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

.." " PW A*"~ t i ' R M cV' 2 4 in a strict legal sense, the Legislature $ was within its rights to take m anybody's property, nvlng or s \ Another lawyer declared he knew of _ no precedent for the bill, and ex=-- pressed the view that the Govern-- # ment would have been well advised to --__have taken the matter to the courts rather than adopting such an arki-- trary procedure. Etill another legal luminary laconically remarked that % «# the Government must be hard up for > 'money to resort to the extreme of 3 . making a new will for a deceased tes-- + | tator. In respect to the claim of Legisla-- tive legal right to pass such escheat-- ment legislation, the following com-- ment, made by Justics Riddell in the Florence Mining Company and Cobalt Iake Company casos in 1908, is in-- teresting. "In short, the Legislature within its jurisdiction can Co anything which is not naturally imnossible, and is restrained by no rule, human or divine. If it be that the plaintiffs acquired any r.ghts--which I am far from finding--ths Legislature has the power to take them away. The pro-- hibition. 'Thou shalt n--t steal," has no legal force upon the sovereign body, and there would be no necessity for compsnsation to b»> given." # Renresontatives of soveral women's & organirations last nicht evinced con-- si2dsrabls interect in the action of the Government, brt. focr the most part, Asclined to e»xpross their views as to the p~licy implied in the new bill until they Fad given the matter groat-- er attention. Mre. H. P. Pumntre. lons a mem-- ber of the Board of Education and -- representative in women's activities, explained that, as the will was some-- thing of a freak, the Government was justified in seizing such a large amount of money and using it for the public good. "Unheard--of Action." Hamilton, March 23. -- Senator George Lynch--Staunton, K.C., today criticized as "an unheard--of action" the announcement made by the Attor-- ney--General of Ontario that the half-- million estate of the late Charles Millar of Toronto would be escheated and turned over to the University of Toronto. Senator Staunton stressed that such an action was unheard of until the courts had first ruled that the will was invalid, and it was shown that there were no legal heirs. With no Constitution in Canada, the Legislature could take any property and confiscate or give one man's prop-- erty to another. So far as property 'and civil rights were concerned, the Legislature assumed the right to do as it chose, he said. Humanly speaking, it was omnipotent. But in the United States, where there was a Constitu-- tion, the confiscation of property by the State was forbidden. The Supreme Court there would declare a nullity, '2: said, any act which undertook to so. There could not rightfully be an escheat, Senator Staunton held, un-- less there were no heirs or the will had been declared invalid. Under I the law of an earlier day, the con-- fiscation of property applied only in the cases of traitors or felons, and it was often a part of their punishment. It was also resorted to in religious inquisitions. One case of escheat in Hamilton, which Senator Staunton recalled, was that concerning the estate of an es-- caped slave named Nelson Abel. He drove a stage coach between Hamilton and Dundas. He was an adopted son, but at his death his property escheat-- & ed to the Crown and was accepted.