1. Whoever hopes that any system of Expro- 
 priation will be devised easy of execution and 
 perfectly without hardship, is doomed to disap- 
 pointment. Expropriation for public uses is by 
 its nature arbitrary, a sacrifice of the individual 
 for the general benefit. All then that any Expro- 
 priation Law can do, is to determine and restrain 
 within rhe narrowest limits, the cases in which 
 Expropriation may be resorted to, and to insure 
 to the person Expropriated an ample indemnity 
 for all he loses. When the State Expropriates, 
 it is very difficult, nay it is almost impossible, to 
 define precisely the cases in which Expropriation 
 may take place ; but this difficulty ceases when 
 the State cedes the right to a Corporation with 
 finite objects — as for instance, when the right to 
 Expropriate is delegated to a Municipal Corpora- 
 tion like that of the City of Montreal. Then it is 
 easy to enumerate the cases in which Expropri- 
 ation may be exercised, and this is the first point 
 which should ;bc» maiie*c?ear ia ccmsplidating the 
 legislation Ayi('l| iegsird.to -E^piiQpriitiiQtiS.for City 
 
 purposes.^-o .% r:,"':* ••• « :: ;••••••'**' 
 
 2. Mudi/timei Ji«^ J>een Vi?t!^d in 'confiidering 
 the question of Expropriation for municipal pur* 
 
 60764 
 
poses as conferring advantages which are either 
 local or general, or both local and general. In so 
 far as regards expropriations, for the opening or 
 widening of streets, there are really none which 
 do not possess both characters, — that is, they 
 confer advantages which are both local, or more 
 properly speaking special and general. This 
 being established, two systems of contribution 
 suggest themselves, — first, that the Corporation, 
 which expropriates, shall pay the cost of expro- 
 priation ; second, that those who make a special 
 and appreciative gain, should contribute, with the 
 Corporation, towards the payment of the cost of 
 the expropriation. Much may undoubtedly be 
 said for and against both of these systems. 
 
 3. It is manifest that the present system, which 
 in practice, charges the whole cost of an expro- 
 priation on the proprietors in the immediate 
 neighbourhood of the improvement, making no 
 allowance for the general advantage gained, is 
 unjust — as unjust in principle as it would be to 
 take the property required for expropriation with- 
 out giving any indemnity at all. On the other 
 hand th^f^^^ife;0t)j.^ti6fi^;..*fh<Ju^;t'rf; sf^fiomewhat 
 different •eK&rafefoi*,* ko thrcT\^i«^- ^t3ie . whole in- 
 demnity^ ' oh-. yiUi dlocikiprs • ^f - tbp .Corporation 
 To som^eirtent«it'5li. hardly ikiFwAirov-^'the pro- 
 prietors, obviously and specially advantaged, thus 
 
to enrich themselves out of all measure ; but in 
 in addition to this, if such a bait were held out to 
 speculators, it would be extremely difficult, with- 
 out very cumbrous machinery indeed, to prevent 
 jobbing of the most serious kind. 
 
 4. Under these circumstances, your Committee 
 recommend that the present system should be' 
 modified, so as to make the Corporation respon- 
 sible as a contributory in every expropriation of 
 the kind in question, — the sum for which it 
 contributes being established precisely in the 
 same way as the special contribution of each of 
 the individual contributors, provided that the 
 share of the City shall in no case exceed one half 
 of the indemnity. 
 
 5. Your Committee, having arrived at this con- 
 clusion, next turned their attention to the mode 
 of establishing, (i,) the indemnity to be paid to 
 the expropriated, (2,) the distribution among the 
 contributors. And here again they have thought 
 it wise to change the present law as little as 
 possible. They, therefore, recommend that for 
 each petition Commissioners should be named by 
 the Superior Court, sitting as a full Bench as in 
 Review. And the Court should have power, 
 sitting as a full Bench as aforesaid, to displace 
 any or all of them for misconduct in office, and 
 to name others to fill their place. 
 
6. The said Commissioners to be paid $■ 
 
 each per diem, and all necessary expenses in and 
 about any expropriation, and to be authorized to 
 tax witnesses' bills, &c. ' 
 
 7. No person to be appointed such Commis- 
 sioner who is not possessed, as proprietor, of 
 property, situate in the City of Montreal, of the 
 value of $16,000 over and above all debts. 
 
 8. The initiation of all expropriations should be 
 with the City Council, and in the event of any 
 such being determined on, a plan of the ground 
 and of the proposed alteration should be made, 
 and the Council should then order its reference 
 to the Commissioners, whose duty it would be to 
 prepare a scheme of taxation, showing the cost 
 of the improvement and the distribution of the 
 special tax on the Corporation and on the pro- 
 prietors specially advantaged. This scheme 
 should be then advertised in some sufficient 
 manner, in order that the persons taxed may 
 oppose the alteration or the details of the 
 taxation, which the said Commissioners should 
 have power to amend, and then the report of the 
 Commissioners should be sent in to the Court 
 for homologation, and should, by the Court, be 
 homologated, unless the proprietors, paying more 
 than one-half of the amount assessed, should 
 
5 
 
 object, in which case the expropriation should 
 be abandoned. 
 
 9. The expenses of the Commissioners should 
 be defrayed by the Corporation in all cases ; save 
 that each party should be held to pay the costs 
 of the witnesses called by him. 
 
 I o. As to the property expropriated, the Commis- 
 sioners should have the power to declare when 
 the expropriation amounts to a total or only to a 
 partial expropriation ; but the Corporation should 
 in no case be allowed to take more land than is 
 absolutely required for the improvement without 
 the consent of the proprietor. 
 
 II. There should also be provisions of law for 
 the cases of substitution and for properties hypothe- 
 cated. In any caje of substituted property the 
 owner should have the power of obliging the Cor- 
 poration to take it off his hands at a valuation in 
 the same way as he might do if a useless remnant 
 of his land was left ; and in such case the Cor- 
 poration should only be compelled to pay him an 
 annual indemnity for the property substituted 
 equal to the net revenue of his property, and to 
 the heirs of entail (appeUs)^ after the decease 
 of the proprietor, the capital sum at which 
 the property was estimated. But the heirs of 
 entail (appeUs) should have the right of assum- 
 ing the position of the Corporation, in so far 
 
6 
 
 as regards the retention of the property not 
 required for the contemplated improvement. 
 In cases of hypothec the owner should have the 
 power of creating a privileged hypothec for the 
 amount he had to pay for his share of the con- 
 tribution bearing interest at not more than 7 
 per cent, yearly. 
 
 12. The law should likewise provide some 
 general rules of valuation for the guidance of the 
 Commissioners, and which past experience will 
 doubtless readily dictate. 
 
 13. The City Treasurer should be declared to be 
 an officer of the Superior Court for the purposes 
 of receiving the amount of contribution of each 
 contributor, and of paying to each person to be 
 indemnified the amount of his indemnity, less 
 his contribution, if any he has to pay. And the 
 Court should be empowered to proceed against 
 the said City Treasurer by contramte par corps 
 for failing or refusing to pay any sum of money 
 ordered to be distributed under this Act, and 
 which he shall have received, as in similar cases 
 such Court would have against the Prothonotary 
 for refusing to perform any duty or office imposed 
 by law. 
 
 14. The law should further provide for the dis- 
 tribution of any money to be paid to any pro- 
 proprietor expropriated, subject tp oppositign in , 
 
like manner as in the distribution of other monies 
 out of Court. 
 
 15. The law should also provide that the whole 
 sum payable towards any expropriation by the 
 Corporation should be levied, at the next period 
 of general assessment, by a special tax, so that 
 the indebtedness of the City shall not be per- 
 manently increased for the purposes of improve- 
 ments of the description for which expropriations 
 usually take place. 
 
 Citizens* Association, 12 January, 1869. 
 
 (Signed,) 
 
 H. STEPHENS, President. 
 T. K. RAMSAY, Hon. Secy. 
 
 
 
 • • I - • -» 
 
 '• • ? • * • • 
 
 • • • 
 • • • ••