CHAP. 1] THE DOMINION OF CANADA 683 
declared in favour of its validity. The grant of lands was 
an act of the provincial legislature which it could vary by 
legislation, as it had done, and the power was in no way 
contrary to the power of the Dominion over railways. So 
also, as mentioned above, it was held that the precious 
minerals under the lands granted to the Dominion by the 
terms of union did not pass at all to the Dominion, but 
remained vested in the province, the effect of the transfer 
being to give to the Dominion the right of appropriation of 
the revenues arising from the land, not a transfer of the land 
in full proprietary ownership! But an attempt to extend 
the claim to the water rights over the land has failed both in 
the Supreme Court and in the Privy Council? and it has 
been held that grant of the land must be by the Dominion 
patents. In the water rights case the Privy Council were clear 
that the power to manage the lands was vested exclusively 
in the Dominion under s. 91 of the Act: otherwise the 
province could by legislation make null and void their own 
grant to the Dominion, and lessen or take away altogether 
its value, and they held that the Provincial Water Clauses 
Consolidation Act (Rev. Stat., 1897, c. 190) by s. 2 expressly 
excluded such lands from the operation of the law under 
which the Provincial Government purported to act. 
(¢) Indian Lands 
Troublesome questions have been raised about the rights 
of the Indians to the lands. In 1763 the royal proclamation 
provided that unoccupied lands should be reserved for the 
present for Indians, and forbade acquisition of such lands 
otherwise than through the Governor. In 1873 certain lands 
in Ontario occupied by Indians were surrendered by them to 
the Dominion, subject to certain rights of hunting and fishing. 
The Dominion claimed that, having got the lands on a good 
title, they alone could grant licences for cutting wood, and 
t Attorney-General of British Columbia v. Attorney-General of Canada. 
14 App. Cas. 295 ; see [1911] A. C. 87, at pp. 94, 95. 
* Burrard Power Co, v. The King, 43 8. C. R. 27; [1911] A. C. 87. 
* The Queen v. Farwell, (1893-4) 3 Ex. C. R. 171, at p. 289: 228, C. R. 
553. at p. 561.