Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896935052

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-238139

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 2

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XI Seiten, Seiten 570-1100

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part IV. The federations and the union // Chapter I. The dominion of Canada

Collection:: Economics Books

684 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART 1v so forth, in these lands, and that they were entitled to the proceeds. On the part of Ontario it was contended that the right in these lands was always in the Crown, not in the Indians : that being in the province, the lands passed to the province under s. 109 of the Constitution, and the only power which the Dominion could have would be a power of legislation in respect of the lands under the powers to legislate in s. 91. Tt was decided by the majority of the Supreme Court?! that the lands formed part of the public domain and were the property of Ontario. They insisted on the fact that the French Crown claimed in full propriety all the lands in the country, and ceded them in full propriety to the English Crown in 1763. The claims of the Indians were always under the French, and still were, claims to benevolent consideration, but not legal claims to be enforced by the Courts. This decision was in effect upheld by the Judicial Committee, who also held that the Indians had no title, but were allowed a fructuary use of the lands, and that the timber on the land was wholly vested in the Crown. Moreover the Judicial Committee then decided that the lands were not burdened with any trust or other compulsion to pay the Indians sums out of them, but they held that with the lands the province must relieve the Crown and the Dominion of the burden of all promises made to the Indians and in part fulfilled by the Dominion, though the remark is apparently only an obiter dictum and does not mean a legal obligation, and of course the actual hunting, &ec., rights morally bound the province. In the case of The Dominion of Canada v. The Province of Ontario, decided on July 29, 1910, the question was raised £138. C. R. 577. Cf. Boyd C. in 10 O. R. 196. * 8t. Catherine's Milling and Lumber Co. v. Reg., 14 App. Cas. 46; 13 S.C. R. 577; 13 O. A. R. 148; Lefroy, pp. 612-4. See also Ontario Mining Co. v. Seybold, [1903] A. C. 73. As to the annuities see also Attorney- General for Canada v. Attorney-General for Ontario, [1897] A. C. 199: 25 S. C. R. 434. ' [1910] A. C. 637, affirming the decision in 42 8. C. R. 1, where Idington, Maclennan, and Duff JJ. agreed, Girouard and Davies JJ. dissenting. Cf. the valuable correspondence in Ontario Sess. Pap., 1908, No. 71. Since

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation