Private Property in peril: Ontario Businessmen and the Federal System - Essay Example

The paper tells that while the large internationally oriented financiers are fighting for the control of private property, the small businessmen on the other hand are fighting over the control of the land and natural resources that they want to help the local community. The result is a conflict that sees both sides looking for an avenue in which their interests can be addressed. Various groups lean on various sides of the government with the belief that they will be assisted but the conflict proves difficult to resolve due to the conflicting judgments made by the courts and the laws that govern federalism and statehood.

Other measures have to be employed that would help the large financiers to get hold of their private property; some work while others do not work. The conflict here in the story revolves around the issue of private property. The large financiers want to have control of their private property while the locals want to also have a control of their property so that the profits that are accrued from these transactions in the mines for example could be used to develop the local economies. On the other hand the large financiers are unable to agree to this because they want to take the profits away from this place and invest elsewhere.

The provincial administration therefore decides that the investments must be made in the country so as to serve the general interests of the Canadians or else the companies will not be allowed to operate and their property will be confiscated. (Armstrong & Nelles, 1973). The locals are right because they are fighting for the development of the entire country and therefore they want the profits and any other money from the mines and other companies operating in their regions invested their so as to help them.

They wanted to progress. They therefore move to the provincial administration to look into their problems because they want the state developed. The large financiers want to continue draining the land and natural resources owned by the locals and leave the place in a state of underdevelopment and backwardness something the locals do not want (Armstrong & Nelles, 1973). Both groups move to the courts to find an interpretation of the law and the courts play the role of the arbitrator in this case and rule against the large financiers in favor of the local businessmen and manufacturers as long as the rights are not abused.

The large financiers having realized they are losing at the provincial level run to the national government for assistance and we see them employing various tactics in order that they may continue to operate in the states without local interference (Armstrong & Nelles, 1973). These methods include the federal incorporation, use of regulations, and disallowance. The failure of these capitalists can be attributed to the fact that they did not want to develop the local states and feared local interference could mean a stop to their businesses.

All the methods they used were not successful in the end and continued to frustrate their relations with the local governments who wanted to progress (Armstrong & Nelles, 1973). The businessmen having problems with the local administration decided to use a method known as ‘charter ploys’. The issue of federal charters began in the 18th century. A federal charter is a federal statute that establishes a corporation. Congress has issued many charters since 1791 although most of them were issued after the start of the 20th century.

Congress has used many charters to create a variety of corporate entities such as banks, government-sponsored enterprises, commercial corporations, venture capital funds etc (Kosar, 2005). The businessmen in Canada used this method because of the fact that these charters were given so that the corporations could be under the control