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 Brae, 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 Brae is not entitled to be considered a River.

As such Arbitrator or Umpire, I decide that the Brae is not a River.

Dated as 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 Percival, in Prince Edward Island, concerning which a difference of opinion had arisen between Tier 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 Percival is a River.

The Percival is spoken of by Bayfield as a River.

It is so described in the grant of Lot 10, in 1769 ; and like the Stour and the Orwell, in England, owes its waters almost entirely to the Sea.

As such Arbitrator or Umpire, I decide the Percival to be 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 Enmore, 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 Enmore is entitled to be considered a River.

The Enmore was treated as a River in the grants of Lots 10 and 13, in 1769 ; is so recognized by Bayfield ; and has a bar at its mouth, formed by the conflict of the tides and the descending stream.

As such Arbitrator or Umpire, I decide the Enmore to be 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 Ox, 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 Ox is not entitled to be considered a River.

As such Arbitrator or Umpire, I decide that the Ox 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 Haldiman, 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 Haldiman is entitled to be considered a River.

The Haldiman is described as a River in the grant of Lot 15, in 1769 ; and is so regarded by Bayfield.

As such Arbitrator or Umpire, I decide the Haldiman to be 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 Sable, 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 Sable is not entitled to be considered a River.

As such Arbitrator or Umpire, I decide that the Sable is not a River.

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

I come now to the second division, namely :— The Miramichi and Buctouche, being admitted to be Rivers, which of the lines pointed out by the Commissioners shall respectively designate the mouths of those Rivers ?

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 mouth of the Miramichi, in the Province of New Brunswick, 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. 2, of their proceedings, declare as follows.

With reference to the Miramichi, it will be seen by Record No. 2 :—“ Her Majesty's Commissioner claims, that a line connecting Fox and Portage Islands, (marked in red, Plan No. 2, Record Book No. 2,) designates the mouth of the Miramichi River. The United States Commissioner claims that a line from Spit Point to Moody Point, (marked in blue, Plan No. 2, Record Book, No. 2,) designates the mouth of said River.

By the Treaty it is provided that—“ the above mentioned liberty applies solely to the Sea Fishery ; and that the Salmon and Shad Fisheries, and all Fisheries in Rivers, and the mouths of Rivers, are reserved exclusively,” &c., &c.

The preceding portion of Article 1st gives the right to Fish—“On the Sea Coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbours and creeks.”

The inner Bay of the Miramichi, and the harbour of Buctouche, are, among other grounds, claimed as coming within the definition of “ bays and harbours,” and it has been urged that the clause just referred to, is conclusive in favour of that claim, whether such bay or harbour does, or does not, constitute the mouth of a River.

It is, therefore, necessary, before deciding which of the lines above designated as the mouth of the Miramichi, is the correct one, to dispose of this preliminary question,—namely :—Does the mouth of a River forfeit its exclusive character, under this Treaty, because it may constitute a bay, or harbour ? Is the restriction imposed limited to particular fish, or locality ? The spirit with which this Treaty was made, and the object it has in view, demand for it the most liberal construction ; but, consistently with the most liberal construction, there are many wise and judicious reasons why the exception should be made. The joint or common Fishery in those places where the forbidden fish resort, would be a prolific cause of dispute. The very fact that, after the forbidden fish are named, there should follow the significant expression that all Fisheries in those places should be reserved, is conclusive as to the idea predominant in the minds of the framers of the Treaty. They wanted peace ; they would not put the Fishermen of the two nations together, on the same ground, where they would have unequal rights. Considerations of a national, administrative, or fiscal character, may have determined them to exclude the entrances of the great thoroughfares into the respective countries, from a common possession. There are large and magnificent bays, and harbours, unconnected with rivers ; there are bays, and harbours, dependent upon, and formed by the mouths of Rivers. The terms are not indicative of locality. Bays and harbours may be found far up in the interior of a country ; in lakes, or in rivers ; and on the sea-board. The “ mouths of rivers,” are found only in one locality,—namely, in that part of the River by which its waters are discharged into the Sea or Ocean ; or into a Lake, and that part of the River is, by the express language of this Treaty, excluded. Is the use of a term which may be applicable to many places, to supersede that which can only be applied to a particular place, when the latter is pointedly, eo nomine, excluded ? But why should such a construction be required, when the object of the Treaty can be attained without it ? The cause of the difficulty was, not the refusal to permit a common Fishery within the mouths of Rivers, but within three marine miles of the sea coast. That difficulty is entirely removed by the liberty to take Fish “ on the sea coast and shores, and in the bays, harbours, and creeks, without being restricted to any distance from the shore.”

The position taken by the Commissioner of the United States, is further pressed, upon the ground,—“ That the terms of a grant are always to be construed most strongly against the granting party.” The application of

that principle to the present case is not very perceptible. This is rather the case of two contracting parties exchanging equal advantages ; and the contract must be governed by the ordinary rules of interpretation. Vattel says,—“ In the interpretation of Treaties, compacts, and promises, we ought not to deviate from the common use of the language, unless we have very strong reasons for it.” And,—“ When we evidently see what is the sense that agrees with the intention of the contracting parties, it is not allowable to wrest their words to a contrary meaning.” It is plain that the framers of this Treaty intended to exclude the “ mouths of rivers ” from a common possession. Ought we, by construing the terms of the Treaty most strongly against the nation where the River in dispute may happen to be, to “ wrest their words to a contrary meaning ? ” I think not.

Mr. Andrews, for many years the United States Consul in New Brunswick and in Canada, a gentleman whose great researches and untiring energies were materially instrumental in bringing about this Treaty, and to whom the British Colonies are much indebted for the benefits they are now deriving, and may yet derive, from its adoption, thus speaks of the Miramichi, in his Report to his Government, in 1852 :—“ The extensive harbour of Miramichi is formed by the estuary of the beautiful River of that name, which is two hundred and twenty miles in length. At its entrance into the Gulf, this River is nine miles in width.”

“ There is a bar at the entrance to the Miramichi, but the River is of such great size, and pours forth such a volume of water, that the bar offers no impediment to navigation, there being sufficient depth of water on it at all times, for ships of six and seven hundred tons, or even more. The tide flows nearly forty miles up the Miramichi, from the Gulf. The River is navigable for vessels of the largest class full thirty miles of that distance, there being from five to eight fathoms of water in the channel ; but schooners and small craft, can proceed nearly to the head of the tide. Owing to the size and depth of the Miramichi, ships can load along its banks for miles.”

In Brookes' Gazetteer, an American work of authority, the width of the Potomac, at its entrance into the Chespeake, is given at seven and a half miles.

In the same work, the mouth of the Amazon is given at “ one hundred and fifty nine miles broad.”

In Harper's Gazetteer, (edition of 1855), the width of the Severn, at its junction with the Bristol channel, is given at ten miles across. That of the Humber, at its mouth, at six or seven miles ; and that of the Thames, at its junction with the North Sea, at the Nore, between the Isle of Sheppey and Foulness Point, or between Sheerness and Southend, at fifteen miles across. And the Saint Lawrence, in two different places, in the same work, is described as entering “ the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, at Gaspe Point, by a mouth one hundred miles wide.” And also, “ that at its mouth, the Gulf

[1927lab]