682 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART Iv
provincial governments and not in the Dominion Govern-
ment.
This view was supported by arguments drawn from the
case of escheats,! from the case of fisheries? and from the
case of railway lands in British Columbia,? and it was held
that just as the Dominion had no proprietary right in the
fisheries in the territorial waters of the provinces, and had
not a proprietary right in the minerals under railway lands
of British Columbia, so also it had no proprietary right with
regard to ferries. But the Supreme Court of Canada decided
definitely that the right to grant a ferry now belonged to the
Dominion Government, that it was included within the
legislative power as to ferries, and they evidently considered
that the prerogative to grant a ferry was one which had
fallen out of use.
It may be added that it has actually been held in South
Australia that a Governor has not without express delega-
tion any power to grant a ferry, and in any case it is clear
that the prerogative is not a living one at the present day.
(BR) Lands in British Columbia
In McGregor v. Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Co.5 the
question was raised as to the railway lands in British Co-
lumbia granted under the terms of union of the province by
Act 47 Vict. c. 14. The Dominion had granted certain lands
to the company, and subsequently to the grant the Legis-
lature of British Columbia passed an Act (3 & 4 Edw. VII.
c. 54) under which certain original settlers were given rights
over those parts of the lands included in the Dominion grant.
The Act was allowed to stand by the Dominion Government,
but was challenged in the Courts, and the Privy Council
' Attorney-General of Ontario v. Mercer, 8 App. Cas. 767.
* Attorney-General for the Dominion of Canada v. Attorneys-General for the
Provinces of Ontario, &c., [1898] A. C. 700; 26 S. C. R. 444.
* Attorney-General of British Columbia v. Attorney-General of Canada,
14 App. Cas. 295.
* Dewar v. Smith, 1900 S. A. L. R. 38. * [1907] A. C. 462.
® Provincial Legislation, 1904-6, pp. 125, 126. Sir C. Fitzpatrick very
inaccurately foresaw the decision of the case.
