IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // i/ J^^ ^. ^^7^ k^/ % 1.0 I.I 1.25 |2.8 3.2 1^ 850 BR 1^ 1.8 14 11.6 <^ n 7 'm ^# Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WE$T MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 V V -^^ \\ ^9) .V \ Ki « X .<^ '%'■ W/- ^ C!HM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian institute for Historical Microraproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques O^ ■^U^\^ Tachnical and Bibliographic Notas/Notas tachniquas at bibliographiquas The Institute has attempted to obtain the bast original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically uriiqua, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D Coloured covers/ Couverture de coulaur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture andommagia Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurda et/ou pelliculde Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gic graphiquas en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre da coulaur (i.e. autre qua bleua ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ D D n D Planches et/ou illustrations an couleur Bound with other materiai/ RaIiA avac d'autras documents Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion along interior margin/ Lareliura serree peut causer da I'ombra ou de la distorsion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during i estoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, maJs, !orsque cela dtait possible, cas pages n'ont pas 6ti film^as. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a et^ possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sent peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thoda normale de filmage sont indiquis ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurees et/ou pelliculees Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolor^es, tachet^es ou piquees n Pages detached/ Pages ddtachees HShowthrough/ Transparence U'~~ Quality of print varies/ Qualiti inigale de I'impression pn Includes supplementary matariai/ Th€ tol Th« pofl oft filnr Ori( beg the sior othi first sior or il Comprend du materiel suppiementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible The shal TIN whi IVIar diffi enti begi righ reqi met D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc.. have been ref limed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalemont ou partieilement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., cnt ^td filmies d nouveau de facon a obtenir la meilleurs image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 12X 16X J 20X 26X 30X 24X 28X n 32X 9 (tails i du lodifier ' une mage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to tho generosity of: Douglas Ubrary Queen's University The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are 'limed beginning on the first page w/th a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^- (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichevei applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'exemplaire film« fut reproduit grAce A la gAnirositA de: Douglas Library Queen's University Les images suivantes ont M reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettet« de l'exemplaire film«, et en confoi.iiit6 avec les conditions du contret de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont 9a couverture en papier est ImprimAe sont filmte en commen^ant par le premier plat ft en terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ►signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent §tre film^s d des taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est foimd d partir de I'angle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d drcite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la methods. rrata o >elure, I a J 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 w f^l .f >♦'- Mni C. CAMERON'S SPEECH ON THE Lf f5 BOUNDARIES OF ONTARIO. HOUSE OF COMMONS, ' - Tuesday, 4th April, 1882. Mr. CAMERON (South Huron). I think, Mr. Speaker, it was not in good taste for the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat to lecture my hon. friend from Both- well (Mr. Mills) as to the way in which he dealt with Judge Johnson. Judge Johnson is still in the land of the living, and able to answer for himself. The iion. gentleman him- self, about ten minutes before, undertook to cast an unwarranted and unjustifiable reflection upon one of the ablest and best J udges that ever graced the Bench of Ontario, who is now in his grave and unable to answer for himself! He ventured to tell us that the able paper of the late Chief Justice Draper, upon the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company to the territory now in question, was the state- ment and argument of an advocate— a paid advocate Mr. DAWSON. Allow me to contradict the hon. gentle- , man. I said nothing about a paid advocate, and I cast no reflections, and meant no reflections, upon Mr. Justice Diaper, a gentleman for whom I always entertained the highest esteem, and I entertain now the highest regard for his memory. Mr. CAMERON. I do not know the amount of respect the hon. member entertains for the memory of the late Chief Justice Draper. All I know is that the hon. member, in my hearing, did cast reflections on tire honesty and integ- rity of a Judge who, he said, was an advocate. Why was he an advocate? And why should the hon. gentleman speak of hina as an advocate except that this House and the coun- 1 2- *'*7 "light be led to believe that very little reliance could be placed upon his opinions, and it was possible Y6^1^ he might have advanced claims more than he was justi- C\^fe 2 reflection. Now. I do SoI'desTre to enter iato7l7^'* '' * ment on the merits of this question I do n!ff ^-^ ^''^''^ back 200 or SOOyears anS iZack all the old IctsTp^l^^ ment, proclomations and commissions tL/wf^'*" ing on the present controve "y Thev Irf.u^^ ^°^ ^®*^- -There are other documents to whinh T liToit u ^^^^' liviug issuo in the old Province of' r'«,....io 1 r ^** * western boundary, as far »■ L. '"'?'^,i '" ">« than the boundar/flKed by the award IT Jf k"'; "Z^^' ments and statements advanced hv the^Zhtt ^^''" man who now leads tho 3Tnn«P J ^ u ^- ton. gentle- davs eono bv Utl „ !' ^^"^ugh his colleagues in agJ wTe'th^n vaHd'LZ'o'rd'Tev'^"'"'' 1^^^^ ^^^- sound to-day ; there irnV;:?ettBVrrtvt^^^^^^^ that any new ii-ht has been Ihi-nu-n ™ ,t i™ ''°*'^' Confederation. ^The hon'me Jb ^who has ju'sf S' n T -4 .^ J. 8 ^ J. last twenty years. The Hon. member roforrel to the report of the lulo Chief Justice Draper on this question. Let me aUo direct the attention of iho House to that report. In 1857, the hon. member who now loids the House was leader of the (t )veinm3nt of the old Province of Canada. Questions then arose a« to the rights of the Hudjon's Bay Company to the vi-*t territory to the west of us, and as ta the western b miidirv of the old Province of Canada; and the late Chii^f Justice D apfM-, than whom no abler man could be found to deal wiih the subject, was seloolel by the Government of the day to make an exhaustive inquiry into the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company under their charter, and into the subject of the wo-.iern ind northern boundaries of the old Province of (Jana lu. With a zoal and vigor which were always charactotistic of ihat distinguished Judge, hfi Sol to work on the duty assigned him. Ho made a thorough investigation, and what conclusion did he arrive at? The conclusion he arrived at was approved of by the hon. gentleman who leads the Government. And whac was that conclusion? The conclusion he arrived at with respect to the claims advanced by the Hudson's Bay Com- pany was that the rii;ht to theterritory then claimed by the Company was more than problematical. It was extremely doubtful. The soncluslon arrived al -vith respect to the western boundary of Ontario, will b3 found in the document that the Crown published and such conclusion fully justifies the award. If his conclusion upon that sub- ject is correct, the western boundary of Ontario extends, at all events, westward as is described in the award of the arbitrators. That conclusion has never been repudiated by the Government of the day. It has never been repudiated by the First Minister. Et has never been repudiated, so far as I am aware, until lately by any of the followers of the present Government. That is not all. Recollect, Sir, that in the statements £ am presenting there is nothing original. There is nothing new ; my arguments and statements are the arguments and natemeuts of hon. gentlemen opposite when they considered this question from an impartial and non-political standpoint. If the arguments were right then they have equal force now. If the arguments presented by the right hon. leader of the House, through his colleagues, twenty years ago were correct, they are equally correct now. In 1857, a colleague of the present leader of the House, then Commissioner of Crown Lands was appointed by the Government to make an enquiry similar in character to the enquiry of the late Chief Justice Draper. After having exhausted all the material then at his command, and which was substantially the material and evidence sub- mitted to the various Committees which have dealt with Government grSS the rh«\ ^?^^V^*^«" the English Company, abSut which «. '■u\^'' ^^^ Hudson's Bay lasteVt or ten yoa^ the Tn',1- l^^r ^''" ^°'^^^ ^^ the right and no powe^-To ™t thJ J government h«d no the territory 5id no bTon^ tn tK^''^,''''^'. 1'"^!^^^ ^^^^•^'"'■o • farther points out that h^v^f to the Engh'sh crown. Jio Pany v«st territoriost ^fZVVh'.^^l^^^^^^ and undertook to arrant to tL n ^ tf'eydid not own, teiritories that ?hty miAt di^cr?^^'""^ 11"^ ""discovered P' P^^'^ion discoveries are ^ conceited '"'' /^'" **' ^^^'^ «"eged attached to them .T '• "«, ^™Portance could be the power to .^nvey ^1^7^^ *^f ^"^^^^ Crown and that no evidence existPd S"^'^^'' « ^^Z Company, claims vested in the En^i^^"^^ ^°^ '^^'''^'^ territorial the colleague of he rlgg In Pi'T^"' ?" ^^^^- ^hen ontheshoresoiiltrnl-B^yffer^^^^^^^^^^ ■ 4 was published b}' Jean Deny, indicating thiti possession by the French ; that a goofifiaphical work was published in 1677 to which was attaclied a mnp which tixos the point of possession by the French fishermen at Hudson's Straits ; that in J523 a certain navigator named Jean Vereyzani, under instructions from Francis I. of Franco, visited tho country and, for the Crown of France, took possession of tl»e country and called it New France ; and that then no one was in por^session, unles-s it wore the French. If the Cabots did discover the countiy they aban- doned their possessions, and no one was then in ])OrtHe8- sion of this vast section of country unless ii were the French, clearly no one under the English Crown. Then the colleague of the right hon. guntlemon points out, in this valuable and important Staie paper, tl-o fact of the diricovery and the possession by the English, but subsequently abandoned, and thw important tact of the dis- covery by ibe French and of the possession and retention of such possesKion by the French, and he then uses the argu- ments made use of by the English with respect to the Oregon boundary. He says : "It is a circumstance not to be lost sifjht of that it (the discovery by Gray) was not, for several years, followed up by any Act which could give it value in a national point of view ; it was not, in truth, made known to the world, either by the discoverer himself or by his Govern- ment." Then the hon. First Minister, through his colleagues, goes on through a series of events subsequent to that, pointing out that all this country was in the po-^session of the French from the first discovery until the territory was ceded by Franco to Great Britain. He points out that, in l5-t0, de Eoberval was made Viceroy of Canada, and that the descrij)- tion in his commission covered the Hudson's Bay territory ; that in 159H do la Roche was made Governor of Canada over precisely the same territory as that over which de Eoberval was made Viceroy, and that these voyages and early discoveries by the navigators clearly show that the French were really in possession of the country and entitled to hold it at the very time the English Government granted it to the Hudson's Bay, and that therefore nothing passed under that charter. Then the hon. First Minister, through his colleague, goes further and contends vigorously that France was entitled to the teriitory by virtue of treaty obligations. He points out that by the treaty of l o t^i u '' ^"^ ''''^''^* ^^ But the^e are not all hp «l „ .^^ , ^^^"^ «*^'PP' -^'ver. lH>n. gentleman WollaJueTf^h' "''""''^^ '^^^ '^' '"'g^^ the head of that Govern men fh 'TF'*'"'"'?^ ""''J^^'*' ""^* »« of the position thortir^^fc^^^^ andviynr iJiH ..r.wk . -"^ l^"'"'^^ti out with ijreat force Ac^of'nUgaveOuKV^ '"'V^'^'' .be Quebec of, and thatf. covS ^ '"''^'■^' ^ *^"^'^ J"^^ 'r>oken that was i. ued to Sh G^uv Cnt^''^-'"" /" '^^ comml.ion bo well to rfifor Wo ^ Carleton in that jear. It may covirbeca" e ovTrsT^ood ^""'1 ^'"' '^^^^'P^'- ^-« Ontario althm./h no ioTTh''' 'H '^'""^^ -P^"*^^'"^^^ of timecontendSr i;ri r "h-*^^^^ Ihemselves at one length the bou. daiio^ /. . T '^"^^' ''^ '^'''*^ considerable Carlton was ant 5^^ r'^'' ''''^'^'7 over which Sir Guy commissiorthur'i'e^ed. ^"'"'"' '^' ^^^^"Ption in thl Btrikt Jh'i'Krtb.? 'tnt? ^ri'^'l «^''^'' '^^' f-r^-ince until it southern boundary SiieterS.,^.<.lf„.^H"K''' u"^ ^^« '^'^ river to he l>f Bngianl iraainV to HuC^J ^^Bav^n^J'V -VJerchants Adventurerl islands and countnea whuh have stce th« ir!! 'h ''^ /"'"^^ territorie" bee. n^ade part of the Go^vTnCnr of^^S^V^uYailn^it a^^'re^g' together with all the^riKbl.. members and appurtenances whatBOor.r hereupon belonging." t-^u r In the paper to which \ l^«^vo referred and fn^m wh.c hi have j««t%uoted. the Commmmoner ot ^^ 'o;^';^ {^f^^J' who was a colleague oi the pronent ^«"- J'-^^^fj^i^^I' contended vigorously and strongly for that boundary. The artrument pro^.ented is strong, lorciulo, and con- clusive fnsTfar Js hon. gentlemen opposite are concerned^ hut that is not all. At a much later period thrn that to wWoh I have refen-od, hon. gentlemen opposite took equally Ttrinff grounds on this question. Some twelve yearg aJo two^coZagues of the hon. gentleman who leads the Hoise were entrusted with the important task of ascertain- Sgthe Hghtsof the Hudson's Bay Company to th,s vast territorv and of ascertaining the boundaries of old Canada -Itho la^te Sir George Cartier and the member for Halton 5.t xaminedlnto this matter with very g.^at -e -d unon that examination took stronger ground on this quos- ?^on than we oTuii. .ide take now. 1 1 may be worth whi e drawing the attei>tion of hon. gentlemen opposjte to he strong grounds taken by the J^o colleagues of the Fut Minister when acting for the old Province of Canada, it is S important to co'nsider the matured judgnent of the e distinguished stateMuon at a «:^^««q"«"^J;^"?^^ee vith SU^ the hon gentlemen say in their correspondence v^^n »u F Eoge^sf^the Colonial Office, in 1869, on the subject. .. The assextion of th. ^epaty.GoTe.„or of ^b^e^^Hudson;^, Bay. Com- pany that the country b«tweea Lake of the w ooaa ^^^^^^^ , ^^^^_ 'the freehold territory "^ ^be C-ompany, ana ^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ pass ' of the Canadian Gavernmeatiabendmgpr convenience settlers, and assisting them to "^*J^,* „'Jroachment on the soil of th and safety hereinafter, is 'an actual «»"«? '^^JV another proof or OompanyV might,. »f ;'"'\"Vhf Oo^J'^'^^'ia thaTparfof the continent, admission ofthenghBot the tompany in inap y^o^^danes of We, therefore, beg to remind His J^^'^^nip ^ j ^ ^jj^er the Upper Canada on tb« north and west, wc^^^^^^^ au^Wity of the Oonstautional Act of 1791, tou^^^^^^^^ ^.^^ ^^ j^^^^^^Z to the westward and f o'l^njam oi me ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^nown Bay.' to the -fost extent ot he c>mnt^^^^ 'rS^ZisL. to the 'utmost by the name of Canada. .V^^'^tJ*'^" ;"„„.,:„"[ investigator of the evi- the HouBO with the following extracts trom it .- .. 1. The Obarte. "f Oharta II. (»ud for the present -e raUe^J" J«»- to the Crown of England. uaiv-^- 8 from fbe Eaal ah fi^f *° ^l! restored on either side 'th-T^ ^^° '""'^^ previous foThtlV;TJ>« H^-J^on^ BavTomn^ from fbe Eael ah fiTT '° ?u ""e^'ofed on eitbeV-'sid'e "t'h-"^ ""^ ''"'^s neither traded nor LCibH^h'',' *°*^ ^'^^t the H dson" Ba^v ^r" '""P*"'"' with eo much fidelity supl^^^^^ gentleman that he higher ground on this sutieot th«n ?T ^°^^ stronger and out what the charter o?Krn'cCZ He LntS Company and exactly whaf th^Cn ''° ^^' F^""^^^ to the Now, 1 say that is conehL™ ^^°?P«ny held under it opposite They are not mi ^^""'"^^^ ^0°- gentlemen ments of the hon JentllT ^''S^'^^^t^, they are the arTu ister and of h"/o lelgTs" T^^^^^^^ unanswerable, and if t hit* -^ ^^® powerful, they ar^ 1869 and 1^57, t^/are TquZ^f I'T nxP^-erf^l^" has heen ^ Wn on^he sug^^^^sL^^ Zt^^^^ place to warrant a change in the opiuion of hon. gontloraott on the subject. Sir, if they wore right tlion. Ibey are clearly wronff now. To ray mind LhohO argumontH carry convic- tion beyond a doubt, and f hon. genllomcn have changed their opinions as to the we..tern and northern boundaries of the Province of Ontario, if they have arrived at u differ- ent conclusion now to what they entertained twelve y'?ar8 ago, it is not in the intere»t8 of Ontario or of th« )min- ion that such changes of opinion havo taken place but to Berve some political purpose best known to themselves. It being Six o'clock the Speaker left the Chair. After Recess. Mr. CAMEEON. When you left the Chair at six o'clock Ibad'pointed out to the House that the Conservative party, led by the present Premier, was committed, as far «h they could be by their solemn declaration, to the fact that the boundary of the old Province of Quebec was, at least, m far west, if not farther west, than the boundary given to Ontario under the preheat avard. I pointed out that at least four eminent Canadian statesmen who had occupied for years, and some of whom still occupy, a prominent place in the councils of the Sovereign, had given expression in no unramtakeable manner to their opinions on this subject. I now propose submitting for the consideration of this House the opinions of two other Canadian gentlemen of eminent ability, men who perhaps above all others are supposed to be conversant with this question, men who are eminent in their own pro- febsion, and who have occupied for somoyears a distinguished place in the history of Canada— I allude to the Dawson Brothers, who have, in documents that are now public property, given expression to theiv opinions on this question in a manner that no man can misunderstand. I will first submit to the House the opinions of Mr. Wm. Mo D. Dawson. Of cou'-se, I do not suppose that either of them is any rela- tion to the gentleman who has just addressed the House. I regret the hon. member for Algoma is not now in his place, because I am sure he would be very much interested in this part of my argument. I am sure those old historic rominis- cences would be agreeable and pleasant to his cultivated mind. Mr. Wm. McD. Dawson, in giving his evidence before a Committee of the Legislative Assembly of Canada on the question of the boundary of the old Province of Quebec, and the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company to the territory that was claimed by them, on the 8th cf June, 18o7, said, among other things : '« The result of my investigation has beon to demonstrate that in the Red River and Saske-tchewan countriea, the Hudson a Bay Company 10 '"h" "iSln'^J'^rbJ^;',', ""K"- '=■-'" """ .Ley h.„ i„ , Pan'T.lhere th.v u ."^hercver ther hav*. nL " ^°"'"on with In Wht isifl r-i, 1 . ^"'- ^«»e, be says ; ofCivii Kngineor and SurvevT'-r'-^"' '- the profc, tn He go.'ti further and says : "r confine myself in fk« * Now, Sii-, if Mr r>.,^ i- J- *8 regards those com tries." testimony a/a ^1^™^:" Tcr^' -Z'^^ ^^ ^-- 1^- r^ppomted to investigate thiQ^ael',^"^"^^"^^ ^^ Parliament opnnon h entitled to%he utmost wel?; • '"'^"J?' '^^^^ '^^^ this subject. That is not all Ti!^- '° ^ discussion of who occupied an equal"; p'ljJ„V';f, '« ^^o^her Dawson this country, who has been ?n fh« r^ '•''P '" ^^^ ^^''tory of and who occupied i Jff ., /^^g^^^a^ure of Onfii-in ^nybo,,, who^'has VatcLrtir ^°'^' ^^ ^^^ Parliament' •i^egi^latnre of Ontarfo h!l^ ^"^IT ^^ «^'ents in the ^e^^aetly the pronoun'ZSrcf f ^f T^ ^^^^^ ^"ow^ this quction. His conSn hL f ^«"' gentleman on wesertaKnindaryofOntanoPvf , 5^"^^^' ^^^'° ^hat the the bourulary assigned fo^in hi ^T^^^'"^'^'^' ^^^Jond jngu.u.gexprc.srontohifopini^r7tV ^ ««"^-^^ thai than one occasion in the LopT t "' i . ^^^^eve upon more hon. gentleman put IiL vil J ^""^''^'^'''"^ of Ontario that resolution, urgin| ^ith the7t "^'''^^'^' ^" ^^« «hape of a inento. Qntano the ronrin^v '* l'^""'' "P°" ^^e (Govern tai^ing immediate ^^^ aJJi^^J^J^::!;^- -^;..;^ V recoicnition of her boundary extending beyond the Lake of the Woods westward according to his then contention. Let us see what be i^aid upon that nubjoct in a famous state paper I hold in my hand. It is well to remind hon. gentle-^ tnen on the other side of the House of these expressions of ODinion given by themselves or their colleagues and their followers in and out of Parliament, because if these expres- sions of opinion were correct in the days when they were given they must be equally correct now. On 8th June, 1857, S. J. Dawson, Esq.. published a document of consider- able importarce in which he entered at f^^^'^h into the .u^ iect of the boundaries. Permit me, for the edification of the House, and for the information of the hon. member for Ab'oma, whom, I think, knows something of the document, to refer to it lor a moment. After discussing ibe question for some time, and pointing out upon what slender founda- tions the claims of the Hudson's ^^P.^'^'P' rZ^'Tnn and how strong were the claims of Canada, ho went on to say: «' Thp v,mt ledou now forming, in whole or in part, the States or TerrUone of N?b?as5a, the western potiona of Minnesota and Dakota Iowa M onta m Wvominft and Colorado to the 8ua.mit of the Stony Mmn^ai^"wub several oU.er States to the south, and a portion of the oSn itrit^auada near the Rocky fountains to the north a^ew^thm the territory which, at the date ot the Treaty of 1783, was ^n wn as Lo.iisiana By the second article of the Ireatv of V,„i; J statPsin ps established b/tw-en the British possessions and the United Ma es.jap,8 far a; 1 ^^a.^s ,he part of th, CMitinent under^nsideratiou ,i„e .frr[h^%Vi:tronh-wes7ern7ointof the Lake of the Woods ou a due westorn course to the Mississippi'; and ma Royal Commission ?Br:i":t:;e?n:;;t ^^^^h^r i;i ns^^e part f^aaada Ibrnimg rtllen So'viucrof Quebec ia described as being bounded by a 1 me •from the mu.t norlh-westeri point there ?^ ('• *• *7 ^^f.^L^Ld ' Woo 1.) .8 a due west course to the River Mi««'89;PP\f f. "''J,™^- to the southern b.uadary of the territories granted ta the Merchants AdvcnturiM 9 if England trading to Hudsons a bay. ''It w 1 Ihen be seen that the western limit of Canada, on the line -^'^:S^::^:ii^^n^:^ S%he"it.ssippi .ystem now mlle^th!' Uw^sU .. ' is but asmallbtream in its upper reaches, having U^ 8o'uree\ htti:\'l'':he Lrth of th« P-allel of 47^ .a n.^rnerous brook^ and countless htkelets far to the south and east ot a due west line irom '^f'^rrdrf .?u;Thefefore, meet the ^i-cription, and the question an^^^^ K-^:!;r^.r;^r'aS^^rr :ii^«£^3eh the " „.„i,,., „ . ....,,.., of ih« .\ ; -iasinui was applied m tuose aays. 12 VVhat doefl iha v. Publi-lied in ihi. "T' Sont'eman mean h„ tu . boundary Co^\"'!?''"«'™» in thif't^?^ «0 miles fmmli^° Province of Ontario i'^P"' 'f """ 'he a" "'-''■''■'"'"''"H'oods." 13 I the hon. gentleman object to the award? Does Ontario get more than she is entitled to? The hon. gentleman has not condescended to tell us what are his objections to the award, only he says it is an absurd boundary ; that there is no justification, in fact, or law for it ; and that there is no statesman or geographer, that ever studied the subject, would have dreamed of laying down a boundary such as the arbitrators have laid down. But let me go a step further* In order to fix the western and northern boundaries of Ontario. I attach great importance to the description given in the Quebec Act of 1774 and the commissions issued under it. The hon. gentleman nays that these commissions do not aid us to an interpretation of the meaning of that Act. He points out that the first commission to Sir GuyCaileton cannot avail us, because it was rescinded within a few months of its issue. It is true the commission was so rescinded, but not by reason of any defect in the description of the ten-itory over which he was appointed Governor. The hon. gentleman does not exphiin the reason of this recision, nor why he changed his mind as to the effect of it. I do not know what has changed the hon. gentleman's mind, but I do not think it was the recession of the commissions, but rather the non-issue of a commis- sion, about which the hon. gentleman knows shmething, at a much later day than the period of Sir Guy Carleton. I have disposed of the views ot the eminent statesmen who have given their opinions on this subject, and amongst others, the Dawson brothers, and I wish now to refer to another question touched upon by hon. gentlemen opposite, and notably bj* the hon. member for Eichmond and Wolfe (Mr. Ives). That hon. gentleman started out with the proposition that the Quebec Act did fix a definite boundary — a proposition which is denied by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Dawson) and in this I am disposed to at^ree with Jiim. The hon. member for Richmond and Wolfe (Mr. Ives) said that the two commissions which were issued, one on the 27th Dec, 1774, and the other in 1786 to Sir Guy Carleton, and the one to Sir Frederick Haldiraand in 1777, do not help us to an interpretation of the Act of 1774. He says there was a definite boundary fixed by that Act, and that commissions issued under it cannot be used to contract or extend the limits given by the Act. No one proposes to use these commissions for the purpose oi extending or contracting the boundary fixed by the Act ; but if there is any ambiguity in the wording of a Statute— any difiiculty in defining its proper interpretation — these com- missions may be used for the purposes of putting an inter- pretation on it; and, if there is any difiiculty in putting a proper interpretation on the Act of 1774, wo have u ^^'^^^:'^:t'U^'> "«o.y Of that en..c.„on, correct, it is Hear to evo?v H /'•"'' '"^' t'"-c"m.stance8 Z boundary of ,he Provinc^orOn f '' "^^^" ^'^^^ ^he weste,^^ ^" truj LiJi'leton n 17".! .u 1 ^ "^'^i' commi>iismn +« Province of Canada Ja.^dTn c^r^'"'" ^^ Q^ebecithe old of the Province of OntW "^^^^^^^^^ within the imiln ^omm,88ion as folJown :!i ' ^^^ ^««cription reads inTha? the said river to thi t V?^'' '^"'^ northward alnn^ ,i^^ ^" westward to the_eaid river to the-^fe'^S^^^^-^b w-d ,|^^ , "turers of Eog,.„d'tSi"ny?: SSf^/.e^ "Nh^e' on issued to Si,. P...,i...:_, -„ . .. ^' ^^Jer=t7rd;:„\te^^ "V ^O'^niission ssued to ect on of tl^ " *''^^ commissions Zre r'^Spr::tu{;'5|^^rtr«-1^^^^^^^^^ ng and i„ siibslanco T ,. V '*■>"' ■« w the same inmonT, " TJience throuo-h th m,. , ''°«'*°''' trading to flud- 15 commission is a description 1. the Mississippi Eiver. Now, it is a clear principle of tlie law, as laid down by Vattel in hid law of nations, that where the description of territories extends to a stream, the bounda-y of that territory is limited by that stream, and only limited by that stream, and I think that Vattel, on a subject of that kind, is entitled to as much weight as the hon. member for Algoma ("Mr. Dawson), or the hon. member for Niagara (Mr. Plumb), the latter of whom made such a powerful and eloquent speech on the subject. Vattel says : "In case of doubt every country terminating on a river is presumed to have no other limits than the river itself, because nothing is more natural than to take a river for a boundary ; and whorever there is a doubt, that is always to be presumed which is most natural and most probable." This question came up for adjudication before the United States Courts in the case of Hadley vs. Anthony, 5 Wheaton 696, and an eminent Judge of the Supreme Court said on the point : — 'In ereat questions which concern the boundaries of States, whore ereat natural boundaries are established in general terms with a view to public convenience and the avoidance of controversy, we think the great object, when it can be distinctly perceived, ought not to be defeated by technical perplexities." In other words, we are to deal with questions in which States are concerned, and this present question is in reality one between two States on a ditferent principle from that in which we would deal with a question where the rights of private individuals alone are concerned, I now co^me down a little further in the history of this important question, and 1 find that, after the separation of the Province of Quebec into two Provinces, namely, Upper and Lower Canada, there is a description given of the boundary of the Province of Upper Canada, and that description is as follows : " To commence at a stone boundary on the north bank of the Lake St. Francis, at the cove west of Pointe au Keaudet in the limit between the Township of Lancaster and the Seigneurie of New Longueuil, running along the said limit in the direction of north 34° west to the western- most angle of the said Seigneurie of New Longueuil, ihence along the north-western boundary of the Seigneurie of Vaudreuil running north 25° east until it strikes the Ottawas river, to ascend the said rivei- into the Lake Temiscaming, and from the head of the said lake by a line drawn duo north until it strikes the boundary line of Hudson s Bay, including all the territory to the westward and southward of the snid line to the utmost extent of the country commonly called or known by the name of Canada. ' Why, the hon. gentleman tells us that to adopt a description or that kind would bo to del.ire war against the United States, because in 1783, who., hi treaty between England and the United States took pluce, a largo portion of this which was then necesrarily claimed by Great ritory 16 ^4on.l Govern 'n'"'. ^^^^^n'^estl^'^t^'ll^^'^^'^^an portions floiifh o ?"^ '"^^'od'^'rf bv thifr?. . ' ^^^^ a/1 the expressions i/onlio^'^"^^'",^^ «^'« and commts ol '^^'''f "^ ^^af Aci b'^ /.^^^'^ P^t upon ^« P"t n^rtt Z \^^ any « , oV- ^ '^ '^^^^ appear ?•»* t'^at\-« 'no/ "m '^" one-^ ass 'ned t ''"• ^^^'^^^^^^^ ^5^ the late 7^ • '''^'- This mi I^p ^"^ '^ ^Y m ?he union tol/plr? «^ ^ppeT ^^X', "^"^'^^^^^ JD 1841. Afier fh between Uppor »es8 repeated his statement, the Jud^e S!^ ill "^.K*.K''i^T-. ^^^. '^'^^^^ ^'^'''^^ to deal, and did deal, with the facts instead of leaving them to the jury Ihe question of the jurisdiction of the Court to try the prisoner was then raised by his counsel-that question was reserved by the Judge for the consideration of the highest court m the realm ; and the only question submitted for the consideration of the court of appeal, was the simple question of jurisdiction. De Reinhardt was convicted • he was not executed, he was pardoned, but on what ground? The only ground, so far as one can judge, from the history ot tje ca«e, was cnat the Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the case at all. So far, that case settles nothing- It simply leaves the question where it was; but if it did iottle anything, it would be in direct conflict with the expression of opinion of some of the Judges in Upper Canada on the question under consideration, and so aa a judicial decision it in no sense settles the controversy So much for the De Reinhardt case as an exposition of the law and the facts. We have now reached a stage of this question which brings us down to the reference to arbitra- tmtion and the award. We found gentlemen on both sides of the House pronounced in favor of the position of Ontario nay, laore, of an extension of the western boundary beyond the point where the arbitrators have fixed it; the Conservar tive party, in days gone by, were as pronounced in that posi- tion as the Liberal party ; but the Libaral party adheres -_ -_. y.^A.:^Ut «i-c v^iiaox vauvu pariy hesitates and doaWs, nay, more, now claims that Ontario is not entitled IB |X/:;^;U1^^^^^^ Wl^t Of land, nor fe junction of the Ohb and «?-'*^°. ^'^^ '^^rth 'from I stated, that briZ u« ^'^^^^^'PP' divers. 1^ fim i1' *^.? proceedings b^fore'Th^ \' '^' '°'*i^' first intimation the poonle of n .^^. ^''^'^''^toiu The of this country had that fh!. Ontario or the neonlo f-m and goin^g bacL'on t? rC^T.^ ^^ ^--^^ ot a century, v^^^s upon the lit I? ^^ *^® P^^t quarter SrS .?^^-'"^«nt in ?mat^^^o'^^eV«^^^^^ *^e ment that they were not disposed fl ^^^^^"tai-io Govern- with respect to the westei n TnH il -^''^'^ to their views was then proposed thut! and the northern bounda.-TrTf 't on certain condSs to VwcTtrr' '''""'' <""/^™6 S could not consont. The il ' ■ .*''° C^owramentof (fntarS member for Lambton acceded toZ"'" ?°°^ ^°til the hon for llichmond and Wolfe s^i^nnn"" 1''^"*^' ^i^^ ion lember erj3e was only intended t^/^r^onC?^^^^^ '^-^^' did fix a conventional line I V.7^°,*'°°«^ line and onlv nothing of the kind Tiold ?„''*^" ,*he reference says of the Proviace offc"^' ^"^° viri^l ?omeJ^^''^'' ^« «"biSts the advises that aStS^h^/^^^^icJ^. to act n ?oiluii1?*''**?l-C^o^ernor '''ri?;^r^r,«;„I»;nt to a conventional line? ,.„, , " ... •^'^"voniional I 19 line I hove a few ^ords to say with reference to this award, and its binding affect upon the Doni;"^^^^ ««3^: ment I lav it down with groat confidence that the award ^binding both at law and equity. This arbitration was agreed to by both Govorr:mentB. The Dominion Government airreed. by an Order in Council dated 12th November, IS^ that thin reference ^I^«"^d take place ; and that the boundary lines of Ontario should be settled by this arbitration. The Ontario Government agreed to the same reference, and the arbitrators entered upon he discharge of their duties. The award was made by the arbitrators on the 3rd August, 1818, shortly before the defeat of the late Government. It was the unanimous award of the three arbitrators ; it was made after a most thorough and exhaustive investigation of all the evidence that could be submitted on both sides; it was madeafter having heard the arguments ol able counsel ; it was made after due weight had been given to every argument that could be advanced for or against the position of Ontario. Who was it made by ? Do hon. gentlemen opposite challenge the arbitration or the arbitrators ? Are they bold enough to cast any reflection on the honesty and integrity of the arbitrators ? No,bir,they have not the courage to do so. It is true they challenge the award, but they do not question the honesty of the arbitrators; they could not do so— more eminent or distin- guished men could not well be found. Every one who knew the late Chief Justice Harrison knew him to be a man ot transcendent ability and indefatigable labor-a man, who when he once entered on the discharge of any duty, stuck to it with unflinching ardour until he understood it from beginning to end. I am satisfied that when Chief Justice Harrison undertook to deal with this question, he dealt with it thoroughly and exhaustively ; and those of us who know Sir Francis Hineks, and Sir Edward Thornton, know they were eminently quaiitied to deal with a question of this kind-a mixed question of law and fact. The arbitrators made their award in Aug- ust, 1818. Did hon. gentlemen opposite, when th«y canae inti power, repudiate the award ? No, they did not. On the contrary, they ratified the award as far as they could do so without Parliamentary sanction. The Ontario Govern- ment drew the attention of this Government to the awaM on the 1st November, 1878. Was the answer a repudiation / No, Sir ; it was simply an acknowledgment of the receipt of the communication, without any protest. On the dlst December, 1878, the Ontario Government again drew the attention of the Dominion Government to the award with the vjew of securing the ratification, at the ensuing Session of Fariiament, and the answer again 20 ment again communicat^wiVh fh J n • ^"'^""'^ Govern- asking for a r.iiii^Zn^ tZll^^^^^^^ in)urioii8 effects in the terrif^,.^ T.? ^k PO'"ting out the of affairs. The ren v warL Z *^^^^ condition nothing more KfeiXntimlr ^""T"' "^'^"owledgment, had of the repudiation of fh/-*"? ^^'"^ P^P'« ^^ Ontario and thenfor he f?.8t "im^^^^ ™ "^^^ ""t'' ^ecentlj; award should nf be confi^mor™'"'...'"^'"^' '^^' '^^^ the Executive Government ?r«n^?'^''^" 1^^ ^''^""^ t*»»t agreeing to the Se^ce do no?l::^n*^"' f"'.^""*^ '° exhaustive argument Tn /k^ not propose entering on an to this IXLcTv^thoLt ^r^''^.^^*^^ i^^xecutivefi agree no man is better able t^Tal w fh „^"^^^^ '' ^han whom has dealt with it exhaustivLv ? ?T^T «' this icind. to eonviction/^to "ht^^,^,:-y -an, open mont, c»n &il to be convinced of th«nn ' . "^^'^ ^"^"- poHition taken by my hon frrend ""S^^L^T^^^^e^s of the the Executive h7d th^ a^i^^i;^' l/is l'^ Zt'tP" *^"' tive t)ower has been flT«,v.;««/ x. '"^^ this execu- modirn inste^cea!!?he Si, '^'^^^''"' ^""^^'"° '° °'««y BrunswidcTe Orelon Rnntf^ ^f^^"^^" ^^""« «°d New Washington Trea^^;",,f^""i?7' *'^«„^^"«^* Award, the alone, in some tn^ta^eL. 1 ^««"lt of executive action ments. AnsumL the^tLt t h« i"'""''? '^^^'^ ^^ ^^^lia- to consent to a reference 7^^^ Executive had the authority mtified ^bu? even aLumfnrTK f ^"[^ ^' ^"^« ^^^« ^<>^^ noB.ehpower,7mrr o^etdnt ^1^! ''"^ uXnctiot; ^Sl^rt^f ' an^l^fl^^eLtUrf question that remaned nns^tfllir"""' '" '"•^^^'- *« ^'^"le a and the ininoitanof of wt u"^ ^^^ that the succLorso?thatG^^^^^^^ <''"""^ over-estimat^ the reference? X man anZoTo '^''"^' '^^^ indeah'ng with a GoZ-nmwTK^ '''T""'^"*^^"^^ ^ ordinary views as hon3l" ^* entertained such .xtra. Sir, I take thTg'^SnS' fnS } tak^ ?£?,f ^ ^^ow contend for. was within th?ZVtenceof th«?f T^^""^ reference, and that thVl^vl?!- u^^.®^"^'^^ <« make the and both Goverument^^^^^^^ T^^"*^'^ ^^ it, arbitrators, this cou^tiv^-«te '■^P''««?,"ted before the bound to'co"firm"h?t awafd'^'BTTh'^ ""' ^^^^*^^^^ further—I sftvthftf kV^^ '*™"- ^^^ there js something this alrf^XuL GoVSi" °T°^/'^'?''™ ■•"""Sniref arbi^Tfttms. K^Ik ^ ,, *'**'" chances boforo the aroi -rators, both are oqua v bound hv fk- „ j wa8'?uL^lPJL'^-tT ^^ *^«. i-eference. If this iSico and ho had no basiDOM to dt in the Ontario LoSslatum for four yeara, as a representative in it of that secMon jf the contention of hon. gentlemen opposite kc'rreot' the duty T^Je'i:? 'T^^'h" 'T-S^l l-^^/^d it you^ uHiy, jui. Speaker, to eject hira from Parliament What L true in«rardne88 of this sudden and ex Wd na,T chanL of base on the part of hon. gentlemen opZ^e? WhaiZ^ light has dawned on thoir dark minds ? wLt »]rr ^ £rf^h-^--^t'iee'ran^iiSS™ this change, no one has informed the House on fl?« subject. Does not the Mailsive the kev-notfi"Vn Ik! ^f and n^ainsprings that act^trhon gTnSten Itos?^^^ LZ f^if n '' ^"^^'^ ^. ^^« ^^« 'espectabirpolfSntho leads the Opposition in Ontario not given the kev noflfn tbe actions of hon. gentlemen oppofite ? flas The tn « inwardness of the movement not been unw ttingly Sisdo ed by the Ontario leader of the Conservative partf and bv the what the iifm;, that re-echoes the views of the loader of the Ontario Opposition, and that speaks the sentiments of hon gen lemen, says on the subjectf and when voir hear its re* marks you will say that I am about right h? ay in^ that it 18 not the merits of the case, or the interests oflh^^on^.V' / / that aotuateB hon. gentlemen opposite, but the intereita of the Conservative i)arty. The Mail says : " The Grit party hai no posiible hope of getting into power io J«83- " then lUB e88ontial thHt in order to obtain a settlement of the boundary auestion. parties in Ottawa and Toronto must be at one with e»ch othflr. tS public will probably think that it is- better that Mr. Mowat «hould go out in or ler that Ontario shonld get all the.e ™«y'7» '»;^" J'S ^ftt he should remain in and sacrifice them. • • ' "/{^ P'^f* "J Ontario are in oarnest. they will speedily each Mr. Mo^t thj^ h« JJJ hit cabal must not stand between the Province and the »c^""»"p» "f * teJrltory which is declared to be of such Inestimable value." Prodigiousl Does that article not give the key-note; does it not show that in order to manipulate the elections in Ontario, it is necessary to convince the electors that they cannot get in.«^tice from the hon. gentlemen opposite while Ontario is controlled by the Liberal party, but that a change of Government*in Ontario will bo followed by a change of policy in Ottawa? Hon. gentlemen make a terrible mistake f they suppose that, by threats of the kind, they can influence the independent electors of the great Province of Ontario. Let me advino hon. gentlemen opposite to pnr- Hue the policy that statesmen ought to pursue, and to remem- bor that honesty in politics, as in everything else, is the best policy: if the Province of Ontario ih right in her contention, lot that right prevail, and let th.s award be confirmed. Hon. gentlemen opposite never made a greater mistake than when they allowed the organ of the party to publish the extract I have juet read, and to have it go abroad to the world that justice is dealt out according to political bias. Sir, if there is one thing more than another Calculated to arouse the people of Ontario it is the convic- tion that wrong is being done them by political wire-pullers for political purposes. I believe they are aroused thoroughlv in earnest, and that when the time comes t» pronounce on this subject at the polls, as come it soon will, the indignant voice of outraged Ontario will make i^elf heard-loud and 5lear-from Ottawa to the Hudson s Bay. There is one way, and one only, by which ,t»on' gentlemen can escape. Let them carry out this awar^ and then they may expect to command the respect of il, h; use and secure some share of the sympathy of Ont,a„' u. Printed by MacLban, Rogbb & Co., Parliamentary Printers, WelUngton ^ Street Ottawa. ireite of ia 1883. If boundary ,ch other, at iihould ,her than people of 1,1 he and lition of a odigiouBl ot show rio, it 18 mot get ntario is ange of bange of I mistake hey can Province e to pnr- ) remem- 86, is the ; in her ward be a, greater party to ave it go ording to 1 another le convic- re-pullers aroused, comes^to 90on will, mke itself jon's Bay. jontlemen then they {•use and Wellington \