CHAP. 1] THE DOMINION OF CANADA 687 
of the claim of the true owner, and they paid over the encum- 
brance not for the benefit of the land but for distinct and 
important interests of their own. It was really a case where 
expenditure by one party for his own interests had benefited 
the other, and it might be, as a matter of fair play, that the 
province ought to be liable for some part, but in point of law 
it was not so liable. They recognized that the opinion of 
the dissenting judges in the Supreme Court was due to a 
passage delivered by Lord Watson in the case of St. Catherine's 
Milling and Lumber Company v. The Queen This passage 
did indeed give strong support to the views based upon it, 
but they considered that Idington and Duff JJ. had stated 
conclusive reasons against accepting the dictum as decisive 
of the case. The point raised was neither raised nor argued 
in that case, and it was quite possible that Lord Watson 
did not intend to pronounce upon a legal right. If he did so 
the passage must be regarded as obiter dictum. In the course 
of the argument a question was mooted as to the liability of 
the Provincial Government to carry out the provisions of the 
treaty as regards future reservations for the benefit of the 
Indians, but the question was not decided by the Judicial 
Committee, and the matter is still being discussed between 
the Ontario and the Dominion Governments.’ 
(1) Debt Liability 
The provisions of ss. 111 and 112 of the British North 
America Act with regard to the liability of the provinces to 
the Dominion in respect of their debts have been frequently 
discussed. The Provinces of Ontario and Quebec were to 
' 14 App. Cas. 46, at p. 60. See also 25 8. C. R. 434, at p. 505. Cf. Lefroy, 
op. cit., p. 594, note. Once the title is extinguished the lands become subject 
to ordinary law; e.g. Church v. Fenton, 28 U.C.C. DP. 384; 40. A. R. 159; 
58.C.R.239. While the Indians are entitled to rents, it is for the Dominion 
Government to sue for them as being entrusted with the control of Indian 
affairs ; Mowat v, Casgrain, January 20, 1896, cited in Lefroy, loc. cit. 
* In the case of Ontario Mining Co. v. Seybold, [1903] A. C. 73, it was 
held that a grant by the Dominion to Indians of lands as reserves was a 
were nullity, except by legislative sanction of the province: see 54 Vict. 
¢. 3 (Ontario): 54 & 55 Viet. ¢. 5 (Dominion).