350 THE ADVOCATE
VOL. 78 PART 3 MAY 2020
downright grifters, to make a quick buck. As part of the deal, the province
turned a vast quantity of land over to the dominion government to subsidize
the rail link, and this “railway belt” was then conveyed to the CPR. It was a
fruitful source of litigation between the two governments for decades.16 The
province also donated over 6,000 acres of land in what was to become Vancouver—
an act that was equally productive of litigation, both then and more
recently.17 One issue was whether the CPR had the authority to change the
terminus from Port Moody to Coal Harbour, thus disappointing many speculators.
In one court action Begbie accused the company of behaving arrogantly
and found it lacked such authority. Although the Supreme Court of
Canada disagreed, this is at least some evidence that Begbie’s animosity
towards Greer was not because Begbie was partial to the railway.18
Another issue involved squatters on the land in Vancouver that the
province had turned over to the CPR. A number of them petitioned the
chief commissioner of lands and works asking to be allowed to purchase lots
they had improved “at a fair valuation”. The CPR and government officials
had discussions indicating that they would, but in some cases it appears the
railway balked. When one of these squatters sued, Begbie was sympathetic;
but in Hayden v. Smith and Angus he ruled, reluctantly, against him. The
crucial discussions had been between the chief commissioner of lands and
the railway; and although Begbie dismissed the railway’s arguments that the
plaintiff was not a bona fide occupier of the land as “unfounded”, he concluded
that the chief commissioner was neither the plaintiff’s agent nor his
trustee, so there was no agreement amounting to a contract. The result, he
said, “is that there must be judgment for the defendants the trustees for the
CPR. But as I think the plaintiff is wholly right on the facts, and that the
defendant’s sic refusal is wholly unjustifiable, though the plaintiff’s legal
remedy fails, he will not have to pay any costs but his own”.19 Again, more
evidence that Begbie was not in thrall to the CPR.
Other transactions, however, did smell bad. Two years before the decision
in Hayden, a select committee of the legislature investigating suspect land
deals in the vicinity of Coal Harbour had found there were doubts about the
genuineness of a document purporting “to be a transfer of the alleged rights
of two Indians to certain lands and improvements at False Creek”. A statute
was therefore passed authorizing the appointment of a royal commission to
investigate and, pursuant to that authority, Begbie was empowered to hold
an inquiry in which Samuel Greer was the star player.20
And Greer was no choir boy. As Professor Ishiguro and Trevor Williams
have shown, “Gritty” Greer’s reputation as some kind of folk hero depends
strongly on what one regards as heroic.21