^'Ju 
 
 ^. 
 
 ,1^, --^J 
 
 ^-.-le^ 
 
 
 V] 
 
 
 rf* 
 
 %'^ 
 
 '> 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 11.25 
 
 l:£|2£ 12.5 
 IS Ilia 
 
 U 111.6 
 
 
 // 
 
 
 Y 
 
 5r «/. 
 
 A 
 
 
 <v 
 
 !1>" 
 
 iV 
 
 \ 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 '^"^% ^^<^ 
 <\^ 
 
 ^ 
 
CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions 
 
 Institut canarlian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 1980 
 
7^ 
 
 Technical Notes / Notes techriques 
 
 The institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 originai copy avaiiable for fiiming. Physical 
 features of this copy which may alter any of the 
 images in the reproduction are checked below. 
 
 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couvertures de couleur 
 
 L'Institut a microfilmd le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Certains 
 ddfauts suscaptibles de nuire d la quality de la 
 reproduction sont notis ci-dessous. 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 T 
 
 P 
 o 
 fi 
 
 T 
 c 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes g6ographiques en couleur 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured plates/ 
 Planches en couleur 
 
 T 
 fi 
 ir 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d6color6es. tachet^es ou piqu6es 
 
 Tight binding (may cause shadows or 
 distortion along interior margin)/ 
 Reliure serrd (peut causer de I'ombre ou 
 de la distortion le long de la marge 
 int6rieure) 
 
 r~y] Show through/ 
 
 D 
 
 Transparence 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 ^ 
 ir 
 u 
 b 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments/ 
 Commentairos suppl^mentaires 
 
 Bibliographic Notes / Notes bibliographiques 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Boc^d with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture menque 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 Pagination incorrect/ 
 Erreurs de pagination 
 
 Pages missing/ 
 Oes pages manquent 
 
 Maps missing/ 
 
 Des cartes gdographiques manquent 
 
 
 Plates missing/ 
 
 Des planches manquent 
 
 Additional comments/ 
 Commentaires supplAmentaires 
 
The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Les images suivantee ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de I'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 fllmage. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall 
 contain the symbol ■"^ (meaning CONTINUED"), 
 or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever 
 applies. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la der- 
 nlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: 
 le symbols -*> signifie "A SUiVRE", le symbols 
 y signifie "FIN". 
 
 The original copy was borrowed from, and 
 filmed with, the kind consent of the following 
 institution: 
 
 Library of the Public 
 
 Archives of Canada 
 
 Maps or plates too large tc be entirely ii.rtluded 
 in one exposure are filmed beginning in the 
 upper left hand corner, left to right and top to 
 bottom, as many frames as required. The 
 following diagrams illustrate the method: 
 
 L'exemplaire f ilm6 fut reproduit grdce d la 
 g6n6rosit6 de I'dtablissement prdteur 
 suivant : 
 
 La bibliothdque des Archives 
 
 publiques du Canada 
 
 Les cartes ou les planches trop grandes pour dtre 
 reproduites en un seul clich6 sont filmdes d 
 partir de Tangle supdrieure gauche, de gauche A 
 droite et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images n6cessaire. Le diagramme suivant 
 illustre la mdthode : 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
i1 
 
 v 
 
 
 
, r 
 
 EXTRACTS 
 
 FROM THK 
 
 MINUTES 
 
 : 
 
 OF THE 
 
 HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS 
 
 0? MONTREAL, 
 
 AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, 
 
 WITH RKFEr.E;sCB TO 
 
 HYDEAULIC LOTj^ ON MILL STREET. 
 
 Jft|inted by oti4ei| of the Jllai]bout] (Bommissici^ers. 
 
 ltt0ttttial : 
 
 MONTREAL HERALD PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY. 
 
 1877. 
 
"vf^mimmi^mmmt^mm 
 
 '■; ■■■■'.■ ^■ 
 
 
 '\\..: 
 
 '( . 
 
 ^\ ' * : 
 
 \^r^f^-^:^/: 
 

 » 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, 
 
 AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WITH REFERENCE TO 
 
 HYDRAULIC LOTS ON MILL STREET. 
 
 I 
 
 Montreal, 19th July, 1861. 
 
 Meeting of the Board of Harbour Commissioners. 
 
 Present : — H. H. WHITNEY, Esq., Chairman. 
 C. S. RODIER, Mai/or of Montreal 
 Hon. John Young. 
 A. M. Delisle. 
 E. Atwater, Pest. Board of Trade. 
 
 The Chiiirman stated, that in consequence of an urgent note 
 having been sent to the Secretary last Saturday, from Messrs A. & 
 W. Robertson, Adrocates, he (the Chairman,) with Mr. Young and Mr. 
 Atwater, had considered it advisable, without waiting for a meeting 
 of the Board, to authorize the Messrs Robertson to appeal from ths 
 judgments rendered in the Supreme Court, in the cases of the Har- 
 bour Commissioners vs : G-rant et al, and Lyman et al : for encroach- 
 ing on the limits of the Harbour. This is now submitted for the. 
 formal approval of the Board. 
 
 Whereupon it was directed to bring the matter up at the nexC 
 meftinju;. 
 
 
 I 
 
i 
 
 Montreal, 5th April, 1862. 
 
 Special Meeting of the Board of Harbour Commissioners. 
 
 Present : — H. II. Whitney, Esq., Chair man. 
 A. M. De LISLE, Esq. 
 
 Edwin At water, Esq , Prest. Board of Trade. 
 J. L. Beaudry, Esq., Mayor of Montreal. 
 
 Present also, Jra Gould and John Grant, representing them- 
 selves and the other proprietors of hydraulic lots on the Lachine 
 Canal. 
 
 The question of determining the boundary line between said 
 proprietors in that locality and the property of the Harbour Com- 
 missioners, was duly discussed, upon which the following resolution 
 was moved by Mr. Delisle, seconded by His Worship the Mayor, and 
 adopted unanimously : — 
 
 " Whereas, it is highly desirable that the Boundary Line, sepa- 
 " rating the properties of proprietors of hydraulic lots on Mill 
 " Street, the Lachine Canal, and that of the Harbour Coniniissioi "s, 
 " should be clearly and satisfactorily defined and established, and 
 " that the liiwsuits now pending between the Commissioners and cer- 
 " tain of the proprietors in question, be discontinued and amicably 
 "settled upon each individual party paying the whole costs of such 
 "suits, which up to the present time may have been incurred by 
 ''him or them respectively; and whereas, the plan deiining the 
 "boundary line now before the Board, as proposed by the Mill 
 " Street proprietors, having been duly considered, it is hereby resolved 
 " that with the view of altbrding said proprietors every possible 
 " facility and accommodation consistent with a due regard for the 
 " paramount interests of the Harbour, the Commissioners hereby 
 " direct their engineer to prepare a plan in accordance with the 
 " views expressed by them this day, in the presence of Ira Gould and 
 " John Grant. The plan that is to be prepired 3hall simply define 
 " the boundary line between the proprietors of property on Mill 
 " Street and the Harbour Commissioners, and shall in no manner 
 " indicate any works or iniprovements on th(^ River side obligatory 
 *• on the Commissioners, either now or in time to come. 
 
 ^V^l 
 
■ I 
 
 
 " That on being furnished with said plan, the Harbour Com- 
 " missionors will be prepared, in accordance therewith, to enter into 
 " a Notarial Contract with each individual proprietor on Mill street, 
 "delininij permanently and conclusively tlie boundary of his or their 
 " property or properties, — the Harbour Commissioners in such con- 
 " tracts reserving t« themselves the sole and exclusive right to con- 
 " struct whatever works or buildings they may see Ht, outside of 
 " said boundary line. 
 
 " With the further understanding that the reserve to be noted 
 " in said plan under the designation of " Harbour Ruserve,^^ dividing 
 •' the property of Messrs Grant, Hall & Co., shall remain the pro- 
 "perty of the Harboui Commissioners lor railway purposes, or for 
 *' the purpose ot forming a passage to communicate with the Har- 
 " hour property. Further, that no agreement as to boundary 
 "line shall be assented to by the Commissioners without the clear 
 " understanding that each and every proprietor on Mill Street shall 
 " become a party thereto. Further, that the width of Mill Street 
 " shall not be less than sixty -live feet, and that fifteen feet more shall 
 " be granted to said proprietors beyond wliat their plan now»exhibited 
 "shows, the said lilteen feet to compensate for the additional 
 " width required for Mill Street. Further, that all structures which 
 " may be erected by proprietors of property on Mill Street, upon the 
 " boundary line established, shall be exclusively of stone work, and 
 "built uniformly and to the level of Mill Street, and that rights to 
 " land which may be granted to them by the Harbour Commis- 
 "sioners shall be precisely on the same terms and conditions 
 "as thb property now leased to them by the Provincial Grovernment. 
 " Finally, that all national or other expenses which may be incurred 
 " in settling the question of a boundary line shall be paid by the 
 "proprietors of property on Mill Street, with whom a deed, as afore- 
 " said, shall be formally executed. The whole, however, subject to 
 " the sanction and ratification of the Provincial Government." 
 
 The Board then adjourned until Monday next, the 7th instant, 
 at noon, when all now present agreed to meet again. 
 
 (Signed,) H. H. WHITNEY, 
 
 Chairman Harbour Commissioners.. 
 (Signed,) ALEX. CLEKK, Secretary. 
 
Montreal, 7th April, 1862. 
 
 Special Meeting of the Board of Harbour Comnmsioners, by adjournment 
 from Saturday^ the 6th instant. 
 
 Present :— H. H. Whitney, Esq., Chairman. 
 A. M. Delisle, Esq. 
 
 Edwin Atwater, President Board of Trade. 
 J. L. Beau DRY, Esq., Mai/or of Montreal. 
 
 Messrs. Ira Gould and John Grant were also again present. 
 
 The Harbour Engineer's plan, ordered to be prepared at the 
 meeting on 5th instant, was laid before the Board, and received the 
 approval and sanction of the Commissioners, as well as of Messrs. 
 Ira Gould and John Grant. 
 
 The Resolution passed at the meeting on the 6th instant was 
 also read over, and received the concurrence and assent of all 
 
 present. 
 
 The Secretary was thereupon directed to enclose a copy of the 
 Plan and Resolution to the Honourable the Provincial Secretary, 
 with a request that the same may be submitted, as early as possible, 
 for the consideration and sanction of His Excellency the Governor- 
 
 General-in-Council. ^.^xxn^xTr^^ 
 
 (Signed), H. H. WHITNEY, 
 
 Chairman Harbour Commissioners- 
 
 (Signed) ALEX. CLERK, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
 Montreal, 5th June, 1862. 
 Meeting of the Board of Harbour Commissioners. 
 Present .—The Hon. L. H. Holton, President Board of Trade. 
 A. M. Delisle, Esq. 
 J. L. Beaudry, Esq., Mayor of Montreal. 
 Hon. John Youno. 
 Abstract from business of this day's Meeting : 
 
 Mr. Young drew attention to the proceedings of this Board on 
 5th April last, and the proceedings also at the meeting on 7th 
 
April, when a resolution was passed agreeing to define the boundary 
 line between the Harbour Commissioners and owners of hydraulic 
 lots on Mill Street, according* to a certain plan, which plan and 
 agreement had been transmitted to Quebec for the approval of the 
 Government. 
 
 Mr. Young expressed it, as his opinion, that matters of great 
 public interest were involved in this question, and considered that 
 before the Board agreed to cede any portion of the Harbour 
 property, it was important that the suit now pending be proceeded 
 with, by the advice of Mr. Andrew Robertson, in order that the power 
 of the Commissioners in this respect be clearly dehned, and also 
 that in the interval the letters and plans sent to the Government 
 should be recalled. 
 
 Mr. Young made a motion to the above effect, which was lost, 
 the Chairman having expressed himself in favor of it. 
 
 Montreal, 5th July, 1862. 
 Abstract from business of this day's Meeting : 
 
 A letter dated 23rd ultimo was received from the Provincial 
 Secretary, stating that the memorandum of agreement with proprie- 
 tors of water lots on the Lachine Canal, transmitted by this Board 
 on the 8th of April last for the sanction of the Government, had not 
 been ratified, but that from the facts stated, and as the case is now 
 before the Court of Appeals, this Board is recommended to press for 
 a decision in that Court. 
 
 The Secretary was directed to convey the above information to 
 Mr. Ira Gould and Mr. John Hall, representing themselves and the 
 other hydraulic lot proprietors on the Lachine Canal, and that the 
 matter of going on with the Appeal will be discussed at a further 
 meeting of this Board. 
 
 Montreal, Uth March, 1863. 
 Abstract from business of this day's Meeting : 
 
 Read a letter dated 6th inst., announcing that the cases in 
 Appeal of the Harbour Commissioners vs. Grant, Hall & Co ; Lyman 
 & Co. et al, had been again decided against us. 
 
6 
 
 The Secretary was directed to inform Mr. Robertson that we 
 do not intend institutin;^ any appeal to the Privy Council. 
 
 The following is the newsptipor report of the judgment in the 
 Appeal : — 
 
 Aylwin, J. dissenting. — After stating the grounds on wliich the 
 actions had been dismissed in the Court below, entered upon the 
 consideration of the right of the Harbour Commissioners to bring a 
 petitory action. The Commissioners were empowered by the 
 Statute to make laws for the purposes of this Act, not repugnant to 
 the laws of the Province ; to remove incumbrances ; to keep order 
 in the Harbour ; to acquire property for the purpose of extending 
 and improving the accommodation, i<c. It was the duty of the Com- 
 missioners to prevent encroachments, therefore they must have 
 power to do what was necessary to fullil this duty. It did not 
 seem reasonable that they should be bound to prove an ownership 
 to the soil. The right of the Commissioners to bring this action is 
 no way detracted from the right in the soil. In respect to this point 
 His Honor dissented from the views of the majority 
 
 Meredith, J. said. — The 16th Vic. enacted that the Harbour 
 should be under the control and management of the Harbour Com- 
 missioners, but there was nothing in the Statute to vest either the 
 property or posession of the Harbour in them ; His Honor thought, 
 therefore, that the Commissioners had no power to bring a petitory 
 action. He was not prepared to say, however, that they could not 
 bring an action in their own right to prevent encroachments on 
 the Harbour. They discharged a public duty, and in the discharge 
 of that duty ought to have the right to act in their own name. He 
 did not concur in the opinion that the action should have been an 
 action en homage, but believed if the Harbour Commissioners had 
 brought a petitory action in the name of the Crown, it would have 
 been good. 
 
 MoNDELET, J. also took the view that the Commissioners were 
 only Administrators in the name of the Crown. 
 
 Judgment confirmed. • 
 
 Further Abstract from same day's Meeting : 
 
 It was decided to inform the Government, with reference to 
 
!F 
 
 their letter of 23rd June last, urging the Commissioners to press for 
 a decision in the Appeal cases versud Lyman & Co., nnd Grrant, 
 Hall & Co., that, as already noted on the minutes of this day's 
 meeting, we have lost the cases, and that we d > not intend trying 
 them any further, and that possibly the Government will now see 
 fit to insist on the position of the Commissioiiers being properly 
 defined in respect of these boundaries of the Harbour. {See minutes 
 of meeting' 5th July last). 
 
 Montreal, 16th June, 1864. 
 
 Absiract from business of this day's meeting • 
 
 It was ordered that a statement of the whole question of the 
 boundary of lots on Mill Street be prepared and laid before the 
 Government, with a view to having the boundary of these properties 
 defined. The {Secretary was authorized to obtain the assistance of 
 Mr. Robertson Q. C, in preparing tht same. 
 
 Montreal, 11 ih August, 1864. 
 
 Abstract from business of this day's meeting : 
 
 The Chairman laid on the table the papers ordered by the Board 
 at a meeting held on the 16th ol' Jane last, relating to the boundary 
 of properties on Mill Street and encroachments in the Harbour. 
 
 Montreal, 9th March, 1865. 
 
 Abstract from business of this day's meeting : 
 
 . A note was read from Ira Grould, Esq., asking for an interview 
 with the Board concerning the Mill Street property. After consider- 
 able discussion the subject was postponed without taking any action 
 thereon. 
 
 Montreal, I2th May, 1866. 
 
 Abstract from business of this day's meeting : 
 
 Messrs Brydges, Grould, Grant, and McDougall appeared before 
 the Board and explained the object they had in view in asking for 
 
r^. 
 
 8 
 
 an interview with the Commissioners, which was to consider the 
 question of widening' Mill Street, to admit of the G-rand Trunk 
 Railway connecting their rails with the Harbour, as agreed upon 
 witli the Trust in April, 1862. With some modification in the origi- 
 nal plan, after some conv^ersation on the subject, it was understood, 
 that the deputation would submit a written proposition for the con- 
 sideration of the Board. 
 
 •'*■« 
 
 Montreal, 30th June, 1866. 
 Abstract from business of this day's meeting : 
 
 Ira Grould and J. S. Hall, Esquires, were introduced, and had a 
 conversation with the Board with reference to the intended widening 
 of Mill Street, for the purpose of laying down the necessary railway 
 tracks, in order that the Grand Trunk Co. may be enabled to com- 
 municate with the wharf at Wind-mill Point. 
 
 These gentlemen handed in a paper, of which the following is 
 a copy : — 
 
 To H. H. Whitney, Esq., 
 
 Si'cretai'y^ 
 
 Harbour Commissioners, Montreal. 
 Sir, 
 
 ** Referring to the conversation had with the Harbour Commis- 
 " sioners on the 12th inst., in relation to establishing the southern 
 " boundary of the lots lying on Mill Street. : the undersigned being 
 " proprietors of lots on said street, beg to state that in view of the 
 " desirableness of establishing their boundary, removing from it the 
 •'indefiniteness of the phrase "River St. Lawrence," as well as to 
 "secure the accomplishment of that other great and paramount 
 " object so vital to the uiterests of the trade and commerce of the 
 " Province, and particularly that of the City of Montreal, to wit : — 
 " the bringing of the track of the railroads on the wharves of the 
 " Harbour, and for removing all objections, so far as the undersigned 
 " are concerned, to laying all the necessary tracks required for the 
 '' traltic of the road within the limits of Mill Street ; we therefore 
 " agree to carry out the plan suggested, which is in substance the 
 
 
 c 
 
 P 
 C 
 
 t 
 
" 
 
 
 9 
 
 " same as agreed on in the Fall of 1861, except that Mill Street shall 
 " now be widened to 100 feet instead of 65, as then agreed, in order 
 " to make room for the lines of railway, and, at the same time, not 
 " obstruct the ordinary business of the street, when the southern 
 " boundary of their lots, which are still to adjoin the River St. Law- 
 "rence, shall be the same distance from Mill Street as then agreed 
 " upon, and as shown on a plan in the office of the Commissioners, 
 " nd which is to form the basis of this understanding or agreement. 
 " It being, however, understood and agreed, the undersigned 
 " are not to be charged, or in any way responsible for any portion of 
 *' the expenses in grading or laying the rails in Mill Street. 
 
 "A notarial document will be signed by us, when presented, to 
 " the effect as above. 
 
 " Dated, MoNTRE.iL, May I8th, 1866." 
 
 (Signed,) Ira Gould, 
 
 GrRANT, HAIiL & CO., 
 
 Jas. McDougall, 
 W. B. Gumming, 
 RoBT. Havey, 
 
 For Jonathan Finlay. 
 
 It was resolved that, " inasmu.ch as the proposed widening of 
 Mill Street involved changes on the original plan of 1862, the 
 Harbour Engineer do prepare a new plan showing the contemplated 
 change." The subject was then postponed for some future meeting 
 of the Board. 
 
 7r 
 
 Montreal, 5th September, 1866. 
 
 Abstract from business of this day's meeting : 
 
 The question of widening i\Jill S'reet and determining the River 
 boundary of lots there, postponed from the meeting of the 30th 
 June last, was then taken iip, and after much dscussion was further 
 postponed, without any action being taken. After the meeting the 
 Gommissioners proceeded to Mill Street, where they met several of 
 the proprietors, who iully explained their views. 
 
10 
 
 Montreal, 24th January, 1867. 
 
 Abstract from business of this day's meeting : 
 
 Mr. Gould, representing proprietors on Mill Street, wis nitro- 
 duced to the meeting, when the subject was discussed at consider- 
 able lengthjWithout, however, coming to any decision. The Chairman 
 said he would prepare resolutions, and submit them at the next meet 
 ing of the Board. 
 
 Montreal, 4th Febraary, 1867. 
 
 Abstract from business of this day's meeting : 
 
 The following resolutions, submitted by the Chairman for the 
 widening of Mill Street, and bringing the railway track down to 
 the new wharf at Windmill Point, postponed from last meeting, 
 were read and unanimously adopted, viz :— 
 
 The Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, having duly considered 
 the application of certain proprietors of hydraulic lots on Mill 
 Street, to widen said Street to one hundred feet, dated 18th May, 
 1866, in order that a branch of the Grand Trunk Railway, to connect 
 with the new wharf at Windmill Point, may be constructed ; and 
 whereas the improvement in question will necessitate the surrender 
 by the owners of land in said Street sixty feet of their property on 
 the south-east side, thereof, and it would be fair and equitable that 
 tiiey should receive an equivalent, the Harbour Commissioners are 
 prepared to give to the said proprietors, as such equivalent, the exten- 
 sion of their i3roperty up to the line bounding them in rear of their 
 lots, as laid down on the plan or chart made and prepared by Mr. 
 E. P. Hannaford, Engineer of the Grand Trunk Railway, and A. G. 
 Nish, Engineer of the Harbour Commissioners, dated " Montreal, 
 15th January 1867," and signed by j^hem in duphcate, on the distinct 
 understanding that the Harbour Commissioners shall retain and 
 have the exclusive power of constructing wharves, or any other 
 
 Note. — The Harl)our Engineer submitted a plan showing the proposed way of bringing 
 the Rails on to the Wharf by the G, T. Railway, and also the proposed widening of Mill 
 Street, 
 
11 
 
 works, outside the said line marked on the said plan " space reserv- 
 " ed by the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal for the extension of 
 " wharves " and '.etteivid A, B, C, D, E, F; the whole as laid down on 
 said plan, which is hereby approved. That all structures which 
 may be erected by proprietors of property on Mill Street upon the 
 boundary line established shall be constructed on a uniform level. 
 
 The Harbour Commissioners shall in nowise be held to con 
 tribute anything towards the works to be done in . the said street, 
 and on the property of the proprietors, or in grading and laying 
 down the railway track ; and the right to land which may be granted 
 to them, the said proprietors, by the Harbour Commissioners, 
 shall be precisely on the same terms and conditions as the property 
 leased to the said proprietors by the Provincial Government. 
 
 The proprietors of lots on Mill Street shall be obliged to fill up 
 the land in the rear or river side of their present lots to the level of 
 any wharf or structure the Harbour Commissioners may see fit to 
 erect on or beyond the rear line of said lots, w^henever called upor 
 to do so, and they, the said proprietors, sliall not be entitled to any 
 compensation in consequence of any structure which may be so 
 built by the Harbour Commissioners or the Government. 
 
 The Harbour Commissioners will require, as a part of this 
 agreement, that the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall properly 
 grade the roadway and lay down, at their own cost and expense, to 
 the satisfaction of the Harbour Commissioners, the rails through 
 Mill Street, down to the wharf at Wind-mill Point, as shown on 
 the plan above referred to, so as to be available for traffic with sea- 
 going vessels, the whole to be completed within two years from the 
 first of May next. No proprietor on Mill Street is to extend his 
 boundary line in the rear facing the river, or make any improve- 
 ment thereon, until he, or they, shaJl first have become a party to 
 this agreement. 
 
 Finally, all notarial and other legal expenses which may be 
 incurred in this matter, shall be paid by the proprietors of property 
 on Mill Street, with whom a deed, as aforesaid, will be executed. 
 The whole subject to the sanction and coHfirraation of the Provincial 
 Govemment, 
 
12 
 
 Montreal, 11th January, 1868. 
 
 Abstract from business of this day's meeting : 
 
 The following letters were then read, submitted by Iia 
 Gould, Esq., postponed from last meeting, having refe.^ence to the 
 laying of a railway track in connection with the Grand Trunk 
 Railway, to his property on Mill Street, viz. : — 
 
 (Copy.; 
 
 " Montreal, December lOth, 1867. 
 "A. M. Delible, Esq., 
 
 ^^ President^ 
 
 "Harbour Commissioners, Montreal. 
 " Dear Sir, 
 
 " I beg to hand you herewith a communication from the 
 " Secretary of the Board of Works, and also a plan made by J. G. 
 " Sippell, Esq., Engineer, for a railway track to be laid by the Grand 
 " Trunk Railway Company to my premises on Mill Street, showing 
 " also its connection with the Harbour, for the concurrence of your 
 " Board. 
 
 " The concurrence of the proprietors alluded to in the communi- 
 " cation has already been obtained in writing, and is ready to 
 " forward to the Department. A letter from you to the Department 
 " at Ottawa, representing the views of your Board, would be 
 "sufficient, which, I trust, will be accorded with the respectful 
 " request of 
 
 " Your humble servant, 
 
 
 (Signed,) 
 
 "Ira Gould." 
 
 " P. S. — All the former plans have failed for want of unanimity 
 " amongst the proprietors, and I beg to withdraw my requests in 
 " relation to th** same, stating now, that, so far as I know, no one is 
 *• opposed to this plan, which secures the approach of the rail track 
 " so iar to the Harbour." 
 
 (Signed,) " I. G." 
 
 K 
 
 e 
 
 "Hi 
 
13 
 
 (Copy.) 
 
 
 "Department of Public Works. 
 
 "Ottawa, 7th November, 1867. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 *' The Hon. the Minister of Public Works has had under 
 consideration your letter of 16th September last, requesting that 
 the Grand Trunk liailway Company may be permitted to lay a 
 track from their station at Point St. Charles to vour Elevator and 
 Mills, Basin 2, Lachine Canal. The Minister directs me to inform 
 you that he will be prepared to take this subject into further 
 consideration when the lessees of lots 15, 16, 17. 18, 19 and the 
 Harbour Commissioners have signified to thfj Department in 
 writing their concurrence in the plan proposed by you. 
 
 " I have the honor to be, sir, 
 
 " Your obedient servant, 
 
 (Signed,) "T. Braun, 
 
 "^ecretari^y 
 
 "^< 
 
 The Harbour Engineer, to whom this subject had been referred, 
 reports under date of 27th ultimo. — " After giving the subject the 
 " consideration its importance requires, I would recommend the 
 '• Board to grant Mr. Gould the privileges he asks for, but at the 
 " same time would suggest to the Board that they remind him that 
 " the permission is for the objects above mentioned solely, and has 
 " no reference whatever to the disputed boundary Une between the 
 "proprietors along Mill Street and the Harbour Commissioners." 
 
 Whereupon the Board adopted the following : — 
 
 Resolution. — " The Harbour Commissioners approve of the plan 
 " submitted by Mr. Gould, made by John Gr. Sippell Esq., dated 19th 
 " October 1867, and signed by the Secretary of this Trust, under date 
 " 11th January, 1868, for the introduction of a railway track in rear of 
 " the lots on Mill Street, bounded by the River St. Lawrence, and 
 " recommend its adoption by the Government. In doing so, how- 
 " ever, provision should be made that the privilege granted shall 
 " not at all interfere with the present boundaries of said lots on Mill 
 
 
 
t'l'l - 
 
 ll i 
 
 14 
 
 " Street, and shall in nowise prevent the Government or the Har- 
 " hour Commissioners from erecting any work outside or 'nside of 
 " such track as they may see fit in future, where such track runs 
 " over their property. 
 
 MoNTREAi,, 14th February 18G8. 
 
 Abstract from business of this day's meeting : 
 
 The meeting was called for the purpose of conferring with the 
 Hon. Mr. McDougall, Minister of the Department of Public Works, 
 and Ira Grould Esq., in reference to the laying of the rails of the 
 Giand Trunk Railway, from Point St. Charles to Mill Street, as 
 shown on the plan referred to in the minutes of this Board at a 
 meeting held on the llth January last ; both of the above named 
 gentlemen were present, when, after discussion, the resolution passed 
 at the meeting of the llth January vvas altered so as to read as 
 follows, viz : — 
 
 Resolved : — " The Harbour Commiysioners approve of tlie plan 
 " submitted by Mr. Gould, made by John G. Sippell, dated 19th 
 " October 1867, and signed by the Secretary of the Trust under date, 
 " llth January, 18G8, for the introduction of a railway track in rear 
 " of the lots on Mill Street, bounded by the liiver St. Lawrence, 
 " and recommend its adoption by the Government. 
 
 "In doing so, however, provision should be made that the privi- 
 " lege granted shall in nowise prevent the Government or Harbour 
 " Commissioners from erecting any work outside of such track as 
 " they may see lit in future". 
 
 Montreal, 25th February, 1 868. 
 
 Abstract from business of this day's meeting : 
 
 In reference to the Resolution passed at the last meeting of the 
 Board, it was deemL'd advisable, before transmitting the same to the 
 Government, to ascertain from Mr. Brydges, Managing Director of 
 tjie Grand Trunk Uailway (.Company, whether he, on behalf of that 
 
 tl 
 
 in 
 
I 
 
 15 
 
 Company, approved of the plan submitted by Mr. Gould for bringing 
 the rails from Point St. Charles to Mill Street ; and further, in the 
 event of his Company declining to lay such rails, he would be dis- 
 posed to connect and run the cars of the Company over the pro- 
 posed branch, shonld the same be built by Mr. Gould or any-one 
 else. And the Secretary was directed to write to Mr. Brydges to 
 obtain the information desired. 
 
 Montreal, 20th March, 1873. 
 
 Abstract from business of this day's meeting : 
 
 A letter was read from the Secretary ol the Department of 
 Public Works, enclosing an application on behalf of the " Montreal 
 Warehousing Company " for a lease of a portion of the Point St. 
 Charles property, and for permission to make a railway connection 
 on the south side of Basin No. 2, Lachine Canal; also Mr. Sippell's 
 reix)rt thereon, and requesting the views of the Harboiu* Commis- 
 sioners on this subj(^ct. 
 
 The Commissioners, having duly considered the plan submitted 
 by the "Montreal Warehousing Company," find that the track pro- 
 posed to be erected on the property of the Harbour Trust is objec- 
 tionable, as it would have the effect of rendering almost useless a 
 portion of it intended for the beneht of the trade of the port, and 
 therefore deem it their duty to object to it. They also examined 
 the plan submitted by Mr. Sippell, and consider that whilst it would 
 appear to subserve the interest of the " Montreal Warehousing Co." 
 equally, it does not offer the same objections as contained in the 
 first. The Secretary was directed to communicate the views of 
 the Commissioners to the Department of Public Works 
 
 Montreal, Slst May, 1873. 
 Abstract from business of this day's meeting : 
 
 This meeting having been called for the purpose of determin- 
 ing the boundary of the water lots on Mill Street, which was 
 
r 
 
 16 
 
 considered advisable before comi/iencin^ the contemplated improve- 
 ments in that portion of the Harbour. 
 
 Notices having been previously issued to the proprietors or 
 repreKsentatives of these lots, to meet the Commissioners thiis day at 
 their office, the following gentlemen were present : — Messrs C. J. 
 Brydges, H. Lyman, B. Lyman Hall, Thos. Cramp, Thos P.ck, Hugh 
 McLennan, Hersey, Gould and iMcDougall. 
 
 The Commissioners submitted a plan of the proposed works, 
 showing a line which they "suggested should hereafter be the boun- 
 dary between the said proprietors and the Harbour Commissioners. 
 After a good deal of discussion it was unanimously resolved, " that 
 "the said boundary line be accepted, and that a Notarial document 
 " be prepared in accordance therewith, to be signed by all parties 
 " interested in the same, together with the plan exhibiting the pro- 
 " posed improvement and the said boundary line." 
 
 \ 
 
 ii ]■ 
 
 Montreal, 19th July, 1873. 
 Abstract from business of this day's meeting : 
 
 With reference to that part of the Engineer's report just read, 
 calling attention to the tact that the Grand Trunk Railway Com- 
 pany are presently constructing crib work over the property of the 
 Harbour Commissioners, to connect with the new warehouse of the 
 Montreal Warehousing Company, which will interfere with the 
 intended works proposed to be erected there by this Board, and 
 which have received the approval of the Government. 
 
 It is ordered that the Secretary do write to that Company, inti- 
 mating that they must discontinue any such works immediately, as 
 otherwise the necessary legal proceedings will be adopted to attain 
 that end. (See Letter.) 
 
 [■•' I 
 
 Montreal, 23rd July, 1873. 
 
 Abstract from business of this day's meeting : 
 
 Mr. Brydges, representing the Grand Trunk Railway Company, 
 Mr. Starnes and Mr. Cramp, the Montreal Warehousing Com- 
 
'I 
 
 \ 
 
 I, 
 
 1- 
 e 
 
 le 
 le 
 d 
 
 as 
 in 
 
 pany, met the Commissioners in reference to the crib-work alluded 
 to at the last meeting of the Board, now being constructed by the 
 former Company in the upper end of the Harbour, to connect by 
 rail with the Warehousing (,^ompany. 
 
 After discussion, and explanations by the parties interested, it 
 was a<?reed that Mr. Brydges should address a letter to the Commis- 
 sioners regarding their works, agreeing on behalf of the Grand 
 Trunk Railway Company that hereafter, should the improvements 
 in the Harbour require any change or alteration in the said works, 
 they should be made by and at the expense of the said Railway 
 Company, as the Harbour Commissioners may direct. 
 
 Montreal, 5th August, 1873. 
 Abstract of the business of this day's meethig. 
 
 A letter was read iVom C. J. Brydges, Esq., on matters referred 
 to at the last meeting of the Board. This letter, in the opinion of the 
 Commissionerp, was not sufficiently explicit, and the Secretaiy was 
 directed to write to Mr. Brydges, stating that any works constructed 
 within the limits of the Harbour to connect the rails of the Grand 
 Trunk Railway with the Montreal Warehousing Company, must be 
 with the distinct understanding, and so expressed by a Notarial 
 agreement that, hereafter, whenever improvements in the Harbour 
 shall require it, the said works to be removed or so altered as may 
 meet the views of the Commissioners. (See letter to Mr. Brydges.) 
 
 m- 
 
 Hahbour Commissioners' Office, 
 
 Montreal, 15th December, 1876. 
 Bernard Devlin, Esq., M.P. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 The Harbour Commissioners have requested me to bring uuder 
 your notice the following statemen'.;, and desire your Opinion thereon. 
 
 A certain number of Hydraulic Lots, on the south side of the 
 
 Lachine Canal, were leased by the Government to the late Ira Gould, 
 
 and Grant, Hall & Co., a plan of which, signed by the lessees, as 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 well as a copy of the Deeds, I herewith send to you. These leases 
 were enten^d into in the year 1851. 
 
 Dili'creuces of opinion arose as to the boundary of these lots on 
 the river front, the Harbour Commissioners contending for the line, 
 as gi \^en by th« Government, and a suit was entered into, in order 
 that the boundary should be defined, but through some informality 
 in bringing the action, no decision was arrived at. Attempts from 
 1861, as you will observe by the minutes of the Harbour Trust, 
 whi(;h I now enclose, were made to define the boundary line, all of 
 which failed until in Jmie, 1873, an agreement was arrived at between 
 the Harbour Commissioners and the Proprietors of the leases, by 
 which the Commissioners consented to a line of boundary 190 feet 
 outside of Mill Street, on condition that "all " of the Proprietors should 
 become parties to the agreement. This, however, has not been 
 carried out, as one of the parties has not yet signed. The present 
 Commissioners believe that a public right exists, and has always 
 existed around the Island of Montreal, since its cession to the present 
 Seigneurs, of a certain width from the river bank, and by all the 
 statutes defining the limits of the Harbour, this right has been 
 recognized and their boundary declared to be up to high water 
 mark. This public right has been further recognized by a Board 
 of three sworn Provincial Surveyors, who in a plan submitted to the 
 Commissioners, shew, that by the line adopted by the then Com- 
 missioners in 1873, giving to the lessee on the canal, 190 feet outside 
 of Mill Street, a great injury has been done to the Harbour interests 
 and to the public. 
 
 I desire, therefore, to ask your opinion, whether the Harbour 
 Commissioners, without the consent of the Legislature or of the 
 Q-overnment, possesses now, or did ever possess the right under 
 their Acts of Incorporation, to cede to others any portion of the 
 public proi^rty, or to make a boundary of the Harbour limits, 
 contrary to the line of boundary provided for in the Statutes as 
 well as in the cession of the Island to the Seigneurs. 
 
 Your early reply will oblige, 
 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 (Signed.) John Young, Chairman. 
 
19 
 
 Mr. Devlin ^ Q.C. and Hon. W. Badglej's Opinions. 
 
 Montreal, 19th December 1876. 
 [Copy.] 
 
 Hon. John Youno, 
 
 Chairman of the Harbour Comrnisiioners. 
 
 Sir, — I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 
 the 15th inst., informing me that the Harbour Commissioners have 
 requested you to bring under my notice the statement contained in 
 your said letter, and requesting me to give my opinion upon thie 
 case therein disclosed, and which is embraced in the following : 
 
 Question. — Do the Harbour Commissioners, without the consent 
 of the Legislature or of the Government, possess now, or did they 
 ever possess the rights under their Acts of incorporation to cede 
 to others any portion of the public property, or to make a boundary 
 of the Harbour limits contrary to the Statutes, as well as in the 
 cession of the Island to the Seigneurs ? 
 
 Opinion. — I have carefully examined all the proceedings had 
 and taken by the Harbour Commissioners, as disclosed in the 
 recorded m antes of their several meetings, touching the questions 
 now under consideration, with the following result : 
 
 I find that upon the 5th April, 1862, a resolution was moved by 
 Mr. Delisle, seconded by the then Mayor, averring that it was highly 
 desirable that the boundary hne separating the properties of propri- 
 etors of hydraulic lots on Mill Street, Lachine canal, and that of the 
 Harl)our Cammissioners, should be clearly and satisfactorily dehned 
 and established ; that certain lawsuits then pending between the 
 Commissioners and certain of the proprietors at that time in ques- 
 tion should be discontinued and amicably settled ; that a plan be 
 prepared defining the boundary between the Commissioners and 
 the proprietors of property on Mill Street, and that upon being fur- 
 nished by the Harbour Commissioners with said plan, they, the 
 Commissioners, would be prepared, in accordance therewith, to enter 
 into a Notarial contract with each individual proprietor on Mill Street 
 defining permanently and conclusively the boundary of his, or their 
 properties, with the understanding that the reserve to be noted in 
 
20 
 
 said plan, under the designation of Harbour Reserve, dividing the 
 property oi' Grant, Hall and Company, shall remain the property of 
 tl)e Commissioners; further, that this ai]creement as to boundary line 
 to be effective, must be consented to, signed by each and every pro- 
 prietor on Mill Street, that the th(} width ot Mill Street shall be 65 
 leet, and that 15 feet more shall be gTanted to said proprietors be- 
 yond what their plan now exhibited shows, as compensation for the 
 additional width required for Mill Street, and that riylits to land which 
 might he. grautnl to said proprietors by the Commissioners should be 
 jxrecisely upon the same terms and "ditions as the property then 
 leased to them by the Provincial Gc j. mient. The whole, however, 
 sakject to the sunction and ratification of the Proviiicial Government. 
 
 At a su})sequent meeting of the Commissioners held on the 7 th 
 April, 18G2, the plan relerred to in the foregoing resolution was laid 
 befor*? the Board, and was approv^ed by them and Messrs Ira Gould 
 and John Grant ; the resolution of the 5th April was also read and 
 assented to by all present, after which the Secretary was instructed 
 to transmit a copy of the said plan to the then Provincial Secretary, 
 with a request that it might be submitted as early as possible for 
 the consideration and sanction of His Excellency the Governor- 
 General-in-Council. 
 
 Upon the 5th June, 1862, the Honorable Mr. Young opposed, 
 at a meeting held upon that day, the cession of any portion of the 
 Harbour property, and urged that the suits then pending should be 
 proceeded with, in order that the powers of the Commissioners over 
 Harbour property should be clearly defined ; and that, in the mean- 
 time, the letters and plans sent to the Government should be recalled. 
 Mr. Young moved accordingly, but his motion was rejected. 
 
 Upon the 5th April, 1862, at the meeting of the Board, a letter 
 from the Provincial Secretary w^as read, declining to sanction the 
 resolution of the Harbour Commissioners of the 5th April, 1862, 
 and recommending them to press for a decision of the case then 
 pending in Court, as had been previously suggested by the Honor- 
 able Mr. Young. 
 
 This refusal by the Government to approve 'he agreement pro- 
 posed to be entered into, as provided for in the foregoing resolu- 
 
21 
 
 tion, left the boundary line untouched ; and all further proceedinirs 
 regarding it were accordingly suspended, The Commissioners 
 under these circumstances, instructed th(Mr Attorneys to press to 
 judgment the pending suits referred to in the Provincial Secretary's 
 letter ; these actions, as you are aware, were all decided in the* Sui^e- 
 rior Court and in the Court of Appeals against the pretensions of 
 the then Corimissioners. Now what were these pretensions? 
 The Commissioners in their declarations in said cases, set up that 
 the defendants had leased from the Grovernment certain lots of land, 
 but that they had usurped and ill<\c,ally obtained possession of a 
 greater portion of land than was so leased ; and further, tliat they 
 gradually usurped possession of the bed of the river beyond the 
 limits in said lease, and in the plan therein rel'eiTed to. Thev, there- 
 fore concluded by asking that they, the Commisssoners, be by the 
 Judgment to be rendered declared the true and lawful owners a7}( J pro- 
 prietors of arid vested, with the tractn and portions of land, and property 
 eneroached upon by the defendants', and also, that defendants be ord<n'ed 
 to restore and deliver up the said portion of land and property 
 to them, the Commissioners ; and further, that they be condemned to 
 pay to rhe Commissioners the sum of £1,500, as damages for this 
 alleged encroachment. 
 
 To these actions the defendants, amongst other things, pleaded 
 that the Commissioners were not proprietors of th(3 land in question ; 
 and that, theretore, they had no right of action. 
 
 The Court adopted this view, . holding that, inasmuch as the 
 Commissioners claimed to exercise proprietary rights over Harbour 
 property, the position taken by them was unsustainable. A minor- 
 ity of the Judges dissented from this judgment ; but simply upon 
 the grounds that, .is the Commissioners were charged with the 
 management and improvement of the Harbour, etc. , they must also 
 have the right to bring actions to prevent encroachments. This 
 judgment is interesting, as defining the rights and duties of the 
 Harbour Commissioners, and as showing, as it does conclusively, 
 that they never had the power to sell or dispose of any part or por- 
 tion of the property included within the Harbour limits. 
 
 The next proceeding took place upon the 16th June, 1864, 
 
2§ 
 
 I 
 
 Hi 
 
 \v 
 
 ■I ( ! 
 
 
 ■iii; 
 
 when it was ordered by the Commissioners that the whole ques- 
 tion ot the boundary of lots on Mill Street be prepared and laid 
 bef^ ihe Government, with a view to having the boundary of these 
 properties defined Now this was a step taken in the right direc- 
 tion, and if it had been followed up and acted upon, the past and 
 present Commissioners would have been saved much trouble, as 
 well as no doubt the fatiguing importunities of the interested pro- 
 prietors who had to be dealt with. I have, however, lailed to dis- 
 cover, in the minutes or otherwise, that the question was submitted 
 to the Grovernment, as suggested at the meeting of the 16th June, 
 1864, and indeed, from what follows I am inclined to believe that the 
 Commissioners did not give effect to that resolution as they proposed 
 to do. Several other meetings were subsequently held, at which 
 the boundary question and the widening of Mill Street were dis- 
 cussed, but nothing practical or definite was done until the meeting of 
 the 4th February, 1867, when Mr. Delisle submitted a long resolution, 
 in which he, amongst other things, set forth that the Commissioners 
 had duly considered the application of certax.i proprietors of Hy- 
 draulic lots on Mill Street, to widen said street to lOO feet, and that 
 as this improvement would necessitate the surrender by the owners 
 of land in said Street 60 feet of their property on the south-east 
 side thereof, it would be fair and equitable that they should receive 
 an equivalent, and it was accordingly resolved that they, the 
 Commissioners, give the said proprietors, as such equivalent, the 
 extension of their property up to the line bounding them in rear of 
 their lots, as laid down on a plan m^ade by Mr. Hannaford and 
 Mr. Nish. 
 
 After the adoption of this resolution, no further step was taken 
 towards the settlement of the disputed boundary question, until 
 the 31st May, 1873, when another meeting was held for the purpose 
 of determining the boundary of the water bts on Mill Street. At 
 this meeting several of the proprietors were present ; a plan was 
 exhibited by the Commissioners, showing a line which they 
 suggested should hereafter be the boundary between the said 
 proprietors and the Harbour Commissioners. This plan, the min- 
 utes tell us, was, after much discussion, unanimously accepted, 
 
23 
 
 and a notarial document, founded upon said plan, was ordered to 
 be prepared for the signatures of all the parties, and it was accord- 
 ingly prepared and signed under the agreement thus perfected ; the 
 Commissioners gave to the proprietors named in the said deed all 
 right or claim they had to the land lying between Mill Street and 
 the division line, marked A on the said plan, and there, I under- 
 stand, the matter has rested ever since. 
 
 I have felt it to be necessary to bring the proceedings in 
 connection with this transaction thus prominently before the 
 Commissioners, in order that they might the better judge of the 
 means employed by their predecessors to meet the views of the 
 proprietors. And now I shall proceed to state my opinion as to 
 the legality of the act of cession contained in the said deed, and of 
 the resolutions upon which it is founded. For this purpose I have 
 carefully examined the several Statutes concerning the harbour of 
 Montreal, and defining its boundaries, as also the powers and 
 duties of the Commissioners, and I now state it to be my opinion 
 that the late Commissioners, in ceding to the Mill Street proprietors, 
 without the express sanction of the Government, any part or 
 portion of the property included within the limits of the harbour 
 defined by Statute, transcended their powers, acted illegally and 
 in violation of the conditions of the trust reposed in them. The 
 boundaries of the harbour are fixed by the Legislature of the country, 
 and no other power can alter, amend, increase or diminish them. 
 This power is certainly not conferred upon the Commissioners by their 
 Act of Incorporation ; they hold the property in trust. It is subject to 
 their control and management, it is true, but, as Judge Meredith 
 remarked, in disposing the cases before referred to, there was 
 nothing in the Statutes to vest either the property or the possession 
 of the harbour in the Commissioners. And this the late (Commis- 
 sioners well know, for we find that their first resolution, of date 
 April 5th, 1862, having for its object a settlement of the boundary 
 question between the Mill Street proprietors and the Commissioners, 
 was passed, subject to ratification by the Govern ment, which 
 ratification was, however, refused ; why the same reference was not 
 made of the resolution of the 4th of July, 1867, by which it was 
 

 illiiii 
 
 
 24 
 
 resolved to give to these proprietors an extension of their properties 
 up to the line bounding them in rear of their lots, I am at a loss to 
 understand. I also observe that it does not appear by the notarial 
 agreement of December, 1873, that the Commissioners who signed 
 that deed were authorised by any resolution to do so. But, if I am 
 correct in my opinion, it is useless tociiscuss this branch of the case 
 further, as the deed in question conveys no vahd title to the 
 property ceded, and is, therefore, absolutely worthless for such 
 purpose. 
 
 The Harbour Commissioners were incorporated under the 16 
 Yic, and by the 3rd Section of Cap. 24 of that Act they were given 
 the power to hold, take and purchase immovable property for the 
 purposes of the harbour, but they were not authorized to sell, or 
 otherwise dispose of any portion of the property so by them 
 acquired. By the 18 Vic, Cap. 143, which operated as a repeal of 
 the 16 Vic, the power to purchase immovable property, for the 
 accommodation of the harbour was continued, and with the right 
 to sell this £ immovable property whenever the Corporation 
 deemed it to be in the interest of the harbor.; to do so. But I 
 remark that this power to sell was confined to the property 
 acquired for the accommodation of the harbour, and gave no right 
 whatever to dispose of any part within the boundaries fixed by the 
 Legislature. It is, however, scarcely necessary to refer to these 
 Acts for an answer to the questions now submitted me What the 
 present Commissioners are interested in knowing is, > /hat was the 
 law at the time of the passing of the deed above referred to — and 
 namely, upon the 26th December 1873, the date of its execution^ 
 — what were the powers of the Commissioners ? The answer is, 
 that the 36 Vic. was then in force, and became law on the 1st o'aly 
 of that year. Under the provisions of this Act, Cap. 6, the powers 
 of the Commissioners are greatly restricted. As before noticed, they 
 received authority from the 18 Vic. to hold, take and purchase 
 immovable property for the purposes of that Act, and to dispose of 
 it as often as they saw fit to do so, without the intervention of the 
 Government. Now, and ever since the said 1st ot July, 1873, the 
 Commissioners cannot acquire or purchase any real estate, no 
 
25 
 
 se 
 of 
 he 
 he 
 no 
 
 matter how much it may be needed for harbour purposes, without 
 a strict compliance with the conditions contained in Section 24 of 
 Cap. 61, 36 Vic, whiph says : Whenever the Harbour Commis- 
 sioners of Montreal desire to acquire any immovable property for 
 the improvement or extension of the harbour, or the accommo- 
 dations thereof, they shall cause to be prepared a plan of such 
 immovable property in triplicate, one triplicate whereof shall be 
 deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Peace of Montreal, 
 another in the oflice of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and 
 the third in the office of the Minister of Public Works. And such 
 plan shall be submitted to the Governor-in-Council, and upon 
 being duly approved the Corporation may then, and only then, 
 acquire the same, but no power is given to them, as was given in 
 the 18 Vic, to sell any portion of the property so acquired. On the 
 contrary they are forbidden to do so. Can it then be supposed 
 that Commissioners who could not purchase a foot of ground with- 
 out the direct sanction of the Governor-in-Council, could cede or 
 dispose of any part or portion of the harbour property described in 
 the Statutes, without the permission and authority of the Govern- 
 ment or of Parliament. It is beyond all doubt certain that they 
 could not legally do so, and because it is the property of the Crown, 
 and because as Section 25 of the Act from which I am quoting 
 distinctly enacts that all the land lying within the limits of the 
 harbour ot Montreal, as defined by law, is declared to be vested in 
 and to be the property of the said Corporation in trust for all 
 purposes for wiiich the said Corporation was created. 
 
 I could adduce many other reasons to support my opinion, 
 but I think enough has been said to show that it is well founded, 
 and that the cession of harbour property complained of was and is 
 an illegal act, ultra vires, and one which in no way commits the 
 present Commissioners to its observance, as they could not, even if 
 they were disposed by their own act to ratify it, do so without 
 falling into the error which has made a nullity of the proceedings 
 adopted by their predecessors. 
 
 I have the honor to remain. 
 
 Your obedient ser^'-ant, 
 (Signed) B. DEVLIN, 
 
l!,! 
 
 i!ll ! 
 
 • I 
 
 26 
 
 The undersigned fully concurs in the accompanying opinion, 
 prepared by B. Devlin, Esq., Q. C, upon the question submitted to 
 him by the Montreal Harbour Commissioners, as to the legality of 
 the cession made in 1873 of harbour property to Mill Street propri- 
 etors, and takes the liberty of corroborating his concurrence with 
 the following remarks : — 
 
 By the common law for the Kingdom of France, which 
 covered her foreign possessions, all navigable rivers, with their 
 beaches to the highest water-mark, were in principle in possession 
 of the king, requiring no special act of dedication therefor, and 
 .being always regarded as public highways and dependencies of the 
 public domain vested in the Crown, as its absolute property for all 
 purposes of public utility, communication and navigation. 
 
 With the above, a roadway of a certain breadth always existed 
 along the margins of the rivers, from high water mark, for the same 
 purposes of public convenience and navigation, recognized and 
 declared as a general rule, in accordance with long admitted 
 public right, and expressly enjoined to be observed and enforced 
 by the Royal Ordonnance of May, 1520, ibllowed by the Edict of 
 1607, and the Ordonnance 1669. 
 
 This French public law was brought into New France with its 
 acquisition and occupation by the Mother Country, and was acted 
 upon by its Supreme Colonial authority, the Superior Council of 
 Quebec, in 1665, which, by its ordonnance recognizing the admitted 
 exercise of the public right to such road, settled the breadth of the 
 road at two toises or 36 feet French standard, from high water 
 mark upwards in front of all Eiparian concessions. 
 
 This reserved breadth has since been acknowledged and main- 
 tained as the true regulation. Therefore, as regards the River St. 
 Lawrence, drawn from a line, contiguous to the shore, or margi . of 
 the River, from high water mark, not only by the French Colonial 
 authorities, but, since the English dominion, by the highest Colonial 
 Courts, upon the principle that the bed of the River St. Lawrence, 
 and, by natural consequence, its beaches from high water mark, 
 with the appurtenant roadway, were in the nature of State or 
 Crown property required for the public use, upon none of which 
 oould Riparian proprietors have either title or claim. 
 
 u 
 (( 
 
 (( 
 
 (( 
 
 « 
 
 ii i 
 
21 
 
 Without particularizing the provisions of the various statutes 
 connected with the River harbour or its improvements, it will be 
 sufficient to observe that in 1850 the harbour of Montreal was 
 limited upwards along the river bank to Point St. Anne, extending 
 in 1849 to and including Point St. Charles, and in 1851 reaching to 
 the mouth of the River St. Pierre, where it continued in 1852 and in 
 1873, and has since continued to the present time, being gradually 
 and naturally extended along the shore of the river, as the exigencies 
 of public commerce and navigation required, and, at the same 
 time, being gradually improved for public purposes under the 
 charge and management of the Comissioners, long since appointed 
 to carry the improvements into effect. 
 
 Previous to the Act ol 1832 the Port of Quebec comprehended 
 all the river, with its beaches, from Bic to Point St. Anne, at the 
 City of Montreal, but by that Act and subsequent Act of 1837, the 
 river from Bic to the province line was divided between the two 
 ports of Quebec and Montreal, the latter comprehending the part of 
 the river from Port Neuf to the province line, a public distinction 
 and dedication which has not since been disturbed. 
 
 During all these years the river, with its beaches, with its 
 appurtenant reserved road, have continued to be dedicated to the 
 purpose of public utility and navigation mentioned above, whether 
 as comprehended within the extent of the constituted ports, or in 
 the more limited areas of the harbours of Montreal and Quebec. 
 Some of the Provincial Statutes, in connection with these public 
 works, making explicit mention, not only of the river itself and its 
 beaches, but also especially of the reserved public roadway above . 
 referred to. 
 
 The fourth section of the Act of 1851, defining the limit of the 
 harbour of Montreal, under the control and management of the 
 Commissioners, enacts "that it shall be, &c., commencing at the 
 " mouth of the little Rivev St. Pierre, thence downwards, following 
 " the course of the bank of the River St. Lawrence, and including 
 " the beach of the said river, as far back as high water mark, and 
 " the ground above high water mark reserved for a public road down to 
 ♦' the lower extremity of the Lachine Canal, thence, &c., following the 
 
28 
 
 
 :i! i 
 
 " course of the bank of the river, &c., inehiding the beach, &c., as 
 " far back as high water mark, reserved for a public road as far as 
 •' lluisseau Migeon." 
 
 The Fifth Section of the Act of 1855 contains the same 
 definition in precisely the same terms, and the Act of 1873 adopts 
 them in its Fifth Section, in its amended definition of the harbour 
 limits as " comprising the present limits, as denned in the then 
 " existing Acts relating to the harbour, &c., to wit, the above two 
 " cited Acts." 
 
 Now, in connection with the foregoing, reference may be had 
 to the titles of the hydraulic grantees on the south side of the public 
 work, the Lachine (J anal, to ascertain the extent of the grant. By 
 the Hall title, grant is made of " two lots, bounded in front, to the 
 " north by the canal dock w^all, &c., and in the rear, to the south 
 " by the River St. Lawrence, \vhatever depth may be found 
 " between the said dock w^all and the medium high water level of 
 •' the said River St. Lawrence, save and except the land necessary for 
 " a street, forty feet in widths across the entire breadth of the said two 
 " lots'' Now comparing the old public law beach line to high 
 water mark, and its adjoining reserved roadway of two toises or 
 36 feet French standard measure, with the exception of 40 feet road 
 in width, English measure, above mentioned, it is manifest that 
 the Board of Works did not contemplate to extend, and did not 
 extend their grant to the high water mark, nor eject from the 
 public use the public right and servitude of the said road, w^hich 
 remained free for the public purposes as stated. The high water 
 mark of the river, and the roadw^ay of 36 French feet, were, there- 
 fore, continued within the protection of the public law, and did not 
 fall to the grantee Hall, by his grant from the Board of Works. 
 
 Even without the exception stipulated in the grant, the 
 Riparian proprietors could have no claim to the full extent 
 mentioned, because it was against public right and utility, and 
 not within the competence of the mere prerogative, without a 
 special Legislative enactment, to grant such property already dedi- 
 cated and approximated for public purposes, to the obstruction 
 and prejudice of public convenience and navigation. The Board 
 
^9 
 
 of Works were of course vested, for public disposal, with the 
 Lachine Canal lots and their hydraulic appurtenances, but their 
 ministerial powers were in that respect a speciality, and limited 
 to the canal itself and Its necessary dependencies, but giving no right 
 of alienation over property, or rights outside of that public ork. 
 
 As the Board of Works, as such grantors, found tntmselves 
 restricted within their speciality, and limited by public law within 
 the reserved public right of the river and the road above mentioned, 
 in like manner the Harbour Commissioners are also limited and 
 restricted. Their statutory powers extend no further than the 
 trusts which they control and administer for the benelit and advan- 
 tage of the public, and if the pretensions contained in their deed 
 of 1873, with the Mill Street proprietors, are valid and binding, 
 there is no restrictive power without new express Legislative 
 restraint upon them to prevent their making grants between the 
 revetment wall of the Harbour and the River, covering the old 
 reserved pubhc road of two toises or 36 French feet, covered by the 
 wharves. 
 
 It is unnecessary to add anything to what has already been 
 stated by Mr. Devlin, as to the incapacity of the Commissioners to 
 alienate in any way the public prof n-ty intrusted to their charge. 
 
 (Signed) W. BADaLEY. 
 
 Montreal, 22nd December, 1876.