JUNE 23, 1906.] 
FOREST AND STREAM. 

995 


according to the Minister’s report. Appendix 
17, page 66. In addition, each lessee was com- 
pelled by the terms of the lease to employ and 
pay a guardian to protect the fish and game 
And when we consider that, ouside of individual 
leases, 187 clubs are incorporated and_ hold 
leases, and that the guardian must be employed 
from Jan. t to Dec. 1, each lessee cannot pay 
less than $350 per annum for game and fish 
protection. 
Thus, the lessees pay $70,000 in addition to 
rent, which, under the circumstances, the Gov- 
ernment would have to pay; and as to the game, 
no sane man will say that birds and beasts pro- 
tected on the 6,400,000 acres under lease, scat- 
tered over the whole Province, does not practi- 
cally protect the game in the whole Province. 
This is amply borne out by the fact that the 
salaries paid to all “fishery” and “game and fishery” 
overseers employed by the Government do not 
aggregate more than $12,000 per annum—leaving 
the Government of Quebec in round figures 
$54,000 of cash surplus besides $12,000 worth of 
patronage. 
You will easily realize therefore the great 
difference between the States and Provinces, 
quoted in Mr. Prevost’s speech, and his own 
Province. 
Briefly put, the only source of revenue for 
‘game and fish protection enjoyed by those States 
and Provinces is the license fees, whatever they 
may be, and against whoeyer chargeable. 
-In Quebec the lessees pay $66,030.27 for the 
right to hunt and fish within certain limits, and 
$70,000 for protecting game and fish for the 
whole Province—or a total of $136,030.27—and 
the Government pretends to protect the game 
and fish in the rest of the Province by spend- 
ing $12,000. 
Surely these figures should make any honest 
citizen of Quebec wonder why an additional 
burden of $15 per annum should be placed upon 
the non-resident lessee, a tax which should pro- 
duce a revenue of from $25,000 to $30,000 per 
annum, making lessees pay annually a_ total 
of $166,030.27. This does not take into con- 
sideration the cost of buildings, of constructing 
roads and bridges (the latter of enormous value 
to both settler and Jumbermen), which would 
probably foot up to an annual outlay of $30,000 
more. 
To the Minister’s argument based on articles 
-1415, 1416 and 1417a, I have only to say that 
when he admits the passage of the Order-in- 
Council of June 1, 1901, he admits my whole 
case. When my lease was obtained that Order- 
in-Council was in force, and the law then was 
and my bargain then made was, that for a cer- 
tain specified sum payable annually. my club 
should enjoy the hunting and shooting rights 
pertaining to the lands leased. The facts and 
the law were well known to both the contract- 
ing parties, and I say that the contract was made 
under the law as it then existed, and I and my 
associates are entitled to hunt on that territory 
during the existence of the lease. 
I never denfed the power of Parliament to 
confiscate my property, take away my rights, or 
do any other arbitrary act Parliament may do 
under our Constitution. But, I have surely the 
right to protest against Parliament doing so, and 
to insist that in strict justice, and with a due 
“regard for the preservation of its own honor, 
the Crown should not invoke the powers of 
Parliament to deprive me of the rights the same 
Crown has granted me, so long as I faithfully 
observe my end of the contract. 
As to the small amount received from non- 
resident licenses ($2,561), is it not apparent that 
the Government would have received much more 
for such licenses if it had not adopted the policy 
of leasing instead of licensing? And does not 
the Province receive actually from people who 
are almost wholly non-residents a total of $138,- 
584, out of which the Province expends about 
$12,000? Does any other State or Province 
have such a revenue and give free hunting and 
fishing to its own citigens? The Minister ad- 
mits that the Order-in-Council was based on the 
ground that clubs paid a considerable revenue to 
the Province; does not that argument still hold 
good? The Minister goes on to say that, owing 
to increased demands, better means of com- 
munication, etc., the value of the territories 
under lease has much increased, and therefore 
the payment of the license fee must be exacted, 
and that it is quite permissible for the Province 
to take advantage of the “letter of the law,” 
not the spirit or the principles of justice, but 
“the letter of the. law.” 
Well, if the Minister is content to violate the 
leases made with me on Aug. II, 1905, and 
Oct. 24, 1905, and plead such reasons as justifi- 
cation, all I am preparcd to say is that his ideas 
of fair play and mine co not coincide. 
The Minister cites the resolution passed by the 
Fish and Game Congress called by him at 
Montreal. I have heretofore refrained from 
saying much with reference to this “so+called 
congress.” I am now compelled to. state the 
facts, so that your readers may judge’ of the 
value to be placed on any such resolution. 
In response to an invitation generally sent 
out by the Minister to the lessees, at least fifty 
presidents and other officers of clubs residing 
in Ontario attended that congress. Probably 
a dozen were Americans, and the rest were resi- 
dents of Quebec—many of whom were not club 
members or lessees. The motion to appoint the 
committee to strike the standing committees 
was moved by a resident of Montreal, and the 
name of an Ontario man did not appear on this 
committee. In a few minutes this committee 
brought in its report, and upon not one of the 
committees did the name of one of the fifty 
Ontario men present appear. 
I then presumed to ask the Hon. Minister, 
who was presiding, what our position and rights 
were at that congress, and all who were present 
will bear me out in saying that I had to ask 
the question three times before I obtained any 
answer from the Minister. 
The Committee on Big Game subsequently 
brought in a recommendation to charge non- 
residents $25 license fee for hunting deer on 
their leased territories, and as it became evident 
to all that the congress was under control of 
residents of Quebec, and agents of the transpor- 
tation companies, many of us, after protesting 
as strongly as we were allowed, left the meeting 
in disgust. Even then the resolution was only 
carried by a few votes, and indeed some who 
were present claimed that the chairman’s adding 
machine slipped a cog when the votes against 
the resolution were being counted. 
It must have been apparent to every one that 
the lessees as a body were opposed to the reso- 
lution, and I can only wonder at the Minister 
quoting it in his justification under the circum- 
stances. 
As to his election to the presidency of the 
American Fish and Game Association, which he 
quotes as evidence of the Americans’ approval 
of the measure, the Hon. Minister must re- 
member that this honor was conferred upon 
him while he was only meditating upon this 
breach of contract, and before he had actually 
committed it. May it not have been that this 
great honor was thrust upon him in the hope 
that it might dull the keen edge of his en- 
thusiasm to destroy our rights. It is well known 
that people of a certain type adopt such methods 
—I regret that I can neither understand nor 
practice them. 
The contention of the Minister, that, if Gov- 
ernments could not break their solemn- con- 
tracts, or alter them, all Government would be 
at an end, can only elicit the reply, “Perish all 
Governments that deliberately break their con- 
tracts.” I never held that my lease was for- 
ever—it is only for a specific term of years; as 
soon as that term expires, my contract is at 
an end; all the duty the Government owes to 
me then is to allow me to renew on such terms 
as to price and other conditions as the Govern- 
ment may fairly impose. If I find the price too 
high, or the conditions too onerous, I would 
probably decline the renewal, and the Govern- 
ment could then lease to any other person who, 
under the law, and my arrangement with the 
Minister would pay for my permanent improve- 
ments, and take my place. There is no ‘for- 
ever’ about it. I only ask that for the period 
my lease are in force, the bargains therein set 
out should be respected both by the Crown and 
the lessee. 
The Minister says I have not read my lease. 
That statement is not true. I have read it care- 
fully, and with a view to find a justification for 
the Minister’s position, and I am unable to 
find it. 
He cites clause 2 of the lease, compelling the 
lessee, in the exercise of his rights, to conform 
to the provisions of present and ‘future game 
laws. Does that justify the Minister or Parlia- 
ment in altering the leases which allow my club 
to hunt and fish on paying $120 per year, chang- 
ing the contract by act of Parliament and mak- 
ing our club pay $225 additional per annum? If 
$225, why not, when the Province needs the 
money, make it $2,250? It is only going a 
cipher more at the right end of the bill. I can- 
not conceive that the Minister is serious when 
he sets up this pretension. 
Is this law not a law for revenue only? 
Wherein is it a game law? Unless he refers to 
one game in which I believe they sometimes 
raise the “limit”; but even then it must be a 
matter of agreement between the high con- 
tracting parties. 
Does not this clause mean only that I shall 
observe the laws and regulations made from 
time to time for the protection of fish and game, 
observe close seasons, limitations of catch of 
fish, or number of heads of game to be taken, 
or any other law or regulation passed for the 
reasonable protection of game and fish? I give 
the Minister credit for not being quite serious 
in setting up this argument. 
As to the clause permitting the Government 
to cancel the lease on one month’s notice, I beg 
to state most emphatically that the hunting 
lease to my club contains no such clause, and: I 
will give $100 to any charity the Minister may 
name, if he will find such a clause in the lease 
of hunting rights to the Nekabong Club, dated 
Oct. 24, 1905. Even if such a clause existed, no 
Government worthy of the name would exercise 
its rights without good reasons and in the public 
interest. 
I never pretended that even if there were no 
restrictions in the lease, the Legislature had not 
the power to wholly cancel it by act of Parlia- 
ment. 
What I have argued, and what neither the 
Minister nor his apologists have successfully 
combatted is, that the Crown has, for certain 
money payments and the performance of certain 
covenants and agreements by him granted the 
lessee certain rights, and I say that it is highly 
improper, unjust, and dishonorable on the part 
of the Crown to take away these rights, or pre- 
vent the lessee from exercising them, unless he 
pays twice or three times the original consider- 
ation agreed upon, for no better reasons than 
that the Crown wants money, and that the 
privileges granted have become (in the opinion 
of the Crown) more valuable. 
And just here let me say that in my case, less 
than a year ago my club agreed to pay $120 
per anum for hunting and fishing rights; to-day 
our fees payable to the Crown will be $345, and 
our assessment to pay guardian, and for pro- 
tection of game and fish is $425—a considerable 
increase in less than a year. 
Coming now to my own particular lease. I 
obtained it in 1904. My club expended about 
$500 in cutting roads and building a hunting 
lodge and other improvements. It never 
entered the minds of either party to the bargain 
that any change was contemplated, or would 
be made, and I submit that having for over 
fifteen, years had certain rights over part of the 
property, I was entitled to expect and believe 
that the forms of leases being the same, I should 
have the same rights during the pendancy of 
the new leases. 
I may say that the amount of the rental was 
fixed by the Minister, and agreed to by me. 
We have since put several hundred bass fry 
into Calumet Lake, and no doubt when the 
lease falls in there will be good bass fishing. 
The Government of that day will probably for- 
get, however, that we have made a valuable 
asset of what was worthless when it came into 
our hands. 
The Honorable Minister’s threat that at the 
expiration of my leases he will raise the rental 
sufficiently to afford me complete satisfaction, 
