The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Legislation pointing in the same direction Was passed some'?h'irt(r-two yearsd ago. In 1849 a law was rs)used providing that all persons should have the right during the spring, summer, and autumn freshets of floating sawlogs and timber down all streams. The construction placed upon that law was different from what Parliament in the past placed upon it. Surely all streams meant every stream, and all persons every ?lersmx. But a Court decided that it meant only suC streams as in their natural state and during Treshets would rernut: of the floating of l:fs and timber without the assist-- ance of artifici improvements. 'That was that if a stream was navigable -- for fifty miles from its source to &A certain point. -- From that Yoin! an -- individual purchased -- & lot of land, and if from that point the stream was not navigable without certain improvements, it mattered not what the nature of the improvements were, the Court decided that the individual was the absolute owner in fee. A man, therefore, when he reached this point in the stream, if the party who made the improvements refuses him the use of them, hay to get his lu;fs or timber past the best way ho could, get into the stream again, and then he could go on. Was it possible that such & proceeding was cont('mplnu-:'l by the Par-- Hlamant which nassed the Act? He did not think CAE BC Tegen CR sn C CC mrllllll ty 1 ----in 1863, (13 C. P., Boale v. Dickson). It would be observed that that decision was given where the suit was not on account of a party having refused another the right to float logs, It was brought because Dickson refused to pay for logs already floated down. --It would have been wrong for Dick-- son to float logs down and not pay for it, and in order to get over that and prevent the fraud, the Court placed a construction on it that Dickson should be forced to pay und justice be done, not probably seeing the consequences of such a de-- cision, The next case was that of Whelan v. )Ic- P er, "These are my improvements and my property, and you cannot now touch it." 'This was not the first time that retroactive legislation had been passed. The Freo Grant Act passed in 1868, and it was claimed that the timber belonged to the set-- tlers and not to the Crown. _ A Court decided that the timber did not belong to the Crown, but that the Crown reserved it for the settler. Two years ago that Legislature passed a law saying that the intention was to preserve the timber to the Crown, and that such had always been the law. A law also relating to Registrars was made retroactive some years ago. 'The Legislature in these cases l meroly stepped in and placed the law where it was | intended to be in the first instance. Then the question was raised of confiseation,. _ The Bill pro-- vided that the improvements should only be used upon payment of reasonable tolls, in the fixing of which they had had regard to the cost of improve-- ments, of maintenance, and the interest on the money. This was paying the full amount to which the a:prty was entitled. _ Therefore the charge of confiscation did not hold good. He de-- nied that these improvements were ever made with the expeciation that the parties making them would claim them as private property to the absolute exclusion _of everybody else. There was not a _ single instance . of anyone -- refusing the use of _ improvements to persons willinx to pay reasonable lohs There-- fore parties making the improvements did not ex-- pect to have an exclusive use of them. Only one individual had preferred such a claim, and he would refer to him again. When parties made their improvements in that light it was no hard-- ship or wrong to compel them to allow others to use them upon payment of tolls. It was said again that the Government should purchasse the improvements in that case. What would that re-- sult in ? The improvements of Mr. Mcharen had been held by him to have cost a quarter of a mil-- | lion of dollars. If they undertook to buy them at l that valuation it -- would take some -- four or five millions to _ purchase them all. | Would it be right for the Province to undertake such a l"fie expenditure in order that ceriain individuals might get exorbitant prices for their improvements _effected under the circamstances he had described 1 He did not be-- lieve any member of that House would say it| wonld be right. It was also said that that legisla-- | tion had 'a good deal to do with the case of McLaren v. Caldwell. It was true that that par-- ticular case called the attention of the Gov-- ernment to the necessity of legislation, but the legislation itself was not to meet one case, | but to make a general provision ap-- plicable "to all streams, As this case of MceLar-- en v. Caldwoell had been dragged before the House he would refer to it. It was stated that Mr. McLaren had offered to allow Caldwell to float logs down the stream on payment of tolls. In a letter, however, written by McLaren to Cald well, in answer to one asking McLaren to allow him to float logs and to tix a rate of toils, McLaren said positively that he declined to allow Cald well to float logs through his improvements at any price. (Hear, hear.) McLaren said his improve-- ments cost $250,000,. At the trial it was offered to prove that the improvements did not cost over $15,000 or $20,00%. 'The Court held that such evi-- dence was not material,. Neither did he consider it material, because whatever was the cost of the improvements that Legislature pmroscd to do absolute justice to those parties by fixing a fair rate of tolls--not alone upon improvements, but for maintenance and interest upon money. It had been said that the Bill might give power to destroy mill dams, Such was not the intention, and a clause would be added pre-- venting anything of the kind. In fact. the law he 4 1 41 sxuc c Y ELWn wl h 4 5440 20 B aiis Prcriatins 2 Prcieti® o Adnaf vava > 27 mdns d , had referred to provided that any mill dams con-- structed should be provided with a l)ropernpron for the passage of lozs and timber, thus showin that the intention then was that the streams shoulfi be free. He had much lplez),suu'c in moving the se-- cond reudmiof the Bill. (Loud applause.) Mr. MEREDITH said the Bill pro&msod to do away with vested rights, and, therefore, should not receive the fiuplport of the House. The public interest demanded that vested rights should not be approached without the utmost care. | The Commissioner of Crown Lands had taken two inconsistent positions in dealing with this question. _ ;HMe had first argued that no compensa-- tion was NCcessary, and afterwards had admitted the existence of vested rights, and proposed com-- pensation. fe imnaintained that for many years the Courts had been giving a series of concurrent de-- cisions, recognizing such to be vested rights ; and quoted various authorities in support of his pro-- position. As regarded the question of registra-- tion, he held that the desision given in that case was only to meet a particular case, as this Bill was to meet'a particular caso. _ He protested against any invasion of vested rights, and defied the Commissioner of Crown Lands to point to any one Act {msscd that interfered with vested rights in which the entire value of such rights was not?nld for dollar for dollar. He held that this was a similar case to the road being built through a farm, and in such case the full value was pal:fi for the land used. Me held that it was a most un-- heard of thing, while a case in point was pend-- ing before the Courts, to press the Bill upon the House. It was only in the case --@f the most extreme necessity that legislation of tHo ENU UsUu? PRZ PPWTOE MMERAT SE Oe e K heard of thing, while a case in point was pend-- ing before the Courts, to press the Bill upon the House. It was only in the case --@f the most -- extreme n(,'('(,'bflil{ that legislation of this character should be enacted, and the Commissioner of €rown Lands had failed to es-- tablish that there was such a case, He maintained that the Legislature had no right to put any man in the position of a toll--gatherer, All that Mr. McLaren asked was compensation for what was taken from him, and he held that less than that would be unjust. He showed that tht former owners of the Caldwell limits never tried to float logs down the river in question, and he held that that was another argument against the Bill. This Bill would establish a most dangecrous &)'recedem' which would cause serious diffticulty in the future. Mr. MOWAT said that if he had any doubts as to the wisdom of the legislation in ?ueslion. previ-- ous to hearing the hon. member for London, he had none now. -- His hon. friend had held that Mr. McLaren had a positive right to the use of the stream, to the exclusion of all others. This was not the case, and this was not the only case in which the same claim had been made, and if the E'ucedcnt was established in the case of Mr. Me-- aren the same claim would have to be estab-- lished all over the country. The ')riuc[ple involved in the Bill was perfectly plain--that of equal rights to all having business u[{un the streams. If the streams _ were _ allowed to be _ controlled by any, one company . it would -- serious-- ly -- diminish _ the _ value of _ the timber limits. -- The Government did not propose to take away from anybody without adequate compensa-- tion. Every inter{erence with private property was to be paid for, but they could not allow one man to totally obstruct a stream merely because he had mad@certain improvements thereon. The cost of the improvement would be taken into ac-- count, and also the interest on the money expended on the improvements, and he held that in doin@ this the Government were doing ample justice to all. It was theduty of the Governme at . to do am-- ;l»le justice, and that they intended to do. but they did not propose to throw a vay money, as the hon. member for London would {m\'(- them do. He held that the Bill should receive the sanction and supfinurt not only of his own side of the House, but of all who desivred sound legislation. Mr. MILLER said this was a case of the utmost importance.and should receive the seriousattention of the House, -- ie held that in principle all vested and private rights musi give way to public neces-- sity. -- But while he held that the principle of the Bill was right, he did not think &.uL the Bill was right in all its provisions. The view taken by the Attornevy--General and by the Commissioner of Crown Lands was that there was no other way of cealing with the subject. | He held that there was, and the proper way would be for the Government themselves to improve the streams and collect the tolls. 'The Attorney--Goneral had said that theore were no streams down which logs had not already been -- floated ; but in that the _ Attorney-- General -- was not well informed. Many of the streamsaround the Georgian Bay had never had a log run down them. The question would be a larger one in the future than it had beon in the past, and the proper way to deal with it wats in the way he had recommended. -- He apprehended that the Government would hear more about the ques-- tion during the next two years than they had {mh- erto heard, as difli\.:ill-li'uvs would ariso that the pre-- SuPs