within.
British and Canadian jurisdiction. Treaties were not required to obtain.
jurisdiction over the tribes. The English texts of the treaties suggest.
that their primary function was to transfer land. The regional power of.
the tribes in the west was real and the English texts mention the .
desire.
for peaceful relations. .
Legal Decisions Affecting Indians .
While the politicians continued to sign treaties, the courts began.
undercutting any ideas of Indian rights in cases coming from eastern.
Canada. If Indians had become a "domestic" matter, it was up to the.
Canadian legal system to determine whether Indians had rights. In.
Sheldon v Ramsay in 1852 an Ontario Court held that the Six Nations.
Indians had no legal rights to their reserve lands, because the common.
law could not be "part savage and part civilized." In 1921 in Sero v.
Gault, an Ontario Court quoted the Attorney-General as saying that.
treaties with the Mohawk made as much sense as treaties "with the Jews.
in Duke street." In Regina v Syliboy in 1929, a Nova Scotia Court ruled.
that a treaty between the Mic Mac and England was a nullity. Indians.
were "uncivilized" and "savages." The treaty had been made with a.
"handful of Indians." Of course a "handful of Indians" would have no.
rights, for the words describe a collection of individuals with no.
political or legal organization. The treaty was also held invalid on .
the.
basis that the colonial governor had no authorization to sign such a.
treaty. These cases were all racist lower court decisions. Yet for.
decades the Government of Canada referred to the Syliboy decision as.
defining the status of treaties in Canadian law. .
The message was clear. Indians had no rights under domestic Canadian .
law.
unless those rights were clearly given by statute or by the.
constitution. This was clear in 1964 when the Supreme Court of Canada.
decided Regina v Sikyea. At issue were treaty protected hunting rights,.
on the one hand, and the Migratory Birds Convention Act, a federal.