| Transcript |
- 242 REMINISCENCES OF OLD VICTORIA
property on Douglas and View Streets, Mr. Adams for-bid the parties, but in his absence they were felled. He then claimed the trees, as they were intersected every way by his property. But Dr. Tuzo threatened him with five hundred dollars damages, assuring him that the trees belonged to the Company. Up Fort Street a number of oaks have been felled. Aside from the vandalism which would sell and cut down a single tree for a few paltry dollars, where it was no obstruction to travel, but an ornament to the street?the act of itself is a foul wrong?unwarrantable and without a particle of right to support it, either in law or equity. We can-not well conceive how that the agents of the Company could do such a scurvy trick?such an act of vandalism?except that they have been influenced to do so by a resident San Francisco landshark. Selling the trees therefore may be to maintain color of title to the streets. But that will prove useless. Viewing the townsite as their private property, when they sold they forever conveyed away their claim to the streets. But the town-site is not private property, although it has unjustifiably been so claimed from the first settlement of the Colony. As private property the Company have no claim to it which will stand the test of law or equity. It is to all intents and purposes in the same condition as the lands of Cowichan, Nootka or Cape Scott; and the funds de-rived from the sale as justly belong to the Territorial revenues of the Colony. Taking then the townsite to be like other lands, subject to the conditions of the grant, (which we will hereafter prove) we find that one of the conditions says : ` That the said Company shall (for the purposes of colonization) dispose of all lands here-by granted to them, at a reasonable price, except as much thereof as may be required for public purposes.'
MORE LIGHT ON CLOSING OF VIEW ST. 243
The streets are used for public purposes?and for that reason the Company have no more right to them, nor the trees, than anyone else. Their act of felling trees on the public streets, and their intimation, deserves the strongest mark of public censure?and merits the attention of the proper authorities.
" Besides if our connection with the Hudson's Bay Company is not speedily ended we may expect many more such trumped-up claims as their claim to the streets, which they will want us to pay for."
I think my pioneer friends will now agree with me that enough evidence has been furnished to prove my contention that View Street was originally intended to reach from Wharf Street to Cook Street, and farther if necessary.
|
|---|
