MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7061582601

Report of George Burden, Esq., commissioner, on the western part of the disputed territory belonging to the province of Ontario, wherein the Dominion or Manitoba governments have, since 1879, claimed to exercise jurisdiction.

2014· article· en· W7061582601 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeorge (robot)DominionGovernment (linguistics)Governor
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

of Police was appointed by the Dominion Government to carry out the provisions of the Act.Several constables were also appointed, who were paid, jointly, by the contractors and the Government.In addition to providing penalties for the illicit sale of liquor, the Act contemplates the suppression of the practice of carrying arms.The " North-West Territories Act" (otherwise called the "Keewatin Prohibitory Act,") which became law in 1874, was also assumed by the Dominion officials to be in force in the territory.Under this Act the illicit liquor seller incurs a penalty of $50' for a first offence; $100 for a second offence; and $200 for a third offence.Imprisonment is not provided for, except in case of non-payment of fine, and one-half the fine when paid goes to the informer.The original intention of this Act was, undoubtedly, to make unprofitable the introduction of liquor into the Indian country by white traders ;. and the absence of imprisonment as one of the penalties, is accounted for by the fact that, in the.then unorganized territories brought within the scope of the Act, there were no jails or lock-ups for the detention of offenders.Further, under this Act, the Lieu- tenant-Governor of the North-West Territories is empowered to issue permits to individuals for the introduction of quantities not exceeding five gallons of liquor.The Public Works Act was enforced at Rat Portage in two or three instances, by the first Commissioner of Police appointed by the Dominion Government (Captain Bent) in 1879.After that period, the then occupant of the office invariably carried out the Keewatin Act instead of the Public Works Act, and the same course was followed by his successors, Messrs. Brereton and McCabe, down to December last when, in compliance with instructions from the Minister of Justice at Ottawa, Mr. McCabe caused his constables to discontinue laying informations under the Keewatin Act in places contiguous to the line of railway.Among the buildings raised by the contractors of Section B, Canada Pacific Railway, in 1879, was a log-house intended to serve as a lock-up for prisoners.This lock-up was recognised in a proclamation, issued by the Dominion Government in 1880, as a common jail for Keewatin.(See Dominion Statutes of that year, page 82.)In the middle of December, 1879, Mr. W. D. Lyon, who had been acting under the^ Ontario Government as a Stipendiary Magistrate at Alberton, on the Rainy River, was ordered to Rat Portage, representations having been made that there had been recently erected at Keewatin extensive mills and other works ; that there was a considerable number of men there, or in the neighbourhood, attracted by the Canada Pacific works and by the recent discoveries of gold and silver on the islands of the Lake of the Woods, and that a good deal of disturbance had arisen.Mr. Lyon was instructed that, as the territory was within Ontario, he had no authority to enforce laws which were passed for the District of Keewatin.Mr. Lyon arrived at Rat Portage on the 7th of January, 1880, having found the steamer frozen-up at the mouth of the Rainy River, and having had to wait until the ice formation on the Lake enabled him to perform the journey on foot, which he did in eight days.Inthe course of his journey he learned that a considerable amount of whiskey was concealed on some of the islands in the lake, and also that several complaints had been lodged with the Dominion Magistrate against parties for the illicit sale of liquor.On the 5th March, 1880, it was represented to the Ontario Government that the people of Rat Portage and Fort Frances were anxious for the establishment of Division Oourts at those places as early as practicable ; that the people were being robbed every- day for the want of some process to facilitate the collection of small debts, and that the Dominion Government had declined taking any initiative in this direction.A petition to the Ontario Government from the leading citizens of Rat Portage set forth that, owingto the fact of there being no Court of Civil Jurisdiction as yet established, they were put to great inconvenience and loss for want of the necessary facilities to enforce payment of their outstanding debts.The loss and inconvenience complained of would, they said, be very much increased as portions of the works on the railway were finished, and the sub-contractors, traders and labourers began to move from place to place-many of them leaving the district and carrying their effects with them.The petitioners further com- plained that they had no power to detain the goods of defaulting creditors, or to enforce payment of lawful claims.They concluded by saying that a great number of business transactions took place at Rat Portage, and that a majority of such cases came within the jurisdiction of a Division Court, and they impressed upon the Ontario Government the urgent necessity of establishing such a Court there at as early a date as possible.On the 28th May, 1880, an Order-in-Council was approved by His Honour the Lieut.-Governor of Ontario, establishing Division Courts, with head quarters at RatPortage and Fort Frances.In the meantime, an Act, passed by the Ontario Legislature in its preceding session, making additional provision for the Administration of Justice in the disputed territory, had been disallowed by the Dominion Government. On 7th May, 1880, a Dominion Act respecting the Administration of CriminalJusticein the territory in dispute between the Province of Ontario and Dominion of Canada, received the assent of His Excellency the Governor-General.Under the provisions of this Act, crimes and offences committed within the disputed territory might be enquired into, tried and punished within any county or district of the Provinces of Ontario or Manitoba, or the District of Keewatin, as though such crimes or offences had been committed within the county or district where such trial was had.It was also enacted that such crimes or offences would be sufficiently laid and charged, whether they were laid and charged to have been committed in Ontario or the District of Keewatin, and any sentences which might have been imposed upon offenders had the offences been committed either in an undisputed part of Ontario or an undisputed part of Keewatin, might be imposed upon offenders convicted under the Act.The Act also pro- vided for the withdrawal of prisoners from the jails of the Province of Manitoba to the jails of Ontario or vice versa for trial, and for commitments to the jails at Winnipeg or Prince Arthur's Landing in the event of there being no proper place of confinement for or within the locality in which the conviction was had or the offence was committed.No provision was made for carrying out civil law within the territory, and the dis- pute as to title paralyzed, to a large extent, the efforts of the Ontario Magistrate for the prevention of disorder and the administration of justice.Nevertheless, he was enabled to render effectual service for some time in checking the liquor traffic, and in breaking up the most notorious of the dens of prostitution which existed in the locality, owing to his having received the cordial co-operation of the railway contractors, This Act, passed on the invitation of the Dominion Government, was confirmed by an Act of the Federal Parliament, on the 21st March, 1881.The following were the terms and conditions on which such increase was made :-" (a) All the enactments and provisions of all the Acts of Parliament of Canada which have, since the creation of the Province of Manitoba, been extended into and made to apply to the said Province, shall extend and apply to the territory by this Act added thereto as fully and effectually as if the same had originally formed part of the Province and the boundaries thereof had in the first instance been fixed and defined as is done by this Act, subject, however, to the provisions of Section three of this Act." (6) The said increased limit and the territory hereby added to the Province of Manitoba shall be subject to all such provisions as may have been, or shall hereafter be enacted, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the lands to be granted in aid thereof." 3.All laws and ordinances in force in the territory hereby added to the Province of Manitoba at the time of the coming into force of this Act, and all Courts of Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction, and all legal commissions, powers and authorities, and all officers, judicial, administrative and ministerial, existing therein at the time of the coming into force of this Act shall continue therein as if such territory had not been added to the said Province ; subject nevertheless, with respect to matters within the legislative authority of the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba, to be repealed, abolished or altered by the said Legislature."Although this Act was assented to by the Governor-General on the 21st March, 1881, no step had been taken by the Manitoba Government towards the civil, criminal or municipal organization of any portion of the disputed territory up to the time of the sitting of the Ontario Division Court on the 16th May.A Bill was, however, introduced into the Provincial Legislature and assented to on 21st May, 1881, intended to pave the

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→