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

738 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART Iv in the Gazette, and was not considered to be in force in the province. Under Sir John Macdonald’s régime we find a vigorous policy of interference with provincial laws. The facts in McLaren’s case were as follows: he had constructed on a non-floatable stream in Ontario certain works of which he claimed to be seised in fee-simple, for carrying logs to their destination. One Caldwell, who carried on the same business higher up than McLaren, claimed to be entitled to use the stream for the purpose defined in chapter 115 of the Revised Statutes, which provided that all persons might, during the spring, summer, and autumn freshets, float sawn logs and other lumber rafts and craft down all streams. McLaren obtained an injunction from the Court of Chancery * against Caldwell on the grounds that the expression ‘all streams ’ in the Revised Statutes merely referred to streams which were naturally floatable, not to those made float- able by artificial means. The decision was wrong, as was decided by the Privy Council in 1884.2 but in the meantime, while the question was moving slowly through the Courts, as the Court of Appeal® of Ontario reversed the decision of the Court of Chancery, and the Supreme Court of the Dominion * restored it, to be reversed finally by the Privy Council, the Ontario Legislature passed an Act in 1881 in which it compelled the owner of such improvements as those erected by McLaren to permit their use by others on payment of a reasonable toll to be fixed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Besides, the Act declared that the provisions of the Act in the Revised Statutes extended to all streams and not merely to floatable streams. The Act was petitioned against, and it was disallowed on the grounds that, in the first place, it deprived an owner of his property without adequate compensation, by making him a mere toll-keeper if he wished to get anything for the use of it by others, and secondly, that it reversed the decision of a competent: Court. ! Bourinot, Constitution of Canada, pp. 144 seq. ; Biggar, Sir Oliver Mowat, 1, 338-45, 2 9 App. Cas. 392, 60. A. R. 456. +88. CR. 435.

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