DOMINION OF CANADA. 



26? 



etc., in the river were obstructions to the 

 floating of timber when the water was low ; 

 therefore, McLaren constructed a dam and slide 

 to facilitate the passage of logs. Another lum- 

 berer, named Caldwell, owned timber limits 

 on the banks of the same river, above McLa- 

 ren's, and claimed the right granted him by the 

 Ontario statute to float his logs through Mc- 

 Laren's slide. To prevent this seeming tres- 

 pass, McLaren obtained an injunction from the 

 Court of Chancery of Ontario, arguing that 

 "floatable streams" are naturally floatable 

 ones. To remove all ambiguity, the Legisla- 

 ture of Ontario, in 1881, re-enacted the law, 

 and extended its provisions to all streams and 

 constructions thereon; and provided for the 

 payment by the party using the slide to the 

 owner thereof, of a toll, which was to be fixed 

 in each specific case by the Lieutenant- Governor 

 of the Province in Council. The Governor- 

 General in Council disallowed this act, giving in 

 explanation " that the act seems to take away 

 the use of the owner's property, and to give it 

 to another, forcing the owner to become a 

 toll -keeper against his will." The Ontario 

 government objected to the Govern or- General 

 in Council assuming to review any provision 

 of an act passed by a Provincial Legislature on 

 a subject within its competency under the 

 British North America Act, and again en- 

 acted the same law. It was again disallowed, 

 and again enacted. 



Meantime the case, Caldwell vs. McLaren, 

 passed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where 

 a decision adverse to Caldwell, and in favor 

 of the Federal view of the question, was 

 given. During 1884 it was brought before the 

 Privy Council of Great Britain and Ireland, 

 where a decision was given in favor of Cald- 

 well's claim, and upholding the Ontario statute. 



Escheats. The confederation of the provinces 

 was effected in 1867. Therefore, sufficient 

 time has elapsed to produce disputes based on 

 the act of confederation. Another point in 

 the Constitution settled in favor of provincial 

 rights was won by Ontario under its Attorney- 

 General, the Hon. O. Mowat, viz., "Escheats 

 in Real Property." The question, whether 

 lands and personal property in any province 

 escheated or forfeited, by reason of intestacy-, 

 without lawful heirs, next of kin, or other par- 

 ties entitled to succeed, etc., came within the 

 jurisdiction of the Provincial Legislatures or of 

 the Dominion, came before the courts both of 

 Ontario and of Quebec several years ago. It 

 was, subsequent to the time referred to (1874 

 and 1876), agreed, between the Dominion and 

 Provincial Governments, that, pending a judi- 

 cial decision to the contrary, the above-named 

 escheats should be subject to the jurisdiction 

 of the provinces, while lands and personal 

 property forfeited for treason, felony, etc., 

 should be within Dominion authority and ju- 

 risdiction. Afterward, Ontario again passed 

 an act (the one of 1874 had been disallowed) 

 to assume possession of such lands, and em- 



powered the Lieutenant-Governor in Council 

 to make grants of escheated or forfeited lands, 

 or to release forfeited property, or to waive 

 forfeiture. Power was also given to make an 

 assignment of personalty to which the Crown 

 might be entitled. In 1878 this act was put to 

 a test. A. wealthy citizen of Toronto, Andrew 

 Mercer, died intestate, without heirs or next 

 of kin, and Attorney-General Mowat for On- 

 tario laid claim to the property. A demurrer 

 was entered by Andrew Mercer, Jr., a natural 

 son of the deceased. It was asserted that Mer- 

 cer had been legally married to the mother of 

 the young Mercer, and a marriage entry was 

 found in the register of a Roman Catholic 

 church near Toronto, but the evidence was 

 proved to be forged. The woman had been a 

 servant in Mercer's house, but the son was 

 well used by his father, and he had a valuable 

 farm property deeded him prior to the old 

 man's death. The Court of Chancery upheld 

 the Ontario statute, and overruled the demur- 

 rer. The Court of Appeal for Ontario held 

 the same view, and dismissed the appeal with 

 costs. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Can- 

 ada, it was decided between the Dominion and 

 the Ontario Governments to make it a test 

 case in the matter of escheats of real property. 

 The Dominion upheld the views of the appel- 

 lant, while Ontario remained firm in support 

 of the statute. 



The Supreme Court held that the escheat 

 act of Ontario was ultra vires, and rendered 

 judgment in favor of the appellant. Finally, 

 on appeal to the Privy Council of Great Britain 

 and Ireland, it was decided in favor of Ontario. 



The Government of Ontario employed a 

 portion of the large sum of money thus re- 

 ceived in the erection of an elegant and sub- 

 stantial building, known as the " Mercer Re- 

 formatory," in Toronto. Its purpose is to serve 

 as a place where abandoned women may be 

 confined, instead of their being sent to the va- 

 rious prisons. 



License. The liquor license of Ontario au- 

 thorizes the appointment by the Provincial Gov- 

 ernment of license commissioners for the mu- 

 nicipality of every township, town, village, etc., 

 in the province, and empowers them to pass 

 resolutions as to the conditions and qualifica- 

 tions for tavern and shop licenses for retail 

 sale of liquor, to limit licenses, and to regulate 

 inspectors of licenses. The commissioners may 

 also impose penalties. The sale of liquor was 

 limited between the hour of 6 A. M. Monday, 

 and 7 P. M. Saturday. Appeal against the act 

 was made on the ground that the legislature 

 could not delegate its powers to commission- 

 ers in municipalities. The Privy Council, in this 

 as in all the former cases, sustained the Onta- 

 rio statute, and decided that the British North 

 America Act confers exclusive powers on the 

 provinces as to the sections enumerated in sec- 

 tion 92 of that act, and that in such matters, 

 the provincial legislatures are supreme. Thus, 

 the Province of Ontario, as the champion or 



