Does the term “or other purposes” following the words “for settlement, mining” in the treaty of September 15, 1874, is ejusdem generis?

Applying the decision in Rex v. Smith, supra, to the treaty of September 15, 1874, the words “or other purposes” following the words “for settlement, mining” are not ejusdem generis because the words “settlement, mining” cannot be grouped in any genus to which the ejusdem generis rule can be applied. Moreover the right of the Indians to hunt and fish is subject to “such regulations as may from time to time be made by the Government of the Country acting under the authority of her Majesty.” Nothing therefore in the treaty of 1874 can assist the accused because under its terms parliament might have set up game preserves in the area surrendered, and in my opinion provincial forests and fur conservation areas, without violating any promises made to the Indians in the treaty.