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

The following spirited letter from Hon. Chas. McCrea, Minister of Mines for Ontario, fully explains it- self and gives eflective reply to the criticism levelled at the Minister by a recent letter 1?: Bueke township :â€" W. J. Post, Esq., ' Reeve, Township of Bucke, North Cobalt, Ont. ‘ Dear .Sir :â€"I am in receipt of your favour of the 5th instant with refer- ence to ,Bill No. 95 entitled “An Act to Amend the Assessment Act,’ ’ a copy of which is therewith enclosed. It is apparent that you did not have; the Bill 'before you when you wrote; as it does not in any way ”afiect the decision given in favour of the Town- ship of Bupke in the case of Bucke Township ‘and the MacCrae Mining Company. The rights awarded the Township of Bucke in the 'Court’s de- cision are expressly exempted in the Bill. Hon. Chas. McCrea Explains Provisions of New Act to Amend the Assessment Act. Regarding Mining Lands. Hon. Chas. McCrea Has No Relationship or Connection in Any Wdy- with MacCrae Mining Co. ‘ You state in your letter :â€"“ We would suggest that it is not the duty of the Legislature to' railroad l‘aws Thursday, Mar-ch 15th; 1928 ;.- ")1- {ff Toronto, 01112., March 6th, 1928 F Operated a dealer selling plan which makes it possible to sell the World’s Greatest Tire at standard prices. Out Of about 12,000 dealers in (Canada, Goodyear has selected 3, 000 eflicient ones, located to serve all motorists best. Fewer calls for Goodyear salesmen to make. Fewer sales- men needed. Big sav- ings which go back .1nto Goodyear ‘ quality. .The dealer saves also. He specializes on _. G and; are built TWVIST‘ more str. than the Reeve of OR seven years Goodyear has onerated a dealer selling Dlan through to shield their friends from ordinary municipal / taxes because of their leisure and [ability to secure snap judgment from the House to pro% tect" them in their pet schemes.” It am at a loss to know just what 'you mean 'by this paragraph. Evi- dently you are striking at something or somebody, intenéing to create an impression of wrong-doing, but lack- ing the frankness to state clearly the situation you have in mind. .. 1. The laws of Ontario long since laid down in the Assessment Act that the minerals in, on or under mineral lands are not assessaible by a muni- icipa‘lity. The right; of such taxation lbelongs to the Province as distinct from the municipalities. Upon this foundation is based our Mining Tax Act. .‘A The Bill to which you take objec- tion has been introduced and explain- ed to the House, and stands for third reading. The reaS'ons for the Bill I shall take some pains to set out :â€" §. The Province for many years has sold public lands, (a) conferring the whole title, surface and mineral, (b) granting the surface but retaining the Good-war means Good Wear ' . § . m minerals, (c) granting. the mum reserved in previous grant. ‘ ' ' 3. It has been a practice also «for many years for a land-owner whd‘held both surfaee‘rights and mining rights to Sell his land reserving the mineral 'rights. Thus a separate title may be had under The Land Titles Act, (a) to the surface rights, (b) to the min- eral rights. 4.-There has in Ontario been a variet of laws governing the grant- ing 0 titles by the Crown. For in- stances, prior to 1891 lands of the Province were usually sold under The Public Lands Act, generally for agri- cultural purposes, and the patents covered the entire estate, save for'the usual reservation as to pine timber. , n . I 1 7 _‘ “DI-lulu J-VUV- v wvâ€"â€".â€" . In 1891 the Government of the day,I realising the possible importance of ournmineral wealth and because of the; increased interest being taken in min-1 ing, changed the law and thereafter from 18/91 to 1908 there was in force another system fdr selling Crown Lands. It divided the lands into two classes: (a) those sold for agricultural purposes; (b) those sold for mining purposes. . _ _ . ‘ 1' "‘5’ ' '5. In lands applied for as agricul- tural lands and patented during this? period the patent usually reserved the minerals, and the statutes of the day provided for such reservation whether so expressed in the patent or not. In the sale of mining land a higher price was exacted than for agricultural land, and a purchaser acquired all of the title to the lands (excepting tim- ber i'eservations covering both sur- face rights and mining rights. In cther words, where he obtained a title THE-PORCUPINE ADVANCE. W8. ONTARIO Goodyears. He can carry tewer tiresâ€"and yet carry more sizes. He gets faster turnover of his stock. He can work on a smaller profit and still make money. He can aflord to give service. Goodyear pioneers in .selling policies just as Goodyear pioneers 1n tire features. The Goodyear Selected Dealer is a good man to W ing methods, in service methods, in tire fea- tures’.“ There is at -_ least One in-every town in Canada big enough to support a good tire dealer. . ”‘0 ' era]! 6. It is immediately apparent, that,{ 3 may be of the areas granted as-agrienlturaH A“: (.8) lands where the minerals were reserv; the m-' ed, the Crown had still foro sale its ' reserved interest in the minerals, and u been a in innumerable cases the Crown 1e grant- granted mineral titles to bona-fide For in- purchasers who regard their title as a s of Athelgo’od title. can carry fe:vver to land: as “mining lanT” there was no reservation of the minerals, but where. he obtained a title to the lands an agricultural lands there was and} a reservation. On the other hand, a purchaser of! mining lands who obtained a full title to land might wish to dispose of the mineral rights. Under the laws of the Province he might do so retaining the surface rights to himself, and the law provided, and provides still, for the registration of each separate title as a separate entity and ownership. 7. With the 'coming into force of 1 Ontario’s new Mining Act in 1906, n1 new method of dealing with mining1 lands was provided permitting them to he staked'out where the Crown owned all the title, and also on areas where the Crown, having parted with the surface rights for agricultural pur- poses, still owned the mining rights. 8. In the days of the silver rush! ’of Cobalt, Haileyibury and vicinity,1 stakers took up'mining rights owned by the Crown where the surface rights or an equita’ble claim thereto were outstanding in the names of private individuals either as locatees or paten- tees, and in the Township of Bucke the records show numbers of titles so acquired. Among other lands were those which subsequently became a matter of litigation ‘in the case of Bucke Township and the MacCrae Mining Company, decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of that Court recites that on January 30th and February 1, 1907, one James A. MacCrae, of the City of Ottawa, and one James A. Mulligan, obtained two grants 'in fee simple from the Crown; the first of mines, minerals and mining rights, and the second of surface rights, that is, of lands with- out ‘the mines and minerals. The records of the Department show, that the title to the mines minerals and mining rights was grant- ed u'nder the new (Mining Act of 1908, that MacCrae and Mulligan had ob- tained these mining rights by purchase from the stakers who had duly staked them out under the Act. The surface rights or the equitable right to them were outstanding in other parties. After James A. MacCrae, of the city of Ottawa, and J. A. Mulligan ob- tained the mining rights, realising that under the law in order to carry on mining operations they must settle with the surface owners for suchdam- ages as might arise, they acquired the surface interests from the owners thereof and‘ subsequently obtained a titlefrom the Crown of the surface rights, and these titles lissued for separate estates gin the land and were registered in the Land Titles Ofiice as such. 9. In the-course of time, a, company‘ known as the MacCrae Mining Com-; pany was formed and the titles, separw ately registered, both as to surface and mining rights, were transferred to the Company. Municipal taxes in reSpect of this, property were im- posed by the Corporation of Bucke and these taxes for the years 1916, 1917, 1918 were 'not paid and remain- ed unpaid for more than two years thereafter. The Township Corpora- tion to be efiected for these taxes and tion to be afl’ected for these taxes and the purchaser was one John I. Ritchie. The question nere arises :â€"â€"-(a) What could the Corporation assess in respect of. the lands? (b) What in- terest Md they sell for failure oto pay taxes? . The owners of the mining rights contended that - the Corporation’s right tor-assessment was in respect to the surface rights only, and that the tax sale was good only in .respecT to the surface rights. The MaeCrae Mining Company asserted its right to the mining rights it owned separately, and alleged that, the tax sale was void in respect to the same. - ‘ 10. The Supreme Court of Ontariol in a judgment written by Mr. Justice Maston deéided that the right of taxa- tion "in respect .of the mines and minerals and thesevered title owned by the MacCrae Mining Company be- longed to othe lProWlfl'ce, that the Township of Bucke had not the right| to assess or sell such mining rights,. and gave judgment in favour of the MacCrae Mining Company. Further appeal was taken to the Supreme (‘ourt at Ottawa, and the judgment of that Court by Mr. Justice Mignault, {reversed the finding of the Supreme] ;Court of Ontario. The Mining Com- pany having become the owner of the surface rights, and of the mining! rights, the Court found that these? rights, althought transferred as separ- ate titles and held byrthe Company as separate titles, coalesced in one owner and hence were liable to taxation even as to the mineral rights, and that the deed of the Township of Bucke to the purchaser had conveyed the minerals. 11. Upon the rendering of such de- cision the \Provincial Government gave very thorough and earnest consider- ation to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, and its possible ef- VUuAV v feet on titles in the (Province of On- tario, It foresaw great difficulties and uncertainties if the law were not reasserted and clarified. It consid- ered carefully whether the law‘ as in-‘ terpreted by the Supreme Court would sequent owner acquired in his, her or its name, b‘oth ofth'eg; red titles as to mineral and surf L *"ghts, or (b) applied alsomto. " , lands held under a separate tit 'by a different owner where the municipality assess- ing the lands generally purported to convey all the title at a tax sale. In either case, one familiar with titles, registration, estates and proper- ty could readily foresee confusion and uncertainty as to title resulting frqm each sale. To illustrate, John Smith owns the surface rights of an area of land in the ‘Township of Bucke, Peter Jones, residing in Boston, Mass, or London, England, owns the mineral rights in such lands, severed and separate from surface rights and registered under a separate title. The question arises, has the municipality in an assessment of such lands by description or area (mineral assessment being. exempted from their jurisdiction) the right in a sale of such lands for unpaid taxes to convey to the purchaser at a tax sale the mining rights in such lauds owned by another party who might never have received notice, who knows the municipality has not the right to as- sess mines and minerals, and who may never have heard of the proce- dure. .It should be noted also that he default in payment of taxes was by the surface owner and not by the owner of the mining rights. The foregoing illustration differs from the facts in the case before the Supreme Court of Canada for in that; case the owner of the severed surface rights and the severed mineral rights was the same Company, and it might be argued that the judgment only apâ€" plied to such a case, but the decision makes the law very""finéertain§"' ' 1' 12. It is to re-st'ate'and clarify the law andvtopgive that assurance as to stability of title which the Govern- ment from time to time has proclaimâ€" ed, that the legislation proposed has been introduced and explained in the‘ House. Other difficulties might: be enumerated which would arise if ,the Government failed to re-state and , clarify' the law. Lawyers would be un- i‘a‘ble to determine the validity of a title or the efiect of coalescing or merging the two, separate estates, since one person might acquire, either at the si-me‘ time or a different time, the separately registered‘ titles of surface rights and mining rights. The effect, therefore, of the Bill introduced is as follows :â€"â€"Where any estate in mines, minerals or mining rights has hereto- fore or may hereafter become severed from the estate in the surface rights of the same lands they shall after being so severed thereafter be and remain for all purposes of taxation and assessment separate estates, not- withstanding the fact that one owner may become the owner of both titles. The Bill expressly exempts the lands involved in the case of the M‘acCrae Mining Company and the Township of ! cke. That decision stands with re- erence to those lands. .13. With the passing of the legis- lation referred to, municipalities will be confined as they have been pre- viously, to the right of assessment in respect 'to the surface right where the titles are severed. Where the titles are not severed as to surface rights and mining rights the sale of lands, complying with the require- ments of the law, will convey the whole interest in the land. Since the publication of your letter some might infer a connection on my part with MacCrae Mining Company. You are thoroughly aware that neither Jag. A. MacCrae, of Ottawa, nor the Ma’cCrae Mining Company is remote- ly,’ directly or indirectly related to or associated in any way with myself. As the letter which you sent- to me indicates that for purposes of public:- ity you page fpr‘wagded‘a com to Mr. M’. E. N. Sinclair, Leader of.’ the Lib- eral ‘ Opposition, Mr. Lethbridge, Leader of the Progressives, the To- ronto Star, Toronto Globe, Toronto, Mail Empire, Ottawa Joumal, I am forwarding copy of my reply to you, to the sme parties, also to the North- v wâ€"v w"-â€"- I. em Miner, Cobalt, the Nugget, Nora! Bay, the Star, Sudbury, Porcupine Advance, Timmins, The 800 Star, and the News-Chronicle, Port Arthur, so that both sides of the question may be presentegl: Yougfs very truly Jun! very u'uly, CHAS. MoCREA, Minister of Mines.