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