^, IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1^ 2^ |2.5 |5o '^^ Bibb 1^ 1^ |2.2 1.25 II 1.4 ||<> ^ 6" - ► y] 'c^l o ^;j /^ *'i / Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 873-1503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notat/Notat tachniquaa at bibliographiquas The Inatituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat original copy available for filming. Faaturat of thia copy which may ba bibiiographicaily unique, which may alter any of the imagea in the reproduction, or which may aignificantiy change the uaual method of filming, are checked below. D D a n Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagAe Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurAe et/ou pelliculAe I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gAographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relit avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reiiure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intirieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouttes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas At6 film6es. Th< to L'Instltut e microfilm* le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a At6 poasible de aa procurer. Lea details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibllographlque, qui peuvent modifier jne image reprodulte, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mAthode normale de filmage aont indiquAa ci-daasoua. n z D X □ D D n Coloured pages/ Pagea de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagAea Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurias et/ou peiiiculAes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dicoiories, tachaties ou piquAas Pages detached/ Pages dttachies Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualit6 inAgale de I'impression includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplAmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or parti&lly obscured b/ errata slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to ensure the best possible imege/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc.. ont M fiimies A nouveau de fagon A obtenir la meilleure image possible. Th< poi of flln Ori be( the sioi oth firs sioi or i The she TIN whi Mai diff( enti begi righ reqi met n Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppltmentaires; This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmi au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X XX J 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X ir« details les du modifier ler une filmaga The copy filmed iiere has been reproduced thanlcs to the generosity of: Nationai Library of Canada 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. L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grAce A la gAnirositt de: BibliothAque nationale du Canada Les images suivantes ont 4t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin. compie tenu de la condition et de la netteti de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. 6es 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 filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont filmis en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'lllustration, soU par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmis en commen^ant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniire page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON- TINUED "I, or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la derniire image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ^ signifie "A SUiVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". 'e Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction retios. 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: Les cartes, pianchss, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film^s A des taux de reduction diff6rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 d partir de Tangle supirieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. f errata d to It le pelure, ;on A n 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 p Wj K E P O K T or A 8FLBCT COMMITTBH UK THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY vv Tin; PROVINCE OF KEWAYDIN I PON •if THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ADJOINING PROVINCE OF ONTARIO. I K WITH A,l^APPE,YDrX CfXYTAIXIJ^G THE EVIDENCE. PRINTED, BEFORE PRESENTATION, FROM A MANUSCRIPT COPY, WFTHOUT PERMISSION OF TUE LEGISLATURE. ■^ y WINNEPEGOOSIS : KNISTENEAUX PRINTING COMPANY. X884:. I i I I 1 PUBLISHER'S PREFACE. The imjtortaut (.loeument printed intbo following pages relates ton subject of more interest to the neighbouring provinces on the cufcit than to citizens of tliis province. To us it is a matter of speculative iritei'est; to thcni it is a bui'ning question. Oratois at tho hustings, and on the stump, and able editors in tiie daily press ciintiibutc masses of material to feed the llame. Peace offi- cers of Ontario have biu-n impris(»ncd in the jails of Manitoba on the charge of rioting in the disputed territory. Kewaydin alone is calm, waiting i'or the strife to cease. Although it is her boun- daries over which the t\v. Greek extraction, was not obnoxious to the rc])rouch of being French or English. The surreptitious publication of such adocumentas this may, perhaps, bo accounted for by the presence on the committee of Mr. Frank- lin, whose illustrious ancestor was a practical printer, and held peculiar views about the use to be made of private papers. The committee, as is proper iu a country where the thirst for representation rises to the dignity of a mania, represented all the luitionalities in Kewaydin. Mr. Confucius had not at the time arrived in the piovince. All the parallels of latitude and meridians of longitude were also represented, as far as possible. In a largo part of the province the only settlements are the bea- ver towns, the wise little inhabitants of which objected to the in- troduction of the '• caucus " and the " stump " into their hitherto ■!^ \ceful abodes, where stumping had always meant practical and -:.: iin\ work in the forest. With these few explanatory remarks, necessary, he thinks, in a publication of so unusual a character, this important document is submitted to the consideration of the nineteen nationalities in the census of — the publisher had almost said "this Canada of owrs," but there are nv» Canadians in it, and the question arises of whose? The publisher submits it then to the considei-ation of the eleven Provinces of the Dominion, and to the be-nationalized people who dwell in them ; whether they be Prince Edward Islanders, Sas- katchewanders, Alberters, Kewaydiner.s, Oiitarians, Quebecers, Athabascans or Assiniboians, of all nations and tongues, whether they belong to the rouge or bleu varieties of these species, iu whatsoever sectarian sub-section it may please them to classify themselves. CONTENTS. Paob REPORT 1 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE A of Thief Justice Blackstone upon the scope of Royal Com- miepions, kc ^9 B of Mr. C'avendiHli, upon the method of the Dttuwa Arhi t ration 25 C of the Surveyor-General of Kewaydin. upon Boundary Arbitrations 28 D of the Attorney-General of Kewaydin, upon the basis of the Award 33 R of Monsieur Cugnet, upon Early Discoveries in Canada.. . . ;^7 F of Mr. TvvisB, upon International Boundaries 43 G of Mr. Kussell. upon the Literature of the subject 45 H of Mr. Bancroft, upon the Northeasterly line through the Sault Ste. Marie 49 MAP By M. Sanson d'Abbeville showing the Northern Boundary of New France in the year 1656. ted ability and hii;Ii i)osition, not only ol' the arbitrators, hut also ol' those who have ju^iven evidence in this matter, or who h;iveari;ued u[)on the opposinijf sides. They think that the case ibr Ontario was excei)tionally well prepared. The books prinl( don thai side were w»'ll compiled and suitably printed. The volum*' publisheil by th(! J[ )Useoi'(,\)mnious (Dominion Keport) is hu kiiii,^ in those re(|uisites ^vhich make a book lucid in airang»'ment or convenient for refereuee. The case, in the ()[)inion of your Committee, was over- laid with an enormous mass of extraneous matter, by whith the real issues were obscured. The numerous irrelevant documents and private letters given — the ela- borate iwcursus into non-essential points of contemporary history — and the mass of conjectural intentions and wishes attributed to the i)ersons who drew up the documents cited, have a very conrusini^- eliect upon the minds of non- professional men. The lawyers and surveyors, for the most part, were a])le to perceive tliose things which really bore upon the question ; l)ut it became evident to your Committee that many of the laymen who had to do with the case Avere interpreting Acts of Parliament and public documents, which bore their meaning upon the surface, by conjectures as to what was passing in the minds of l>rivate members of the Parliaments at the times these enactments were made. The intentions of Parliament can onlv be inferred from the words of a Statute, not from the private letters of single members, nor from a private report of the debate published sixty years subsequently. One 3 fart will ontwt'iuh a volum" nf possiliilitifis, nr evpu of pn)l)al)iliti"'s, ami your ('(»iimiilt<'.' have (here Ion- liltlo ln'.sitatioii ill pultiii!^ asitlc cxlracis I'rom ihc l.'lttTs oi 'Mr. JJurko ami Mr. l-'raiiUliii ; not only ln'caitsi' tin-y raiiiiot intcrpri'l an Art (»i" l'arliani<'i!', I)ut bocaus*^ olhor privat*? letters and ()i)iiiioiis niiLihl l»e rited iiim)H the opposite side and the discussion spend itsell'ui)un side issues. I'Voni the l'aitrators, given in the ''Ontario Boundary Documents." Not only is tho Albany river admitted to be an assumed convenient boundary, but the shifting oi' the due North line westward from the source of the Mississippi to the North- AVest angle of the Lake of the AVoods demonstrates that the Arbitrators did not (Online themselves to the question submitted to them, but added, for convenience sake, to wdiat they stated to be the "Western boundary in their view of the Act of 1*77 i. ,% U is: I I J 1-..' i i^l In the same lecture are given the grounds of the award These arc not .stated in so many words in one passage, ]>ut, on page 422, of the Ontario Boundary Documents, we find that the North-AV'est angle of Lake of the AVoods was Selected as tht^ point of departure of the Western boundary to conform with the Treaties of 1*783 and 1Y9-1: with the United States. The Eastern point of the NortlK^n boundary was fixed on the shore of Hudson's luiy because tlu! Pro- clamation of 1791 placed it at the Boundnrij of Hudson's Bay (p. 423). Then (p. 430) having fixed these two points, they were strongly urged by Col. Dennis to connect them by a natural boundary, and, " being aware that the Hud- son's Bay Company had formerly considered the Albany river a satisfactory boundery," they adopted it as the connecting line. Before entering upon the question strictly of the Bound- aries, your Committee desired to make up their minds as to the value of the mass of Documents issuing from the Crown as Executive ; such as Commissions, Instructions^ Orders in Council, Proclamations. These were much insisted on in the Ontario case, especially by the laymen, and very startling propositions were laid down by the Hon. David Mills concerning the i)rerogative powers of the Crown. He did not, however, perceive that the cir- cumstances of the old colonies of England, settled under Royal Charters, were totally different from those of a foreign country like Canada, conquered by the armies of England, and dealt with by the Parliament of England, both OS to boundaries and government. The basis of their political constitutions w^as different, and no safe induction can be made from one to the other. At the settlement by Statute of 17'74 of the government of the Province of Que- bec, Parliament extended over a definite area a code of laws foreign to English ideas, and recognised a form of religion upon w hich penal laws in England were heavily pressing. By extending the boundaries of the Province, the King would have extended these laws to adjacent territories. Be- 5 [f; Be- yond question the jurisdiction of the offieer, representing the King may be extended ])y commission over the whoh^ artui of British territory in America, and he will repri'sent the King in each section jyro tanto in so far as the constituted laws of each section may ])ermit ; but the boundaries laid down by King, Lords and Commons cannot (any more than the laws) be altered by the King alone. Upon this point, your Committee would refer to the evidence of the Chief Justice (App. A) ; they vrould, however, remark that if Royal Commissions have the potency attributed to th«»m, the latest Commission would appear to limit the l)oundary of Ontario at the Sault Ste. Mario on the AVest. The arbi- trators were not misled by false general notions upon this point, and took into their consideration only one Commis- sion — that of 1701 — which was granted under peculiar circumstances non-existent in re^'ard to the others. Your Committee have had therefore no hesitation in dismissing as irrelevant all the mass of Instructions, Commissions and Proclamations, other than those of 1791, and they cannot refrain from expressing their wonder that so many well-informed men have suffered themselves to be misled in matters which are elementary in public law. It appeared also, from the lecture above referred to, that the Arbitrators took into their purvii' w the treaties between England and the United States, concerning the boundaries between the British Possessions and those of the latter power. In the opinion of your Committee these treaties were irrelevant to the matter in hand. The parties to the treaties were Great Britain and the United States. The matter in dispute was the boundary between the territories subject to these two paramount powers, not the boundaries between the subdivisions of the respective territories. This latter is clearly a matter of municipal, and not of international arrangement. Nor can any pretentions or xirguments put forward at the lime of negociation be of any avail to modify the plain meaning of a Statute regard- I*. I.' I i; M I 6 in^ internal boundaries of Provinces on the one side, as of States upon the other side, of the International line. These preliminary considerations open the way to a clearer appreciation of the dofuments essential in this case. These your Committee venture to think are very few ui number ; and they are those given in the evidence of the Attorney-Creneral at App. D, viz : 1. The Statute of 1774. 2. The Statute of 1701. 3. The Executive Documents purporting to be issued lender the authority of the Statute of 1791, viz : . a. Order in Council b. Commission. c. Instructions. d. Proclamation. Within the compass of these few papers the description of the boundaries of Canada must be sought. All other matter is irreU'vant. Moreover, inasmuch as the Statute of 1791 made no mention of boundaries, it may be eliminated from the present discussion, and the inquiry is narrowed down to the Statute of 1774 and the Executive Documents «, b, c and d; but it must be remembered that the Statute of 1791 contemplated only a state of affairs resulting upon a division not an extension of the Province of Quebec. Upon this present part of the question, the Statute of 1774 is abund .ntly clear. It tool: into its purview the Province of Quebec as erected by the Crown out of the conquered territory of Canada, and it added to it certain territory specified ; and declared that the certain territory so annexed should form part of the Province of Quebec during the Kings pleasure. The Province, so constituted, was limited as to extension by the boundaries recited. The Crown coukl not add to it, otlierwise the boundaries of the neighbouring" colonies stood in danger ; but it was expressly provided that the Crown might reduce the Province to its old limit • ; for the territory then annexed was so aniioxotl (Junng- the ]tha$nre of the Kiug*. Tlio I^arliumeiit thus took tli > matter of l^oundarios out of tho King's prerogative as regards extension aud limited tlio bounds within which the French laws and the "Rom; i Catholic religion were established. Considering then this expression "during the King's pleasure" two qui'stions arise. 1. Had the King the power to exleud the limits fixed by Statute V 2. Did th(^ King purport to do so ? Your Committee would relt-r to the evidence of the Attorney-General (App. 1)) for a full discussion of the second head. They are of opinion that in theory the Crown was powerless to extend the ]>ouiularies, and that in fact the Crown never pretended or intended to do so. There is no fallacy greater than to suppose that a mere verbal discrepancy, an evident chnical or administrative error, occurring in the last dot^ument of a series, based one upon another, can have any effect in modifying the ante- cedent documents. Such a supposition is to reverse the order of things, and to give legislative authority to an administrative officer. The arbitrators, in adopting the language of G-eneral Clarke when it varied from the Com- mission, have made General Clarke extend the boundary of the Province of Quebec beyond the Royal Commission, beyond the Royal Instructions, beyond the Order in Coun- cil, beyond the Statute of 1774. They have interpreted the antecedent and authoritative documents by the mere administrative document, and permitted G-eneral Clarke, or his secretary, to adopt words of his own and extend the boundaries of Quebec beyond the intentions of the King and the limits fixed by Parliament. Your Committee do not think it possible that General Clarke could extend the Province which the King and Parliament intended merely to divide. Analysis of these documents are given in detail iu the Attorney-Generals evidence (App. D) to which My I ii' X. I i ^1 <, 8 your Committee beg to invite the Bpecial attention of yonr Honourable House. The true and hiwful boundaries of the former Province of Quebec must bo sought in the Statute of 1774, and in that alone. Your Committee are of opinion that no reasonable d()u])t < an exist upon this point; and no doubt did exist upon it until the dust raised in the discussion ^vith the Hudson's Bay Company obscured the essential points of the question. In that Statute they are laid down as follows : — " Bounded on the South by v line from the Bay of " Chaleurs, along the high lands which divide the rivers " that empty themselves into the Kiver St. Lawrence from " those which fall into the sea, to a jwint in forty-live '• degrees northern latitude, on the eastern bank of the " liiver Connecticut, keeping the same latitude directly " AV^est, through the Lake Champlain, until, in the same " latitude, it meets the Kiver St. Lawrence ; from thence " up the Eastern bank of the said river to the Lake Ontario ; " thence through the Lake Ontario and the river commonly " called Niagara ; and thence along by the Eastern and " South-Eastern bank of Lake ILvio, following the said bank " until the same shall be intersected by the northern " boundary granted by the Charter of the Province of " Pennsylvania, in case the same shall be so intersected; " and from thence along the said northern and western " boundaries of the said Province, until the said western *' boundaries strike the Ohio ; but in case the said bank " of the said lake shall not be found to be so intersected, '■ tlien following the said bank until IT shall arrive at that " point of the said bank which shall be nearest to the " north-western angle of the said Province of Penn- " sylvania ; and thence, by a right line, to the said north- " western angle of the said Province ; and thence along ■' the iveslcrn boundary of the said Province until IT strike "the Kiver Ohio ; and along the bank of the said river, " westivard, to the banks of the Mississippi, and North- *' WARD fo the Southern boundary of the territory granted " to the Merchants adventurers of England, trading to " Hudson's Bay:' This desi'ription your committee think is, at the least, a very lull one, and any ambiguity in it does not at first glance appear. The boundary is stated to be a LINE. That excludes Mr. Mills' notion of an undefined territory to the North without a Western boundary. L is, moreover, inions of eminent counsel, and indeed there is very little differ- ence of opinion among the lawyers. Mr. liolroyd in 1812, Mr. Cruise in 1812, Mr. S.'arlett in 1813, Sir Samuel llomilly in 1814, Dr. Stoddart in 1819, Chief Justice Sewell in the De Reinhart case, Mr. Justice Armour in his evidence, Mr. Justice llamsay in his evidence, Mr. Justice Johnson in his evidence, all declared that the extent of the grant was up to the watershed, and covered all the lands watered by the rivers which flow into Hudson's Bay. The Dominion Grovernment was wiser than to bring the question before the Courts, and, by pur- chasing the rights of the Company, virtually recognised them. AV'hatever diiference existed among the surveyors and geographers as to the Western limit, all concur in por- traying the height of land as the Northern limit of Canada, and it is utterly impossible that a mere verbal slip in a purely administrative document could affect a matter of so great magnitude. In view ofthese considerations, your Committee feel surprised that the phrase '* boundary of Hudson's Bay " in the commission of 1701 should bo inter- preted olher than as " the boundary of the territory granted " to the Hudson's Bay Company of the Statute of 1774 and of the Charter of 1G70; and their surprise is heightened into wonder when these phrases are taken by the arbitra- tors to mean shore of Hudson's Bay. Nothing but the 1? enormous mass of irrolovant and gossiping liislory and biography, and th\; confusing mviltitudi^ of administrative documonts, liaving no legislative valu(^whi^•ll were heaped upon this case, could ever in the opinion of your Committee have obscured so plain an issue. Westerx Boundary. The Northern l)oundary being, in the opinion of your Committee, the height of land which separates the water flowing into Hudson's IJay from tln^ water llowing into the 8t. Lawrence, they 1. tve very little diiliculty with the "Western limit. It is stated by the Statute to be a line drawn Northwards from the junction of the Ohio with the Mississippi to the Norther), boundary. The words of the Statute are plain enough, but several theories of interpretation are propounded. Some person«, as Mr. Mills, would like to omit the word line from the Statute, and open up the boundary to the Pacific ; others do not propose to omit anything but wish to add to the Statute the i)rovision, that the line should be drawn along the Mississippi ; and others read the Statute without gloss or omission and take northwards to mean ?iorth, and line to mean line. Among the last are found the large majority of professional men — lawyers, and surveyors. As to the first, it was advocated by Mr. Mills, and at one period by Mr. Dawson, but your Committee think that the word line cannot be left out of the Statute ; and they believe that it is less probable that all theofhcials and professional men and the people of Canada and England generally, should for one hundred years have been labouring under a delusion than that Mr. Mills is so alUicted. That the arbitrators got astray into Hudson's Bay is due to the admitted fact that they could find no Northern boundary, and th ught thems.dves ob ged to construct one; but, the Northern boundary once found, the difference between the Dominion and Ontario is a very small one. . In considering this question, it must be remembered 4! I r 14 always that, at the pi'riod (1774) of the SlatiiV.', the wholii country bi'loiigcd to Great liritaiii. Thi; h<'ii»lit oC laud ou tho North, and tlie Uliio ou the South, enclosed a vast solid area of territory compared with wliieh the sinuosities of the Northern houndary wi're trilling'. Now that Uie largi'r portion ol" this territory, beloni^s to the United States, the Southward eurvo of th(^ water-shed assumes impor- tance; for it crosses tli(? International boundary a little AVest of Lake Superior, and shuts in Canada on thi^ West. If then tho second theory bo taken, and tho Northward line bo h<"ld to run along the ^lississippi, it will reach Itasca Lake, tho source of tho River. Thenco it must strike due North until the height of laud is reached whi(^h there is in United States territory, then the line must follow the height of land and enter Canada at Gunllint Lake. Your Committe think that there is much to be said for this view. If the Northern boundary bo (as they believe it is) the height of land, this boundary is the vt?ry utmost that can be ascribed to Ontario, and which indeed, although shutting out the AVestern provinces from the Lake, yet adds to Ontario very little territory. Your Committee, however, are of opinion that in the words of tho Statute alone, the true boundary is to be found. They doubt the propriety of putting into the Statute a clause which was not enacted. They do not find the language in the least ambiguous. It alfords a perfectly intelligible meaning without any gloss whatever, and ought to be taken to have the meaning which lies upon the suriiice. From Mr. Mill's interesting narrative it is evident that the description of the boundary was much debated in the House, and the words were carefully chosen by men who knew the value of words in so important a matter, probably as well as any men now living. They must be supposed to have been competent to express their intentions. It is unsafe to suppose that a Parliament containing men like Burke, Barre and Pownall, has required the assistance of such a mass of •t.i 15 il lust rill iv*^ documouls to o\w out the iiicaniiig of its enactment s. It is witli very threat relurtiuuM^ tliut your Conimilteo venture to leave the lirni "touikI ol' tlm Statute, and embark, lor a moment, upon tlie sea ol" <()MJ(»i'turt\ If, however, a line Northwards may ])> a Nortli-Wi'st line, it may be a Norlh-l'^ast lin(>. It is, moreover, irrational to invoke a (rovernor's Comniisaiou as valid to extend a boundary, and to refuse to admit that a later Commission may contract it. Thus Sir G-uy Carleton's Commission goes to the Mississippi and is valid, but Lord Elgin's (the latest with boundary des(.'riptions) g-oes only to the en- trance of Lake Superior and is invalid. It is not reason- able to vary tin; extent of the lloj'al Prerogative according to the shifting exigencies of argument, and Mr. Dawson in his evidence before the Dominion Committee is, in that respect, strictly logical. Sir Guy Carleton's Commission went to the extreme limit of the Dritish possessions in Ameri(,'a on the West because he was the representative of the King, and a Military (J-overnor commanding in troublous times, but it does not follow, thert'fore, that Parliament intended to extend the < ivil government up to the same extreme limits. Beyond the limits laid down by Parliament, the King's prerogative i;-; supreme; within these limits the King is the chief executive power, the first magistrate for enforcing the enactments of the supreme legislature. It is much more probable, if a line *' Norf/iwards " is to be construed by the circumstances of the time, that it meant a line North-East wards along the Mississippi and the Illinois liivers coming out on Lake Michigan at the present Chicago, and reaching the height of land at the entrance of Lake Suioerior. Such a lino is seen on all the maps of the time. It includes the French settlements on the Illinois, and excludes the terri- tories of the independent Indian tribes. Concerning this line much might be said, and one of the witnesses examined (App. H.) argued with great plausibility for it, but your I" V. 10 Committ«'o think that jiUlioiii,Hi tlit' latest Royal Coininis- 8ion Riipports such a lino, it isoxtrcrnt'ly \11\HiitV5 to wundfi* from the plain Avords of tho conlrollini'- Slalulc. Ilovortini^ to th»' dosrviption in tln^ Statut*', it isovidiMit that th(^ houn Superior, bars Mr. Mills' escape to the West, and coniirms Mr. Justice Armour's view tliat» owing to the chan'jfes caused by the revolt of th(; colonies to the South, the Northern boundary came also to be tli(.' "Western one. Chief Justice Sewell was very clear upon the fact of the boundary being a line and the Arbitrators have taken the same A'iew. On reference to the Statute, it will be seeu that the line eommenc(»s at Bay Chaleur — that it follows along (^erti;.n high lands, — along a parallel of latitude — along the St. Lawrence — along Lake Erie — along' the boundaries of lAmnsylvania — along the Ohio to tin? banks of the Mississippi — specifically qualified by all these stated objects ; but when it reaches the Mississippi the lino is stated absolutely to proceed Northwards, without qualification expressed, to the territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company. The word line is the subject of the whole sentence. It is a line upon the South running "Westwards, but westwards qualified by the words " along the Ohio." "When it reaches the Mis- sissippi it becomes a line Northwards, without any qualification, to a named object. Parliament might easily have added, along the Mississippi, but it did not. Your Committee are averse to speculate upon the cause of this marked omission. It might well be that those members who struggled so earnestly against the extension of the French laws and Koman Catholic religion, were determined not to extend them into unknown 17 3 regions in iho "Wcsl, for tlioro was thou mucli douljt as to tho truo rourso of tln' MissisHippi. At th«' roulhu'iK o of tho two rivrrs is ii point wcstwurd of which it w;us not the will of the suju-cmc Icii-isliitar*' to cxtond tliost; laws, and thi'Tclon^ tlii' line Xortli wards was left without (piali- liratiou in a manner so marked that it could not have btit-n by inadvortt'iKo. Tho military Ciovfrnmcnt extended aloni"' the extreme AVesteru frontier — the !\[i:^sissippi l{iv( hero posts mii^lit exist and arrisous bo kot)t; and General Carleton's commission was thereforo not drawn in the terms of the Statute. Such may, or may not, liave been the reasons for the variation. Your rommittce are not instru indolI*iii(o Ar(, oi' Parliament. ]\[r. Ilodgins was the advocate of Oiilario holoic the Arbiti-ators. It was not becoming- to endeavour to mako him contradict his own pleadinij^. His own opinions ai)poar under (ho surface in .spite of his etForts — tiius [at No. lOl], Iio draws a pi r- fectly sound distinction between the limits of a Province and (ho limits of a commissioned ofllcer's jurisiliodon, from the con- sequences of which he shrinks when ])rcssod. Q. — "Was not the evidence of the other lawyers disoordant? A. — No. Mr. Justice Armour said (No. 5Ti) : " [ do not think "that any lawyer will bo found who will allli-n) I hut any " Proclamation i'or the purpose of dividing; the Pro\ iu>o, or any " Commission issued to a Govei'nor of a Province", can have any *'' effect whatever on the territorial ]iii;ht^' of the proprietors of "the country dealt with"; and ai^niin (p. V.IO), "these com- " missions, being mere instructions to tlie (lovernors, could havo *' no effect whatever in altering tenitorial boundaries. The " Commission of Governor Andros of Connecticul, gavo him " authority to the South Sea. It is only necessary to sLtite this to " show the absurdity of any territorial rights being acquired by " any such means." Then Mr. Justice Ramsay in his answer (No. (>?>0) expressed the opinion which Mr. Ilodgins evidently held but would not develope — " The Government of the Dominion of Canada at the " present day could, doubtless, authorize the Governor of Maiu- " toba to govern the territories beyond that Province ; but the " Government could not extend the Province; that can only bo " done by an Act of Parliament." Mr. Justice Johnson also in his answer (No. olO) says: "of " course any Statute may havo been interpreted rightly or " wrongly by the Executive, but the interpretation could not alter " the Statute"; and [in No. 351] ho adds that lioyal Instructions could not in any way diminish or extend the Province of (Quebec. Again, in the do Reinhart case tho unanimous decision of the Court was against the interpretation of tho Act by tho Proclama- tion, and in favour of interpreting tho Proclamation by tho Act. The&e opinions arc all in accord. i 21 Q. — But (lid not Mr. McDougairs cvitlonce favour tho high prerogative view? A. — Yes. In his opinion it was the prerogative of tho Ci'own to tix boundaries to Provinces. Tlic Act of 1774 ho thinks was Hubject in this respect to the action of the prerogative, becaupo it is stated in the Act that the boundaries mentioned were to exist during His Majesty's pleasure. Therefore, he concludes, inasmuch as the Act lixed the boundaries, and inasmuch as the Act per- mitted the King to revert to tho old boundaries, the King had tlio ' prerogative of lixing them and tho prerogative power of enlarging thorn. (Xo. 0!)2.) Mr. McJ)ougall's opinion is vehemently advocated by the lay- men. Mr. Mills is especially clear, lie saystlio Crown couM (No. 58) fix tho boundaries where it pleased. It could alter or amend them (No. -17). There is no shadow of doubt in his mind as to the absolute power of the King in the matter of boundaries. Then also, Mr. Dawson (p. 174) is an advocate for tho Royal Preroga- tive, for he takes tho latest Royal Commission and argues that it extended tho boundaries of Ontario to Hudson's Bay on tho North, and curtailed them to Sault St. Marie on the AVcst. ]\Ir. Dawson's position is a logical one, and is a reductio ad ahsurdum of the false principles with which tho high prerogative lawyers start. Tlio latest manife.^tation of the Royal will must prevail, if they are strictly logical. Q. — But if tho Statute is so clear how could such discordant interpretations exist ? A. — In consequence o. people reading into tho Statute their own preconceived notions of what it ought to enact. When they feel sure that they have divined from letters and newspapers the secret wishes and intentions of tho Legislators of 1774, they have no hesitation in eking out the defective legislation of that ])criod by supplementary legislation of their own, to which they are pleased to attribute the name of interpretation. By ]\Iii. Than KLIN. Q, — Were there not discordant opinions among tho lawyers concerning the validity of the Hudson's Bay Company's territorial lights ? A. — No. The opinions cited as adverse (pp. 400 anu 403 Mr, Mills' Report) refer only to tho exclusive right to trado which they tb'nk' tho King could not grant.— Tho opinion od p. 404 was clc.ir against the exclusive riglit of trade, but un- certain as to the extent of territoviul right. All other opinions wore throughout in favour of the Company. f B Mr. Cavendish examined. By the Chairman. Q. — I believe you have given much attention to the Boundary Question ? A. — ^Yes. Before my removal to this Province I followed it \Qvy closely, both from duly, as a member of the Dominion House of Commons, and from iiicliniuion. Q. — Did you take any interest in the proceedings before the Arbitrators ? A. — Yes, a great deal. Q. — Wh( ' wore the Arbitrators appointr'd? A. — Those originally appointed did not act. Chief Justice Eichards was first named for Ontario on Nov. 10, 18T4 ; the Hon. L. A. Wilmot was nominated f<)r the Dominion on Nov. 12, 1874. The first became Chief Justice of the Supremo Court, and the second died. The Dominion Government then nominated Sir Francis Hincks. Ido not know the precise date. The Province of Ontario nominated Chief Justice Harrison on July 31, and Sir Edward Thornton was appointed as the third member on the eame day. Q. — When did the xVrbitrators meet? A.— Two of them mot on tho following day, August 1st, 1878, but Sir Francis Hincks being absent, nothing was done. The proceedings commenced oii August 2nd. Q. -H:)w long did the Arbitrators sit ? A. — Upon August 2nd, both the counsel for Ontario were., heard at full length, and one of the counsel for the Dominion commenced his statement. On the following morning before ho resumed Chief Justice Hai-rison announced that if the argument ■could be got through by one o'clock there was a prospect of the Arbitrators being able to agree. 2 pages, and counsel were interrupted 17 times. Tlio argument for the Dominion talie.s up oidy 30 pages and counsel were interrupted (>0 times. During the statement for tho Dominion, it was like a dispuie between judges and counf^eL It must have been discouraging to argue an intricate case before impatient judges, one of whom announced that, practically, thd arbitratoi's had made up their minds on liearing one Bide (mly. Q. — ^Was the award tlien made the same day ? A. — Yes. After the counsel for tho Dominion were heard, tho counsel for Ontario replied and the award was signed and dated August 3rd. By Mr. Thiers. Q. — ^AVhat was the question submitted to arbitration ? A. — To decide tho true w^estern and northern boundaries of Ontai'io. Q. — Was it not to find a conventional boundary, if tho legal boundary coukl not bo found ? A. — No, Ontario wished for a conventional boundary, but the Dominion steadily refused to make any such reforonce. Q. — Is that any whore on record ? A.— Yes. On page 233 Ontario Boundary Papers ; Order in Council May 31st 1872. AikI Eeport of Dojninion Privy Council Nov. 12 187 t (p. 217) recommending arbitration to determiuo the northern and woslern boundaries of Ontario, By Mr. Fiiankllv. Q. — Was the award received with approval ? A. — It was received with surprise. The boundaries awarded ^lf(i ; 21 corresponded to no map, commission, Btiilute, or document of any kind. The fact was, tlio arbitrators could not fmd the northern boundary at all. Chief Justice Ilari'ison seemed to have con- cluded on general principles that the French vi^ited Iludson'ft I3ay before the English settled there, in one of his intcrniptiona ho stated categorically that " before these periodd there can bo no doubt that some Frenchn\en Lad |xenetrated to Hudson'tj liay." (p. 340 Ont. Bound. Doc.) ' t( By Mr. Bacon. Q. — But that was the very point disputed. A. — Yes, but it was a ditlicult assertion to rebut, and Mr. McMahon found it hard to disprove vvhat " some Frenchmen " might have done, lie accounted for all spccilled Frenchmen, but the hypothetical feats of fjome unspecitied Frenchmen Becmcd to puzzle him. By Mr. Sheridan. Q. — Canj'-ou imagine whatChicf Justice llarvison was referring to? Ho must have seen somewhere in the papers a statement which suii'gested the idea to his mind that " some Frenchmen " had visited Hudson's Bay prior to the date named. A. — I think it was this passage in Hon. Mr. Cauchon's paper at p. 350 of lion. Mr. Mills' Eeport. "However strong the " probabilities, therefore, of the Coureurs dii Bols having been " in communication with the great Northern Bay before the '• visit of Hudson in 1010, or of Button in 1G12, it is not " necessary to base any argument thereon." The credit of this paper is claimed by Mr. Dawson in his evidence (p. ICa Dominion Itoport). To speak o£ Coureurs du Bois at the time of the founding of Quebec is a stretch of imagination scarcely warranted even bv the controversial nature of that document. The sixteen sailors left at Tadoussac by Pontgrave in IGOO nearly all perished dui'ing the winter by famine or disease. What transpired during these trading voyages is on record in the works of Champlain and Lescarbot. Q. — Then you think that these were mythical Frenchmen ? , A. — Yes. Frenchmen of the brain, suggested by the exigencies 28 •of the case against tlio lludson's \hy C'oinpaiiy. The other nameless Frcnchinon wlio followed imincclialoly aftor Joan Uoiir- don (p. 301; may l)0 relerrod to the sainu category. !i 0. TiiK SuRVEYoii-riENEiiAr. OF Kewaydin oxamiiiod. By The Chairman. Q. — Yon are, of course, familiar with tiic mayts and documents Itearing upon the question of the boundaries of this Province on the East and South ? A. — It is my duly to keep informed of 8ueh matters. Of hito 3'ears the (jucstion has becomo much encumbered with irrelevant matter, Jind my task is not an easy one. Q. — Do you think then the question is complicated ? A. — On the oonti-aiy, I think it a very simple one; but over pineo the struggle -with the Hudson's Bay Company the minds of many peo])le luivc remained unsettled ; and extravagant claims, made for the i)uriwso of (dieapening a ])urchase, have been taken as serious. J^uv^rmous masses of literary matter have been thrown into ponderous volumes until the real issues have been hidden. Q. — Did not the professional surveyors share in the general confusion ? A. — No. The opinions of the surveyors were generally in accord. It was the amateurs and literary men who mixed up matters. TIu'u it got to be a matter of practical politics and etumi) oratory ; like the Maine boundary question was in the United States. Q. — How can you say that the surveyors were in accord in the face of the evidence at Ottawa ? A. — It is just that evidence which led to my assertion. The amateurs can find no northern boundary; the surveyors ha'.'e no difliculty, they have been drawing it on their maps for a hundi-ed years. The surveyors examined were unanimous in drawing a due north line to meet the watershed of Jludsou's Bay. The amateurs wandered — some to the shore of Hudson's Bay, some to Lake of the Woods, j^onic to the liocky Mountains, and some to m- 2!) tho Paciiic Ocean. One wouM be led to svipposo that (hero hn. 1) ; tlie>o were tbe (»nly profesbional men examined ann (bat tbo line of tbo .statute of 1774 was a due Nortb line, and tbat tbo boundary on tho Nortb was tbo watertibcd of Hudson's Bay. Q. — But Mr. Sax was of oidnion in 1S18 tbat tbo western boundary followed tbo liiver ^lississippi y A. — Yes; Mr. Sax tbougbt tbat a Nortb line meant a lino along tbo river until its source was rcacbod, and tben a duo Nortb lino to Hudson's Bay. Tbe award does not follow Mr. Sax's line, nor, in fact, any line laid down ever before. By Mr. Franklin. Q. — Are tbero not certain fundamental pi-in{'i))les observed l)y surveyors in laying out lands wboi'o no accurate maps exist? A. — Yes; they are nowhere better stated than by tbo Hon. Edward Livingston, Secretary of State for tbo United States. Ho said: "Boundaries of tracts and count i-ies, where tbo region through which tho line is to pass is unex[)l(»red, are frequently designated by natural objects, tho precise situation of which is not known, but which are supposed to be in tho direction of a particular point of tho compass. Where tho natural object is found in the designated direction no question can arise. When its course will not touch the natural boundary tho rule univer- sally adojited is not to consider tbe boundary as one impossible to bo traced, but to preserve the natural boundary and to reach it by the nciii-est direct course. Thus, if after more accurate surveys shall have been made it should be found tbat the north course from tbe head of the St. Croix should not reach tbo high- lands which answer tho description of those designated in the treaty of 1783; then a direct lino from the head of tbo St. Croix, whatever maybe the direction, to such highlamls ought to bo HI 80 »i# V '• I'i adopted." ]^'y a n.mrral boundary aiinialuM'n hnuiidary, they udoptcxl " it." For tlicso reasons, I say that tho wholo Norlhoi-n IJoundary of Onturi) as awarded is a conventional, convenient or forced boundary not answoriiiLC to any map, document, record or statute. l\y Mr. TniKR8. • Q, — Do you iciiow of a similar instance of an arbitrator being unable to lind a boundary. A. — Yes. Jn 18.'51, in tho case of the Maine territory, wlicn the arbitrator, the Kini^ of the Xcthci'lands, was unable to find a boundary which was a legal one, he did not make an award, but Buggested a conventional one. When the arbitrators, concluded that Ontario had no boundary on tho north they whould have done likewise. By Mr. ]\[ilton. Q. — Was the question of boundaries submitted to arbitration by authority of Parliament ? A. — No, the Lieut.-CJovernor's despatch of Feb. 18, 1882, states that " It is not pretended that tho arbiti'ators received any ins- " tructions beyond tho Orders in Council." Q. — Then you think that as they could not find tho northern boundary laid down by the Statute they proceeded to lay down a conventional one. A. — Yes. Q. — You referred to the claims of tho Ontario advocates as ignoring certain Statutes. What Statutes do you moan? A. — I was then thinking of the Statutes for the regulation of the Indian Teri'itorics, and the decisions of tho Courts under them. Under theso claims there could bo no Indian Teri'itorics for they arc all Ontario. I was thinking also of tho colony of Assiniboia with its Governor, judicature, and British troops, recognised, though not erected, by tho Imperial Government and in direct communication with it. By Mr. Bergiiaus. Q. — How do you account for the arbitrators arriving at con- clusions so opposed to all former views ? I 1 A. — Very easily. It was all done in a jump. They started at James' Bay where they had no occasion to be at all. They assumed there was no northern boundary of the Province of Quebec. From Jame«' Bay they drew their line up the Albany Eiver and down the English river. The whole theatre of their labours is in the Hudson's Bay ha^-in and to the north of the northern boundary, consequently they never could find it. The boundary they were lookin/;; for was to the south of them all the Avhile. They never worked in Canada at all. Q. — How did they get to James' Bay in the first instance ? A. — Bs-'cause they worked in the reverse direction of the natural order of things. The north line of the statute com- mences Irom a known geographical point upon the south. The arbiti-ators confess that they can find no true northern boundary, and yet they commence in the north. They argue from an initial uncertainty and they had to begin somewhere. If they had followed the method of the controlling statute, let them draw their north lino where they would it would have cut the water- shed somewhere. Q. — But the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi is now in th© United States ? A. — That is immaterial. Geography does not change with poli- tics. The directions of the statute arc geographical directions. Q. — You have not fully answered my question. There must have been some mention of James Bay in some document ? A. — I think the i-eason they went to Jiimes' Bay is that they took the words of the proclamation of Sir Alured Clarke, "the boundary line of Hudson's Bay," to mean the shore of Hudson's Bay, whereas the statute of 1774, which is the foundation U230n which the whole structure rests says: *' territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company.'* Therefore, because they worked in a reverse order, and modified a statute by a subsequent proclama- tion they arrived at an erroneous conclusion. Q. — If boundary of Hudson's Bay Territory is equivalent to swre of Hudson's Bay, what territory did King Charles grant to the Hudson's Bay Company ? A. — None whatever, except perhaps the islands in it — and the statute of 177-1 is in error — and the whole of the pretensions of England in the treaties with France and the United States regard- ing boundaries have been based on misrepresentation. The water i 11 i 33 of the Bay is, of course, hounded by its shores all round ; but King Charles did not make a cliartor to n;i-ant the water to the Company. The charter speaks of lakes, rivers, and territories in whatever latitude they lie, and the statute refers to the charter which therefore forms part of it so far as the reference goes. !tHE Attornef General examined.?- B^ Mr. Bacon. Q. — Have you examined the award of the arbitrators in the Ontario Boundar}- Question, and ran you inform us upon what it is based ? A. — Yes. It is based upon a Proclamation of General Clarke who was administrator of the goveinment in the absence of Lord Dorchester. This Proclamation is said to bo based on the Royal Commission and Instructions lo Loi-d Dorchester, which are said to rest upon an Order in Council, which is said to be based on the Statute of ITDl. This Proclamation is supposed to have extended the boundaries of the Province of Quebec lo Hudson's Bay and to Lake of the Woods. Q. — Did the Proclamation correspond to the Boundaries laid down in the Commission ? A.— Xo. Q.— Did it correspond with the Instructions!^ A. — Xo, the Instructions referred to the Commission for a statement of boundaries. Q. — Lid the Proclamation correspond with the Order in Council ? A* — No, This divides the Province, but gives no Boundary. Q. — Did the Proclamation correspond with the Statute of 1191 ? A. — No, it had no relation whatever to the Statute in the mat- ter of boundaries, the Statute did not mention boundar ies^ By Ml'. Thierry. Q. — Please go over the chain of events relating to the Procla- mation, 3 r-" J; 34 A— 1st. Thoi-f was a ff^rtaiu tcvv'iioyy known as the Province olQiiclicc. Parliatru'iit in 1 774 fixcrl its exterior boundaries and eHtaltlihlu'd its laws, 'Jnd. 'I'Im- Kinu' ainioiiiiced his intejition to divide this teri'itory iiiti* t\'..* ri'.»\in<('s, and a>l<<'d the i-oncuj'i'enee of Parliament to riials<; a coii^t il iilion for eacii se^^ment. :{id. TIk' I'ailiaiiienl receive signiticalion of the divibion, and ^rant a con^titiillon hj ihe Statute of 171'1 to each portion of the Hpeeilicid tenitoi-v ; to wit the foirner Province of Quebec. 4ili. On Aui;'. 1^4, '7.n, an Order in CVmncii wa« issued to d^vid;' ih(! I'rovinir of Qutuard of the said line of '^ dioinion as u-cre part <>j our said Frocinrc ofQuelhc'' the woj-ds " all the territory to the westward and southward of the said line to " the utmost extent of the country conwionly called or known by th". " name of Canada." § By Ml-. Hacun. (I. Is it upon thi.soidy that the arbitrators proceeded? A. — This i.s the kernel of thi; matter. All the Commihsions an,-! By Mr. Bacon. Q. — You have stated that the arbitrators based their award on the Order in Council of 1191. On Avhat authority do you state this ? A. — On the authority of Sir Francis Hincks lecture (page 423 Ont. Bound. Doc.) ; he says *' in accordance with the Statute of " 1791, an Order in Coimcil was passed authorising the proclama- " tion, which fixed the north eastern boundary at the boundary " line of Hudson's Bay and that I hold (o be a sufficient descrip- " tion of the shore." Q. — But on page 419 he says '' tho uj-bitrators were of Ojiinion " that on this point (the division) the judgment of (he Court " delivered at Quebec in 1818 was correct, and consequently " that the boundaries of Ontario must be limited to those of the " Province of Quebec, as defined by the Act of 1*774." n 37 A. — I cannot reconcile the two Htutemonts. In s^oing to the shore of Hudson's Bay, beyond question, the arbitratc)rs wei-o not following the Satute which saj^s: "Southoi-n boundary of the " territory granted to the Merchants Adventurers." The tirst statement accounts for the result of the award, the second does not. I am confirmed in my view by the Lieut.-Govern(jr o\' Ontario's despatch, urging the i-ecognition of the award upon the Dominion Government. He says, '' in a lecture delivered " by Sir Francis Hincks on the 6th of May, 1881, he states that " the arbitrators were guided in their decision solely by Acts of " Parliament, Proclamations authorised by Orders in Council on " the authority of Acts of Parliament and international " treaties." (Out. Bound. Doc, p. 475.) I jQj, MoNS. CuGNET examined. By Mr. Thierry. Q. — You have, I believe, given much attention to matters eou- nected with the History of Canada ? A. — It has been the study of my life. Q. — Can you tell us when, and by whom, Hudson's Bay was discovered ? A. — There have been various opinions. All concur that it was discovered by an English ship. It has been asserted that Cabot discovered it for Henry VIII. in 1517 ; others ascribe the dis- covery to Fi'obisher ; others to Davis. For my own part, I believe with Champlain that it was discovered by Henry Hudson in 1610. Champlain wa;^ an exceedingly well informed man, besides being a most experienced sailor. Writing in 1632, he states that Cabot visited Labrador, but that Hudson discovered the Straits in latitude 63, and he adds that it may be seen by the map pub- lished in England. There is no reason to disturb the long received opinion that Hudson was the discoverer of the Straits and Bay which bear his name. In Champlain's Voyages, pub- lished in 1613, the Straits and that portion of the Bay now called James' Bay are laid down upon his map, and on an island at the South of James Bay is given " bay where Hudson did wente". 88 » •■ probably a rnirtprint for v/iiitci-. JJe al-o lay^ down " Sali-jberi^ iHlandt " \>.l.«t;rc ai-e Salisbury IslaiidH now, arid " Holde with lioopo, " at llope'n Ad 'anoe Bay. All the names trivoii on Chainjjlain'i rnapM are !']ii^lish names, and while he vindicates witii much warmtli the Fre.ieh elaims to the South — the St. Lawrenee and Acadia — he concedes the Enfi,lish claims to the North, and to Hudson's ]Jay. C^. — Did the English follow up their discoveries ? A. — Yes; in 1012 Sir Tiiomas Button was sent out by the Prince of Wales, lie exploi-ed the whole West coast of the Bay. He wintered at Nelson Kiver, which lie named after the captain of one of liis ships who died there. He called the country about the present Albany River. New South Wales, and that near the present Chiir<'hill, New Noi-th Wales. He ei-ected a cross with the ai-ms of J'ingland. and took formal jjossession of the country in the manner usual in tho^e days. Other En^i'lish sailors succeeded, and in 1(j31, Fok named neai-ly every point of land aloiii'' theshoi'es of the Bay. James about the same time wintered at James Bay, to which ho i;;ave his name. C^. — Is these any recoi'd of Fi-onch vessels havinii" visited the Bay in those early times ? A. — Xone whatever, until they went to destroy the English forts. A story was invented, when the Fi-ench in Canada com- menced to make olaims tlierf^, that Jean Bourdon fi'oin Quebec, visited the Bay in lii.")(j ; IniL this is disproved l)y the fact on record that he wont onl}' as fai* North as 55 degrees. Q. — When did the French commence to lay claim to the Bay ? A. — Aftei- they heard that the English had settled there. They were afi'aid of competition in the fur trade. Q. — When did the Fiench from Canada lirst visit the Bay? A. — The Hj-st Fi'onchmen to reach the Bay were Albanel and St. Simon, and in l(!Tl thoy took formal posession on the shores of the Bay. The Fnglish had taken possession by repeated acts in various parts of the Bay, from the time of Button to that of Fox and James; and when All)aii('l i-tjaciiod thoi'O they were settled at lliipt'i't'.^ Jlivei'. Q.— When did the Ihigli.^h lirst settle there? A. — in l<)()7. Gillani, st'nt out by a com))any of London mer- chants, built a foit at Rupert's River, and in 1G(J9 Nowland, acting foi- the sann; compiiny, bui't a fort at Nelson Rivei". In 1G70 this company was ehai'tered as the Hudson's Bay Company. i 39 Q. — Hud iu)l two Canadians— Kailirt-xm and iirosi«lliiM-s — visiiod L«.>ndon betbre Gillam's oxpodition ■^ailod■.^ A. — Yo>. They know Ity pi-ariu-al oxjm'I'umho ilu- \ a\\u' ot'ilu- I'nr tiado. Thov sailml with liillaiu. J3y the Chairman. Q. — Would not this fact, if setth'd, wi'uUcn in smiu' d(':;ri'«' Uu- credit of the Eni!;lish as tlic tirnt sot tiers? A. — Certainly not. Thoy could tiot toach the Kn-;lish anything about the Bay, for, as 1 hav(^ statoil hct'ori', the l'liii;lish had loiit; previously visited it and had named every j)(»ii\t of land, bay, and river on its Ea-dern, Southern, and Wotern shoi' 'fiu'y had formally taken jiossession of it. The ('anadians im^ht iia\<' stiniulaled the desii-e of the Kiis;lisli to settle lliore peiinaiu'iilly, but the ex])edition was I<]ny;lish, sent out by Jjondun rniMfhaiilH, in English sldps, with an English caj)lain, and iiiidei' the l'jn;;lish flag, i may (^uole as an answer the (pialntly indignant woi-ds of Champlain : — '' Posons Ic ca.s qu'un Mspagnol ou autre est i anger ait descouvert quelqnea terres et i-ichesscs aux despen^ dii lioy deFi'ance, ncavoij* si les Espagnols ouautrc^s ostrangers s'atli ibih- roient les descouvertures et richesses j)our esti-e renlrepreiieur Espagnol ou estrangei* : non il n'y a jjas !i wei-e lij-^t; and if upon settlement, the Eiigli-^h wei-e iiiv-t ? A.— Beyond all doubt the English -citl.Mnent (»!' ICO? ante dated any settlement by the Fi'eiich in the whole baiii ol Hudson's Bay; and its discovery was only two yeuj-n allej' lh<; foundation of Quebec in 1G08 by Champlaiji. 'i'heiM;foi-e it it^ )ioi. imjjortant to inquire into the exploiations of NieoleL, iiudifj-ro/i, '..,!■ 40 and others, beonuso nobody protends that they made any settle- ments prior to 1(!(J7. If it bo ai-^'iu'd that they visited some p(>r- tion of the Hudson's Bay basin prior to 1()()7 no one ever pretended that any such visits ante-dated the visits of Hudson and Button in KJlO-Ti, or of Fox and James. Tlie whole of the facts are eai-efully and succinctly stated in Notes Gr. to L. oi' Mr. Justice Ramsay's lieport to the Dotniniou Government. By Mr. Shakspeare. Q. — Have you road Mr. Mills' Report on this point? A. — Yes ; the value of the statements of Mr. Mills may be nioasured by his contident assertion that Jean Bourdon went to Hudson's Bay in 1650 from Quebec in a bai-que of 30 tons, and took possession in the King's name. Q. — You seem to be of opinion that these French claims were afterthoughts, Avhen they began to fear the influence of England on the fui- trade of the Norlh ? A. — I am. The pi-etensions of the Fj-encli to Hudson's Bay never had any foundation. The English never admitted them, hence the dispute about the woi-d " restore " in the Treaty of TJtrecht. C.'hamplain knew of Hudson's Bay only from English sources. The most cui'sory inspection of any old map prior to 1670 will show the whole nomenclature to be English. Q.--Have you ajiy such maps ? A. — Yes. 1 |)r()diu'e a map j)ubli^hed at Amsterdam by N. Yisscher, a geographer of eminence. It is dedicated to the Dutch West India Company. It is not dated, l)ut Mr. MuUer gives the date as al)out 1670, while Mr. Faribault puts it at 1642. Anyway the lakes West of Niagai-a are not distinguished, but a large sheet of water is given undelined on the West — unquestionably Lakes llui-on and Michigan contused together; and yet on this map Hudson's Bay is given with much accuracy, and every name on it is English. By the Chair. MAX. Q. — But that is a Dutch map, have you any authentic French maps which support your views ? A. — Yes. 1 produce a map published in Paris " avec privilege du Roy," and dated 1G56. It is drawn by N. Sanson d'Abbeville Geogiaphe ordinaire du Roy. In this map very little of Lake ' m. 41 Superior is shown past tho Sault St. Mario. The ivsl of the lake is left indofinito, as unknown. Lakes Mieliin-an nnd JFuron ai-e confused. The map is one coloured at that tin\(' al(tn«;- the dividing lines niai'king the bounilarios of each uMtioii. Xow, althouj^h it is soon at once that Lake Su])ei'ior past the Sault was unknown, all the names on Hudson's Bay arc Eni;lisii names. Q. — Are the boundaries then laid down on this map between the English and French possessions ? A. — Yes; the Xorthern boundary of Canada \vhi7, leaving' sonn who issued ina|)S of later dates, beai'ing his name, witli the houiKlaries ehan^i-ii as the Fieni'h claiiuH varieil. St aftei* Ins death. By M. Permonne de Temiscamaxol'e. Q. — It was supj)Osod, in the Honoi'ahle Mr. Cauelion's paper, to be probable that some Frenehinan reached the shore of Hudson's Bay prior to 1(510? A. — 1 wonder that suppositions of that sort should find place in HeriouH documents. Spanish Bas(jues tdso ti-aded to Tadoussae, and he might as easily sup])ose some Sj)aniard visited Hudson's Bay. Champlain's voyages relate all the occurrences on the coast at that time. He was keenly alive to all that transpired, and worked with Pont!i;i'av^, Chauvin and all who Irequented Canadian waters. Q. — But Mi-. Cauchon thinks +hey were Coureurs du hois f A. — He was wj-iting abrief. He knew beti.er. A sailor visit- ing a coast in summer for trade with the natives is not a Coureur du bois. The Courtars da bois came fifty yeai'i later, and were so called because they left their farms to live with the Indians con- trary to the King's edicts. By the Chairman. Q. — The outline of Hudson's Bay on the map you produce is not correct. A. — It could not be at that eai'ly date; Button's Bay is drawn far south of its I'cal place. The essential point shown is that the Fi-ench laid no claim to any part of the Bay in lOSO, nor to the streams which fall iato it. The whole south coast is coloured red. The Severn river had I'eceived its name, and the shore there is coloured led. The dividing line is iiot drawn so far as the liead waters of the Severn, because the Fi-ench discoveries had not gone past the Sault. It is evident, howevei-, that the drainage basin II :H' 43 of the Svern wuh takoii to bo Ku^lish territory. That sottles the question of the disputed territory. The priiicipK' olthi' mu]) is clear. Q. — In the coloui'iiij^- eoiiteniporaneoUH with tlic ilnii' of ih«t map ? A. — Beyond doubt. It follows the engraved line and eorren- ponds with a smaller copy of the same maj) purchased in I\iris at tt dl'Yerent time and in a ditt'erent place. In both, led is adopted as the English colouj". F. Mr. Twiss examined. By the Chairman. Q. — You have I believe much familiarity with the litei-ature of boundary questions in America? A.— Yes. Q. — Will you give the Committee the benetit ol* ^--our opinion upon the documents submitted in the question of the Ontario boundary ? A. — The first I'cmark which occurs to me is that the case has been overlaid with such a mass of matter that the points of real importance have been covei-ed over. The Dominion was in possession and the case was always thought very cieai-. 'J'hc height of land was laid down as the boundar}' on the North on all the maps, and the children were taught it in the schools. So far from questioning that boundary, the Pi'ovince of Ontario, ad- mitted it in what is called the Robinson treaty. Q. — How was all the extranccis matter first bj-ought in? A. — By the Dominion Government in its atterapfs to force the hand of the Hudson's Bay Comp: .ly. To belittle the rights of the Company, the most extravagant and absurd claims were made to extend the ancient limits 'i^^'the Province of (Quebec, of which Ontario is the ])resent representative in the West. The JJoniinion always refused to submit its claims to legal award, but reiterated them until the North-west teri'itories were acquired by purchase, acknowledging by the purchase the title which it disputed. All 44 the arguinontrt u^aiiiHt the Hudson'H Buy claims wore fii'st formu- lated in detail in Honorable Mi-. Cainiion's Koport prenented in 1857. Q. — What do you connidcr to be the important doeumontH in the discussion ? A— Two Statutes— those of 1774 and 1791— as thai of 1791 did not refer to the boundaries, piactitially oidy one Statute, that of 1774, has to bo considered. One Commission, Order in Council and Pi'oclamation, all in 1791, and the Charier of the Hudson't* Buy Company. Q. — Are not the Treaties of Pea<'e with the United States important ? A. — -Not as regai'ds the limits of a Province lixed by Parlia- ment, to add to it. Portions of such a province might be given up, but if the Crown of England acquired new territory it would not necessarily belong to the adjacent Province if it was outside the fixed limits. By Mr. Berohaus. Q. — What bearing ha^ the treaty of Utjecht upon the question? A. — I think the question can be easily decided without reference to that treaty at all. The Statute of 1774, which is admitted to contain the description of the boundaries of the Pi'ovince of Que- bec, states that the northern boundary of the Province is the southern boundary of the tei-ritory qi^anted to the Hudson's Bay Company. There was but one grant ; viz., the Charter ^A' of 1G70, thei'efore the boundary of 1G70 on the south is the boun- daiy of 1774. You must consider the territorial description of the charter as forming an integral part of the Statute. What was done in the territory in the period between 1G70 and 1774 has no legal bearing upon the question. Q. — That may be; but yet were not the English claims in 1714 and 1783 founded on the Hudson's Bay Company's rights under the charter? A. — Yes. The British Government, in all its negotiations with France and the United States, has uniformly claimed as Hudson's Bay territory uU the basin drained by the rivers flowing into Hudson's Bay. The French from Canada invaded and held for a time portions of this territory. The effect of the treaty of Utrecht is stated by Sir Travers Twiss, (Oregon Question, p' 210,) lit' 46 ■il as follows: ''By tlio lOth nrtido, tho Frenrh Kiii^^ a4;roo(l to " restore to tho <^iioon of (rroat Britaiu, to bo posnosHed in full " ri^hl forever, tin- Bay and Straits of lliulhon. tOH;othor with nil " lands, seas, sfa-coasts, rivers and plaoon, hiiiiatf in tht^ '•aid Bay " and Stniits, and which hcjoii^ thereto; no traets of land or soa " h('\u^ exc('|il«'d, \vlii( h ar(* at prehi'nt possessed by the siibjeetM m|' " France. The only r|iieHtion, therefore, for the eoininisBionerw to " settle were thtOiniitN of the Bay and Straits of Hudson ro/»,s/ " wards, on the side of the French pi(»vine« of Canada, as all "thj country drained by Htreams into the Bay and Straits of *' Hudson were by the terms of the treaty rec'o;,:;nized to Ite part " of the possessioMS of (rreat Britain."' Q. — But did not thiH ti-eaty force frf>ni the French Kin^ an admission of the prior i ii;ht of the English to the Hudson's Bay Basin bydiscovei-y and settlement ? A. — Yes. The ailoplion of the w<>rd " rentore," insisted on by the Kn^lish instead of " code, ' conlaius the admis.sion that the boundaries of Canada pi-operly and originally extended only to the watershed, and that th<^ French occupation of portions of the Hudson's Bay Basin was an invasicm. Ii. that respect it elucidates the statute of 1774, if that requires elucidation, which is clear already. G. Mr. Russell, Editoj- of the \VEPrPL\f; Review examined. By the C^n airman. Q. — Have you given any special attention to the diti'erent documents such, as rejiorts and statementci, issued during the con- ti'oversy between the Dominion and the Pr(»vinco of Ontario con- cerning their respective boundai-ies? A. — Yes ; in onducting my paper I have had occasion to ex- amine them all for review purposes. Q. — As tho repoi-l of the Honorable David ^lill^ was the tirst j)ublisluMl, will you jilcase state your views as to its historical jiccuracy ? A. — 1 dt» not thinU that .Mr. Mills pretended at any time to great historical accuracy. He was engaged to make the best possible plea for extending the boundary of Ontario as far west k .r ;■■;' i'-:L -' , 4- 46 as poRfiible. In doing this he made large use of the material supplied by Mr. Cauchon in the dispute between the Dominion and the Hudson's Bay Company. Everything available had been collected to invalidate the charter of the Hudson'n B.In' Company and to limit its ten-itory. The Dominion failed to bieak down the Company's charter and would not take legal action to test its boundaries, '''ventually the I'ights of the Company were acquii'cd by pnichaso, but the material ol attack remained unused, and Mj'. Mills ap})lied it to the support of the Ontario claims with very great skill. He had a veiy short time in which to prepare his hook. If he had studied the subject longer, he would have been more accurate. Q. — But Mr. Mills made original researches? A. — Yes. And ho made some statements more original than accurate. He states for instance that Hudson's Bay was discov- ei'ed by h'ebastian Cabot in 151*7. Ho adds in a foot note that the company extended tiie name Hudson's Bay ovyr that pait called Button's Bay, thus extending the limits embraced by their charter, whereas the grant in the charter does not mention Hud- son's Bay by name, but all the bays, &c., within Hudson's straits. As for the altei-ations of the names in the maps, the company could not have intluenced all the geographers of Europe. The statements made at page 96 that the charter referred no farther back than to Gillam's voyage in 1667, and that it asserted only a conditional right in the King are incorrect, in the I'ace of the maps of the bay and the language of the charter, and the assertion that Bourdon visited the Bay in 1656 is directly contradicted by the contempoi'aneous account given in the Relations des Jesuites. The whole of the ttatements in this part of the report are based upon ex parte evidence, long subsequent to the dates of the asserted oc- currences. These the English Government at all times refused to admit as correct. They are skilfully woven together to create a false impression that the Fi-ench wore on the Bay before thoEn^^- lish, and thus to extend Canada to the shores of the Bay. By Mr. Tii ferry. Q. — Do you think that Mr. Mills is correct in his assertion that Louisiana was a dependency of Canada? A. — He does not say that. He says that Crozat's chaitor de- clared it to be a dependency of Canada, and then leaves it to be 4t inferred by the reider. He leads the reader also to make the in- ference that at the conquet^t, the country ut the Illinois formed part of Canada. Q. — Was not that the fact ? A. — The contrary wiU appear on reference to '• The present Htate of the Kiuojxiaii .Settlements on the Mississippi, liy Captain Philip Pitman"; L{mdoii, 1770. lie was Eoyal Engineer and Surveyor in Louisiana for live years })revious to that date, and his repoi't was made to the Secretary of State. Mr. Mills gives in appendix G to his volume extjacts from Caj)tain Pitman's lo- port, but he gives onl}' such extracts as ^^uit. The foll'«\vini.'", which will be founfl at page 53, under the heading '"Of the (rov- ernment of the country of the Illinois when belonging to the French," settles the question. "This country, when in possessionof the French, was governed "by a military officer, called the ^Vrajor-Commandant, who was " appointed by the Governor of New Oideans. * * * . * * "Capital ottences were tried by the Council at New Orleans." Q. — What could be gained by such a suppression? A. — The " Illinois " was bounded on the West by the Mis'^iss- ippi, on the South by the Ohio, on tlie North by the Illinois liver, and on the Hast by the Wabash and the Miamis. li, thei'efore, it could be made out that the "Illinois " formed part of Canada at the time of tlio cc>n(|uest, it \vr)uld move the boundary of Canada to the Mis^is:■iJ)pi on the West and thus give moi'c colour to the theory that the Noi-thward line of the Statute of 1774 was a line along the Missis.->ippi. As a matter of fact, the western b'^undary of French Cana lio mihUi \>y the lOn^lish with tliu li'oquois, by which the territory was ceded to the I'^n^lish in trust tnr tlu^ Iroquois previouH to ll\e con(]uest of C-anada. The Iroquois (thiimed it as tlioir country conquei-ed from all the Indian nations. (Outside that line were the? unconquered sava^'e tribes, IVee from all allian('osanm\v.S(im •' dojX'ndtnKMOs ot ('iin.'ida " in llio toi'ins <»(' llic Ti-caty; and, in lator years, when the diM'trdiTH aiao.ii;' tlio fur Iradors arose, Ads of L'ariianu'nl wei'C passed providing l"<»r tlio adiniuistralion of jiislici' there, 'i'lUH polity was ])lainly cxpi'essod in the Procdanialion of 17«J;{, erecting the lirst I'rovinee of (^lU'hee. It cannot he supposed that in 177 ^ all western houndaries wert^ swept away. That act specilically extended the bounda.'ies. Attorney-iieneral Thurlow stated, (|). 25 Cavendish) in the dehate on the act of 1774, that the whole ol' Canada was not intended to he included in the Act. That does not look lilce extending the houndaries to tiK Uocky Mountains. IFe was in a ])08ition f^^o ! • eotk Say Bo luptuicJi. lap Jia 'u V A G ISTE /Situ I'lttje Oujrapjiincliiiiicf . C A '^ iviuj^iu s.^< h /,n..'^*' ' i^ I ri^ ^ ^^^^ Jl^yA WA D A ■ V i: O ujiapiJiaclioiiet^-^^ynnj^^ , A= I E r Mini/iuyiui Puuriter qui . .u ^^^^'^ {idA'r .U ''' Or. jB A nlii'o.f M , cm If J vaUscosec , eitcov .Anorti|>/iou . \^^ tx- lie J^mXraspe Chaleune "'J'Ouo.str Ha Hit cu Halt^ iLind. Eltiajjcts Forlaml lithe l' L Farwtl M E T! OostS'oecli J'Cr> M X P //. rrL i ■ Pichei C A NADA ^aye P'ancfU' ou. da. S"- ID E WTEas't de la. ionciptttnu . .••■■ ilk X^ Vi^jT. da. f-^ofifins ou :'.' :'■' :]< : • jAgarf/T JjoLre, ou. J*ri -. ■ .. 'J--'.': •' '■ ■■:. ■^•^ nouse V Cap di Lt S^ft^rC' I fie J dcfpair OnMt»*A I'rtiKin i A I J.I On I air A I'll II on I , ...W' •^ ^v x^ i^ V >Jt4jua » - A - — ■ -» - . f-l'tirr cir cfivt-rli-s RrlniioiM Co^k'.s (It- Vlip;intc Noiiv'^ .SiifcJe , Nouvcau' Pays Dsis.ct Nouvcllr Anf»lrtcriT Sont tirtti clr" trlh'.< <^«< Ai\f\(ns . llnlLndoi.* . ^f . . A Grande. Riviere de Canada ... H«S^iAimi:N5.«t touJ irs rnviruiu lout (invent Iri Kflaiimii dc.s Ft .inroti . ^at N San.c^^n J 'JbhevilU Uc4}fftafffif iuxlmairi. Ju Eoyf , ^1 A Pari. < CVu'r^t^rrr M/r/^V/v RuejI/if^ua. a I £1^ franco f • Vlrufl- ,iru ■ 7 /' / /' 6 \):. 3 D 0. ^' 0*fO. 72. t . J- lJ,i mil t . t . //. ,////