On an examination of these Acts, it will be found, that the Legislature of the Island has, by a continued series of enactments, extending over a period of thirty years, legislated upon the “rivers,”—“ bays,”—“ creeks,”—“ harbours,”— and “lesser streams,”—of the Island, recognizing their existence, and difference,—appropriating the local revenues to their improvement—establishing rights, and creating private interests with reference to them, entirely inconsistent with their being aught but the internal waters, and Rivers of the Island, and directly at variance with the terms and character of legislation, which would have been used, had they been considered “ arms,” or mere “ inlets of the Sea.” Such acts by the Congress of the United States, or by the respective Legislatures of the several States, on any matter within their jurisdiction, would be regarded as conclusive of the character of the subject legislated upon. The legislation of Prince Edward Island, in pari materia, is entitled to the same consideration. The British Government, at the present day, neither legislates away, nor interferes with, the local administration of the affairs of the Colonies. This very Treaty is dependent upon the action of the Provincial Parliaments, and based upon the preservation of private rights. Can it be contended, or shall it be admited, that this Treaty abrogates the legislation of years, ignores the laws of the Island, and, by implication, annuls rights and privileges the most sacred a colony can possess ? Certainly not. If it be desirable, from the peculiar conformation of this Island and its waters, that the latter should be viewed in a light different from that in which they have been hitherto regarded, the local Legislature can so determine.

In a very important decision in the Supreme Court of Iowa, reported in the American Law Register, issued at Philadelphia, in August, 1857, it was determined,—“ That the real test of navigability in the United States, was ascertained by use, or by public act of declaration ; and that the acts and declarations of the United States, declare and constitute the Mississippi River, a public highway, in the highest and broadest intentment possible.” Shall not therefore the public acts and declarations, of the Legislature of Prince Edward Island, be considered of some authority, in determining what are the Rivers of that Island ?—and particularly when those acts and declarations were made long anterior to the present question being raised ? But might it not also be assumed, that where a country had, by a long series of public documents, legislative enactments, grants and proclamations, defined certain waters to be Rivers, or spoken of them as such, or defined where the mouths of certain Rivers were, and another country subsequently entered into a treaty with the former respecting those very waters, and used the same terms, without specifically assigning to them a different meaning, nay, further stipulated that the Treaty should not take effect in the localities where those waters were, until confirmed by the local authorities,—might it not be well assumed that the definitions previously used, and adopted, would be mutually binding in interpreting the Treaty, and that the two countries had consented to use the terms in the sense in which each had before treated them in their

public instruments, and to apply them as they had been previously applied, in the localities where used ? I think it might.

Admiral Bayfield did not intend by the term “ sea creeks,” as he informed me in reply to a communication on this subject, to convey the impression contended few by the United States Commissioner, that they were not Rivers. He says, under date of 3rd September, 1857 :—“ With reference to the term 'sea creeks,' to which your attention has been called, as having been used by me at page 92, “ and various other parts of the Directions, I have used that term in order to distinguish the inlets from the small streams (disproportionably small in summer) that flow through them to the sea.”

“ In the instances referred to, I mean by ' sea creeks,' inlets formed by the combined action of the Rivers and the tides, and through which those Rivers flow in channels, more or less direct, and more or less plainly defined by shoals on either side. Whenever there are bars across the inlets, as is very generally the case, I consider the channels through those bars, to form the common entrances from the Sea to both inlets and Rivers ; for it appears to me that a River is not the less a River, because it flows through a creek, an inlet, or an estuary. The point where the fresh water enters the estuary, and mixes with the tide waters, may be miles inland, but it does not, I think, cease to be a River until it flows over its bar into the Sea.”

This view of Admiral Bayfield, that such waters do not lose their character as Rivers because flowing through an inlet, or an estuary, is confirmed by the principles laid down to determine what are “ navigable ” Rivers, in the technical sense of the term, as distinguished from its common acceptation. To the extent that fresh waters are backwardly propelled by the ingress and pressure of the tide, they are denominated navigable Rivers ; and to determine whether or not a River is navigable, both in the common law and in the Admirality acceptation of that term, regard must be had to the ebbing and the flowing of the tide. In the celebrated case of the River Bann, in Ireland, the Sea is spoken of, as ebbing and flowing in the River. These principles are recognized in the Courts of the United States and the authorities collated, and most ably commented upon by Angel.

Indeed, it would seem that the Commissioners themselves have not attached to this term, “ sea creeks,” as used by Admiral Bayfield, the force or character which it is now alleged it shall bear, as they have by their Record. No. 10, under the 27th September, 1856, transmitted to me with the other official documents in this matter, pronounced the “ Montague ” to be a “ River,” and determined upon its mouths, though Admiral Bayfield, in his Sailing Directions, before referred to, page 123, speaks of it as a “ sea creek.” It has been urged, that if these places are declared to be Rivers, and not creeks or harbours, then where are the creeks and harbours contemplated by the Treaty ? To this it may be answered, that this Treaty does not contemplate Prince Edward Island alone—and even though none such might be found within its narrow circle— yet they may be found in numbers along the five

thousand miles of coast, exclusive of Newfoundland, which this Treaty covers, extending from the 36 parallel of North latitude in the United States, to the furtherest limits of Labrador.

With these preliminary observations, I shall take up the disputed places in Prince Edward Island, and proceed to decide upon them, in the order in which they have been submitted:—

I, the undersigned Arbitrator or Umpire, under the Reciprocity Treaty, concluded and signed at Washington on the 5th day of June, A.D. 1854, having proceeded to, and examined, the Vernon, in Prince Edward Island, concerning which a difference of opinion had arisen between Her Britannic Majesty's Commissioner, and the Commissioner of the United States, as disclosed in Record No. 11, of their proceedings, am of opinion, that the Vernon is entitled to be considered a River.

It has, at low tide, water for boat and shallop navigation. It has good breadth, requiring a long and strong bridge to cross it. Vessels are built two miles from its mouth. As you drive along its banks there would be no hesitation in speaking of it, were no question raised, as a River. It would appear as if the salt water were an intrusion into a channel, formed and supplied by a running stream, enlarging and deepening the channel, but finding it there, the banks and surrounding lands all bearing towards the Vernon, the same relative formation as the banks towards admitted Rivers. It is spoken of in Bayfield's Sailing Directions as a River, and as such in various Acts of Assembly.

As such Arbitrator or Umpire, I decide that the Vernon is a River.

Dated at Saint John, in the Province of New Brunswick, this 8th day of April, A.D., 1858.

I, the undersigned Arbitrator or Umpire, under the Reciprocity Treaty, concluded and signed at Washington, on the 5th day of June, A.D., 1854, having proceeded to, and examined the Orwell, in Prince Edward Island, concerning which a difference of opinion had arisen between Her Britannic Majesty's Commissioner, and the Commissioner of the United States, as disclosed in Record No. 11, of their proceedings, am of opinion that the Orwell is entitled to be considered a River.

It is spoken of by Bayfield, in conjunction with the Vernon, as a River ; has been recognized as such in the Public Acts of the Island ; and described

under that designation as a boundary in the ancient grants, as far back as 1769.

As such Arbitrator or Umpire, I decide that the Orwell is a River.

Dated at Saint John, in the Province of New Brunswick, this 8th day of April, A.D., 1858.

I, the undersigned Arbitrator or Umpire, under the Reciprocity Treaty, concluded and signed at Washington, on the 5th day of June, A.D., 1854, having proceeded to and examined the Seal, in Prince Edward Island, concerning which a difference of opinion had arisen between Her Britannic Majesty's Commissioner, and the Commissioner of the United States, as disclosed in Record No. 11, of their proceedings, am of opinion that the Seal is entitled to be considered a river.

The Seal is spoken of by Bayfield as a River, and recognized as such in the public Acts of the Island. It is a small tributary of the Vernon, and as such Arbitrator or Umpire, I decide that it is a River.

Dated at Saint John, in the Province of New Brunswick, this 8th day of April, A.D., 1858.

I, the undersigned Arbitrator or Umpire, under the Reciprocity Treaty, concluded and signed at Washington, on the 5th day of June, A.D. 1854, having proceeded to, and examined, the Pinnette, in Prince Edward Island, concerning which a difference of opinion had arisen between Her Britannic Majesty's Commissioner, and the Commissioner of the United States, as disclosed in Record No. 11, of their proceedings, am of opinion, that the Pinnette is a tidal basin, or harbour, and as such Arbitrator or Umpire, I decide that it is not a River.

Dated at Saint John, in the Province of New Brunswick, this 8th day of April, A.D., 1858.

I, the undersigned Arbitrator or Umpire, under the Reciprocity Treaty, concluded and signed at Washington, on the 5th day of June, A.D. 1854,

having proceeded to, and examined, the Murray, in Prince Edward Island, concerning which a difference of opinion had arisen between Her Britannic Majesty's Commissioner, and the Commissioner of the United States, as disclosed in Record No. 11, of their proceedings, am of opinion that the Murray is entitled to be considered a River.

The Murray is a River, and entitled to be so considered in view of its abundant supply of fresh water, its formation, and deep and navigable channel. By reference to the original grants, 1769, of Lots 63 and 64, bordering on the Murray, it will be seen that the Crown, at that early day, drew the distinction between the river, the harbour, and the sea coast, and bounds these lots by the harbour and river, and by the sea coast, respectively. It is also recognized in the public acts of appropriation of the Island, under that designation.

As such Arbitrator or Umpire, I decide that the Murray is a River.

Dated at Saint John, in the Province of New Brunswick, this 8th day of April, A.D., 1858.

I, the undersigned Arbitrator or Umpire, under the Reciprocity Treaty, concluded and signed at Washington, on the 5th day of June, A.D. 1854, having proceeded to, and examined the Cardigan, in Prince Edward Island, concerning which a difference of opinion had arisen between Her Britannic Majesty's Commissioner, and the Commissioner of the United States, as disclosed in Record No. 11, of their proceedings, am of opinion that the Cardigan is entitled to be considered a River.

It is so described by Bayfield. It bears a close resemblance to the Montague and the Elliot, which have been declared by both Commissioners, as appears by Records Nos. 9 and 10, to be Rivers. It is so designated by the Crown, in the grant of Lot 34, in 1769 ; and has been repeatedly recognized as such by the Legislature.

As such Arbitrator or Umpire, I decide that the Cardigan is a River.

Dated at Saint John, in the Province of New Brunswick, this 8th day

I, the undersigned Arbitrator or Umpire, under the Reciprocity Treaty, concluded and signed at Washington, on the 5th day of June, A.D. 1854, having proceeded to, and examined the Boughton, in Prince Edward Island,

[1927lab]