec Tories, who say that Ontario would be too large, an-
swer these questions I •

• THE QUESTION AS A POLITICAL ISSUE.

Liberals, fair-minded men, honorable men, and true Canadians in
all Provinces of the Dominion, have a vital interest in maintaining the
eause of Ontario in the present struggle. The independence, it not
the very existence, of the Local Governments is at staice. If they are
to be crushed out on any pretence by an adverse political party in
office at Ottawa, what guarantee is there for the maintenance of self-
government and provincial rights ? What guarantee is there for the
preservation of Home Rule in the Provinces i To tolerate such conduct
on the part of the Dominion Government is not only to place a premium
on public dishonor, but to prepare the way for the disruption and dia-
memberment of the Union. Were any independent State to pursue
Ae course towards another which the Government of Canada ha»

— w

ONTARIO AND THE DISF

Oiifaslo iindcr tho award . lOJ.oflO ^qiinro miles, or 12G,000,000 acres

willioiit the dispiitoti territory lOO.OOO square milos, or 04,000.000 acres

Manitoba as eiilarjred by part of the dlspufed terrilory 150.000 square miie?, or OO.OOO.OOO seres
Manitoba without any of the disputed territory . • 115.000 square miles, or 73,<;»O.O00 acres

Hn<^bce 210,000 square miles, or 134.400,000 acres

Repudiation of the award deprives Ontario of the re-
gion north of the iioigiht of land, which goes to

no other ProTliice 02,000 square miles, or 89,GSO,000 acres

And adds to Manitoba 35.000 square miles, or 22,400.000 acres

Amount of innibcr In district added to Manitoba 20,000,000.000 feet

Value of this lumber to Untario $125,000,000

Loss per head to the people of Ontario from timber alone ^ qk

Total loss to each ratepayer uot less than •• S3G0

An annnal tax forercr on each taxpayer of ^ Ig

COMPARATIVE SIZES OF THI

BRITISH COLUMBIA.

Ana 400,000 Square Miles.
Or ase.OOO.OOO Acr«s.

QUEBEC.

Are* 210,000 Square HUM,
Or 134.400,000 Aorti.

ONTARIO,

■MU8 TH8 AWABD.

ATM 100.000 84.
MUea.

Or 04,000,000 Aors

The above " squares,'* based upon a scald of 100,000 square miles to the Inch, show at a glance the relati
Province of Ontario, with and without the disputed territory ; and lastly of the Province of Manitoba, as enlarged (v

ifii

E DISPUTED^TERRITORY

OF THE LARGER PROVINCES.

ONTARIO,

■M08 TH8 AWABD.

ATM 100,000 Bq.
MUM,

Or 04.000,000 Aon

ONTARIO,

WITH TUK AWABD.

Am* 107,000 Square MUm,

Or 126.000,000 AorM.

MANITOBA,

WITHOUT nisrvTKD

TKBIIITOHY.

Are* 116,000 Square
Miles.

Or 7S,600,OOOAorei>.

MANITOBA.

WITH 0>TAniO TEH
TOUT.

Area 150.000 Square
Milsa, j

Or 00,000,000 Aorea

9W at a glance the relative sizes of the four Provinces of British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba; of th«
>f Manitoba, as »ntar2ecl (without disputed territory), and with the disputed territory, . ' Vv*H g^|j||^r*«ai^' fj

adopted towards the Province of Ontario, it would be held guilty of a
tro^s breach of faith — of dishonorable conduct which would lead to an
immediate discontinuance of all diplomatic relations.

AS AN ONTARIO XSSUB,

the Boundary question concerns every man within its borders. It is
not merely whether that Province shall be ruled by one party or
another, but whether she shall be despoiled of half her territory — of a
•ountry rich in mineral and forest wealth, which may be to her Covem-
ment a source of revenue for all time. That is a large consideration
to pay for the doubtful gain of defeating Mr. Mowat's Government,
and gra'ifying the hatred of Sir John Macdonald and his Quebec
allies. Every OiiUirio man who voted for Mr. Plumb^s wotion should he a
marked man in his constituency; he should be regarded as an enemy
•f his Province, and he should receive at the hanas of the people an
•neray's reward.

PROVINCIAL RIGHTS.

The Tory Grovernment's Attempt to Destroy
Home Kule in Canada.

[Disallowance of the Rivers and Streams Bill— Sir John

Maodonald's Former Opinions on Interference

with Provincial Legislation— Tory

Hostility to Ontario.

The fullest liberty of action by the Provinces, within their true
constitutional limits, is the only safety of the federal system in Canada.
The British North America Act of 1867 was a solemn compact, under
which local control over local affairs was guaranteed. Under that Act
the Dominion Government has no just right to interfere with the con-
stitutional legislation of the Provinces any more than a Local Govern-
ment would have to interfere with the legislation of a municipal
council.

When the question of Confederation was under discussion, the
necessity of allowing the fullest liberty of action to the Provinces
within their own jurisdiction was frequently pointed out, and no sooner
had we entered upon a trial of the new system than the propriety of
defining the grounds which would justify interference with local legis-
lation became apparent.

SIR JOHN MACDONALD'S VIEW IN 1868.

On the 8th of January, 1868, Sir John Macdonald prepared a State
paper in which he dealt with the question of disallowance as follows :

"In deciding whether any Act of a Provincial Legislature should be
disallowed or sanctioned, the Government must not only consider whether
it aifects the interest of the whole Dominion or not, but also whether it be
unconstitutional; whether it exceeds the jurisdiction conferred on the
Local Legislature, and, in cases where the jurisdiction is concurrent,
whether it clashes with the legislation of the general Parliament.

"As it is of importance that the course, of local legislation shotdd be
interfered with as little as possible, and the power of disallowance exercised
with great caution, and only in cases where the law and general interests
of the Dominion imperatively^demand it, the undersigned recommends thai
the following course be pursued :

"That on the receipt by your Excellency of the Acts passed in any
Province, they be referred to the Minister of Justice for report, and that
he, with all convenient speed, do report as to those Acts which he considers
free from objection of any kind, and, if such report be approved by Your
Excellency in Council, that such approval be forthwith communicated to
the Provincial Government.

TS.

?troy

r John

;heir true
Canada,
let, under
that Act
I the con-
1 Govem-
tnunicipal

ssion, the
Provinces
no sooner
)priety of
)cal legis-

d a State
follows :
should be
r whether
ther it be
d on the
ncurrent,

should be
exercised

interests
ends that

Jd in any
and that
considers
by Your
icated to

" That h| make a separate report or separate reporta on those Acts
which he may consider :

*' 1. Aa being altogether illegal or unconstitutional.

"2. As being illegal or unconstitutional only in part.

" n. In cases of concurrent jurisdiction, as clashing with the legisla-
tion of the general Parliament.

"4. As atfecting the interests of the Dominion generally. And that
in such report or reports he gives his reasons for his opinions."

Here we have a clear exposition of the grounds on which local
legislation was to be disallowed. On this basis the federal system was
to be reared ; provincial rights were to be preserved ; and within their
own jurisdiction the various Local Legislatures were to be absolutely
free from all interference. Sir John Macdonald himself contended for
the same principle in 1872, when the question of disallowing the New
Brunswick School Bill came before him. His contention was then, as
it had been in 1868, that provincial rights were sacredly guarded by the
Constitution, and must not be invaded by the Executive.

SIB JOHN MACDONALD'S VIEW IN 1872.

Speaking in the House of Commons on this question, he said :

" The Provinces have their rights, and the question was not whether
this House thought a Local Legislature was right or wrong. But the
•whole question for this House to consider, whenever such a question as this
"was brought up, was that they should say at once that they had no right
to interfere so long as the different Provincial Legislatures acted within the
bounds of the authority which the Constitution gave them. (Hear, hear.)
There was this fixed principle— that every Provincial Legislature should
feel that, when it was legislating, it was legislating in the reality and not
in the sham. If they did not know and feel that the measures they were
arguing, discussing, and amendin -, and modifying to suit their own people
would become law, it was all sham, and the ft deral system was gone for-
ever. If this House undertook the great responsibility of interfering with
the local laws, they must be prepared to discuss the justice or injustice of
every law passed by every Provincial Legislature — (hear, hear) — and this
Legislature, instead of being, as now, the General Court of Parliament for
the decision of great Dominion questions, would be simply a Court of Ap-
peal to try whether the Provincial Legislatures were right or wrong in the
conclusions to which they came. (Hear, hear.) If this House was pre-
pared to take that course and adopt tliat principle, then the Government
of the day, while it would have much more responsibility, would also have
much more powrr ; for, besides conducting and administering the affairs of
the whole Dominion as one great country, it '"'ould also have the power, the
authority and the control of a majority over every Bill, every Act, every con-
clusion, every institution, every right of every Province in Canada."

With this view of Provincial authority the Liberal party agreed,
and on this view Sir John Macdonald acted in every instance, from
Confederation down to the disallowance of the Streams Bill.

HISTORY OF THE STREAMS BILL.

On the 4th of March, 1881, the Ontario Legislature passed " An
Act for protecting the Public Interests in Rivers, Streams, and
Creeks."

Section 1 of this Act provided that ' ' So far as the Legislature of
Ontario has authority so to enact, all persons shall, subject to the pro-
visions in this Act contained, have, and are hereby declared always to
have had, during the spring, summer and autumn freshets, the right
to, and may float and transmit saw logs and all other timber of every

kind, and all rafts and crafts, down all rivers, creeks and streams in re-
aped of which the Leyislxtn^e of Ontario has auChority to gwe this power."

Section 2 provided that any person may use all rivers, creeks and
Btreains on which improvements had been made, for floating timber
during the spring, summer and autumn freshets, " subject to the pay-
ment to the person who has made snch improvements of reasonable tolls."

Section 3 applied the above provisions alike to patented and un-
patented lands.

Section 4 provided that *' the Lieutenant-Governor in Council
may fix the amounts which any person entitled to tolls under this Act
shall be at liberty to charge on the saw logs and different kinds of
timber rafts or crafts, and may from time to tune vary the same ; and
the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, in fixing such tolls, shall have re-
>jard to and take into consideration the original cost of such constnic-
tioHS and iviprovcmoits, tlie amount required to maintain the same and
to cover interest vpon the original cost, as well as such other matters o-»
under uU the circuni stances m ly to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council
»eemjnstund equitable."

Section 5 applied the above provisions of the Act to improvements
roflde or hereafter to be made.

Section 6 provided that any person making improvements was to
h. ri a lien npon logs or timber pacing thr igh the improvements, for
his tolls.

Section 8 provided that the person who had the right to collect tolls
should also have the right to make rules for passing the timber through or
over his works subject to the approval of the Governor in Council.

THE ACT JUST AND EQUAL.

In looking at the various sections of this Act, the following points
are worthy of notice.

1. From section 1 it is quite clear that the Act applies to all
streams alike — and that the privilege of floating logs, etc. , down those
streams is open to all persons alike, subject, of course, to the pro-
visions of the Act.

2. By section 2 it is declared that the mere construction of works
on a stream to facilitate the passage of logs, etc. , does not give to the
person constructing such works an exclusive right to the use of the
stream. In other words, the stream is regarded by law as a public
highway, improvements on which do not exclude the public from the
right to use it.

3. That while the construction of works to improve the floatability
of streams does not give the party so improving them an exclusive
right to their use, it debars all otliers from using such works without
paying for the privilege.

4. That the tolls to be paid for using such streams are to be
regulated by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and in fixing such
tolls he is to take into consideration the cost of building and main-
taining the works, the interest on the outlay, and such other matters
as may be thought just to all parties.

5. That the logs floated through such improvements may be held
as security for the payment of all such charges.

6. That rules may be made by the person owning the works for
regulating the passage of logs, so that one man's timber may not in-
terfere with the free movement of another man's ; such regulations being
flubject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

would

stream

from 1

stream

The re

forests

per-on

at all,

ments,

rovenv

by a «1
limits
one of
river i
other,
the uui
He wa
refuse(
to the
was be
lature
to use
only vv

He is

coun.«c
how m
how ni
Bill 111
of Jus
assenti
Sir Jo!
before
Court
—the
the dii
><

of one
doubtf
it dev(
in flagi
as in t
the Ac
ing re1
down

be set
1. Th
and 3

mis in re-
is power."
•eeks and
g timber
the pay-
ible tolls."
and un-

Council

this Act

kinds of

no ; and

have re-

constmc-

Kiine. and

afters as

Council

vements

3 was to
nts, for

llect tolls
ough or
icil.

g points

s to all
^n those
he pro-

f works
2 to the
! of the
I public
om the

tability
elusive
without

to be
ig such

main-
latters

>e held

•ks for
lot in-
being

A RKA80NABXJB ACT.

The justice of stich an Act must be apparent to every person. It
would be monstrous to permit any man, taking possession of a
«tr«am and building works to improve its float«bility, to shut out
from 1 ie markets of the world all owners of timber limits lying up the
stream. The people of Ontario have direct interest in such legislation.
The revenue which goes into the Provincial treasury from woods and
forests amounts to over half a million dollars annually. To allow any
per.-on to shut out lumber that must reach the market, if it reaches it
at all, through streams on which some other person has made improve-
ments, would be to deprive the Province of a portion of its legitimate
revenue and the public of a most important right.

NXCKSSITY FOB THX ACT.

The necessity for such an Act in the public interest was first shown
hy a difficulty existing between two lumbernien owning large timber
limits on the Mississippi — a tributary of the Ottawa. It seems that
one of them, Peter McLaren, had made certain improvements on this
rival- for his own benetit and at his own cost. H. C. Caldwell, the
other, owned limits above McLaren, and in order to get his tiiiiuor to
the uiarket it was absoluti ly necessary to pass through McLaren's slides.
He was willing to pay for the use of McLaren's improvements, but was
refused leave ; and lest he should proceed to use them, McLaren applied
to the Court of Chancery for an injunction to restrain him. The case
was before the Courts when the Streams Bill passed the Ontario Legis-
lature. Under the Act Caldwell or any one else would have the right
to use McLaren's im]irovements by paying for the use ol" them. The
only way McLaren could prevent this just privilege was to secure

THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE BILL.

He is a well known and influential supporter of Sir John's ; his
counsel also was a prominent member of the party ; and no matter
how much the public, as well as Caldwell, might be inconvenienced, or
how nuich the revenue of Ontario might suffer, the disallowance of the
Bill must be secured. Accordingly McLaren petitioned the Minister
of Justice, and on the l7th of May, six weeks after the Bill had been
assented to — without giving notice to the Government of Ontario, as
Sir John Macdoiiald declared in 1868 should be done and as had always
before been done, and without waiting for the pending decision of the
Court of Appeal, given on July 8 following against McLaren's claims
— the Minister of Justice, the Hon. James Macdonald, recommended
the disallowance of the Bill in the following terms :

" I think the power of the Local Legislature to take away the rights
of one man and vest them in auother, as is done by this Act, is exceedingly
doubtful ; but assuming that such a right does in strictness exist, I think
it devolves upon the Government to see that such powers are not exercised
in flagrant violations of private rights and national justice, especially when,
as in this case, in addition to iuterierius.' with the private rights alluded to,
the Act overrides a decision of a court of competeut jurisdiction by declar-
ing retrospectively that the law always was and is different from that laid
down by the Court."

THE BEASONS E2CAMINED.

In looking closely at the decision of the Minister of Justice, it will
be seen that he based his disallowance of the Bill on three grounds :
1. That it interfered with private rights ; 2. That it was retrospective ;
and 3. That it set aside a judgment of the Court. In regard to the

first ground it must be said that interference with private riehts was
never set up before by the Government as a reuson for disallowance..
By the British North America Act, " property and civil rights" are
excluHively within the jurisdiction of the Local Legislature, and it was
never pretended that such an interference «va8 any ground for dis-
allowing a Provincial Act. Speaking on the subject of provincial rights,
Mr. Todd, in his valuable work on " Parliamentary Government in
the Colonies," says :

"It was the intention of the Imperial Government (in passing the
British North America Act) to guard from invasion all rights and powers
exclusively conferred upon the provmcial authorities, and to proviae that
the reserved right of interference therewith by the Dominion Executive or
Parliament should not be exercised in the interest of any political party, or
so as to impair the principle of local self-government. "

Besides, during the last fifteen years, scores of Bills were passed
interfering with private rights, none of which were disallowed. A few
of these may be mentioned.

A QUSBXC ACT WHICH INTBRFKBKD WITH PUIVATE BIGHTS.

A Bill passed by the Legislature of Quebec respecting the Union
St. Jacques Society, Montreal, provided for the enforced commutation
of the existing rights of two widow ladies, who, at the time it was
passed, were annuitants of the society, and compelled them to take
such a sum in lieu of their annuity as was, in the opinion of the Local
Legislature, just. This Bill was sanctioned by Sir John Macdonald,
notwithstanding its interference with private rights.

AN ONTARIO ACT WHICH INTERFKRKD WITH PBIVATK I<;IOHTS.

The Hon. George Goodhue, by his will, provided that his property
should be divided in a particular way. Trustees were appointed to
carry out the conditions and trusts of the will. The children were
dissatisfied with the will, and by an agreement between themselves
made other disposition of the estate ; in fact, made a new will for Mr.
Goodhue. They applied to the Local Legislature for an Act to con-
firm such disposition. The Bill was protested against, as an extra-
ordinary and unexampled interference with private rights, by one of
the trustees on the ground that it was retrospective, that it created a new
will, that it took the property out of the hands of one class of persons
and gave it to another, and that it dealt with the property of minors
outside the Dominion of Canada. The Local Legislature passed the
Bill. The Lieutenant-Governor sanctioned it, but seemed to invite its
disallowance by the Dominion Government, speaking of it in his de-
spatch " as very objectionable, and forming a dangerous precedent."
The trustees petitioned the Dominion Government to disa low it, but
Sir John Macdona' i, to whom, as Minister of Justice, the Bill was re-
ferred, reported that, " as it is within the competence of the Pro-
vincial Legislature," it should be left to its operation.

THE ONTARIO ACT THAT INTKRFERKD WITH MUNICIPAL
RIGHTS AND PROPERTY.

Acting under the authority of a timber license received from the
Government of the late Sandtield Macdonald, the same Peter McLaren
whose case is now under consideration proceeded to cut down tim-
ber on the road allowances in his limit. An action was begun
t^ainst him by the municipal corporations interested, on the ground
that the road allowances were their private property. Judgment was

( u

given in their favour by the Court of Common Pleaa, on the ground
that the Local Government had no right to grant a license to cut
timber on property that did not belong to it. The case was carried to
the Ctiurt of Appeal, but, while pending, the Local Legislature, under
the direction of the late Sandtield Macd<jnald, and at the instigation
of McLaren, passed an Act, one of the sections of which reads as
follows ;

"Every Government road allowance included in any timber license
heretofore granted shall be deemed to be and to have been unn-auted
lands."

Here was property that belonged to a municipality leased by the
Government to a private individual, and, wliile the case was pending
before the Courts, the Legislature passes an Act transferring tne pro-
perty from the municipalities, to which it was held by the Courts to
belong, to this same Peter McLaren. The second section provided :

"The licensee shall be deemed to have and to have had all rights in the
trees, timber, lumber thereon, or cut thereon, as if the same were cut on
any patented land of the Crown."

That was an Act which was retrospective in its operation, which
directly interfered with private rights, which took property from
one person and vested it in another without compensation, and which
overruled the laws of the land, the rights of private parties, and the
judgment of the Court. The Corporation of the County of Frontenac
petitioned against the Act, but Sir John Macdonald allowed it with
all its objectionable features. In his memorandum to Council on this
Bill he said :

"As it is clearly within the competence of the Local Legislature, the
undersigned reccommcnds that it be left to its operation."

THK NKW BRUNSWICK SCHOOL BILL.

Again, by an Act passed by the Legislature of New Brunswick in
1871, the Roman Catholic population of that Province felt that their
rights were encroached upon by being required to contribute fcr the
maintenance of a system of education in regard to which they had
conscientious scruples. Looking at the matter purely from a consti-
tutional stand-point, Sir John Macdonald said on the 20th January,
1872:

" The Provincial Legislatures have exclusive powers to make laws in
relation to education. ... It may be that the Act in question may net
unfavorably on the Catholics or on other religious denominations, and if
so, it 18 for such religious bodies to appeal to the Provincial Legislature,
which has the sole power to grant redress. . . .

"The sole matter which presented itself to the Government was
whether, according to the British North America Act of 1867, the Legisla-
ture of New Brunswick had exceeded its powers. As the officer primarily
responsible on such subjects, he could only say that he had taken uniform
care to interfere in no way whatever with any Act passed by any of the
Provincial Legislatures if they were within the scope of their jurisdiction.
There were only two cases, in his opinion, in whiah the Government of
the Dominion was ji\|tified in advising the disallowance of local Acts.
First, if the Act was unconstitutional, and there had been an excess of

i'urisdiotion ; and, second, if it was injurious to the interests of the whole
)ominion.

"In the case of measures not coming within either of these categories,
the Government would be unwarranted in interfering with local legislation

" In the preaent oase there was not a doubt that the New Brunswick
Legislature had acted within its jurisdiction, and that the Act was con-
titutionally legal, and cotild not l)e impugned on that ground.

" On the second ground which he had muntionea in which he con-
sidered the Dominion Government could interfere, it could not be held that
the Act in any way prejudicially atl'ected the whole Dominion, becuuHu it
was a law settling the commoa school syatom of the Province of Now
Brunswick alone.

" The Government of the Dominion could not act, and they would
have been guilty of a vitdent breach of the constitution if, because they
held a different opinion, they should set up their judgment agaiunt the
solemn decision of a Province in a matter entirely within the control of

that Province."

PROVINCIAL RIGHTS INVADED.

It is quite clear that the disallowance of the "Streams Bill," m it
is usually called, was a great outrage upon the right of the Province*
to self-government :

1. Because the Bill was admittedly within the competence of th«
Provincial Legislature.

2. It did not " take one man's property and give it to another " in
the sense alleged of confiscating McLaien's property ; on tlie contrary,
it provided compensation based on the value of the improvemenli
made, the cost of maintaining such work, the interest upon the
investment, and all other just considerations.

3. Even if the Bill had been an invasion of private rights, it was
not competent for the Dominion Government to disallow it, on the
basis laid down by Sir John Macdonald himself, and accortling to the
many precedents of the Department of Justice during the last fifteen
years.

4. Although the Act had interfered with the decision of a court
of competent jurisdiction, yet that circumstance would not bring it
within the class of cases stated by Sir John Macdonald in 1808, as
those in regard to which the prerogative of disallowance should be
exercised. But since the disallowance the Court of Appeal has reversed
the judgment of the Court of Chancery, and held that McLaren never
had any ri^iht to the iise of the streau), except such as was given to the
whole world. The judgment of the Court of Appeal contains th«
following statement :

" Having reached the conclusion that all streams are by public au-
thority dedicated as highways to at least the extent essential to the defence
in this action, I have only further to remark that when the oVwtruction
which stood in the way of the enjoyment of the legal right is removed,
when the traveller by land, or lumberer seeking to float his lumber down a
stream, finds the highway unobstructed, he is at liberty, in my judgment,
to make use of it without inquiring by whom, or with what motive, the
way has been made practicable/ He finds the rock on the road allowance
blasted, or the chasm that crossed it bridged, and he pursues his jouruer
along the highway thus improved ; or he finds that the freshet covers aU
obstacles with a sufficient depth of water, and he fioats his locrs down the
highway thus made useful. It may be in appearance and perhaps in reality
rather hard on the man at whose expense what was a highway only in leg>u
contemplation becomes one fit for profitable use, that ^e has to allow others
to share in the advantage without contributing to the cost. That is, how-
ever, a matter for his own consideration when he makes the'improvement."

WKRB LIKK BILLS DISALLOWED BY LIBERALS 7

But it is sanl that during the Liberal Administration, like bills
were disallowed, and that the Liberal party have no vigj^ to complaia