(4) That the interpretation of Chart No. 375 (Hamilton Inlet), suggested above, is not only the more consistent and probable construction, but is actually that which was intended by the hydrographic surveyor who prepared the chart, is demonstrated by the fact that Chart No. 1422 (Sandwich Bay to Nain), published at the Admiralty, 30 March, 1871, under the superintendence of Rear-Admiral G. H. Richards, F.R.S., Hydrographer—was also the Hydrographer under whose direction Chart No. 375 was published—adopts the same nomenclature for the waters in question as appears on Arrowsmith's chart of 1825. The lake-expansion of the lower Hamilton is designated “ L. Melville ” and the expanse eastward of the Narrows is designated “ Hamilton Inlet (Ivucktoke) (see plan 375).” Thus, Chart No. 375 was unequivocally interpreted by its author in a manner entirely consistent with Canada's present contention and he referred to the area (viz., the true inlet) with respect to which it was intended, as its title suggests, to furnish the latest hydrographic information. In a word, it unqualifiedly confirms, rather than disaffirms, the nomenclature of the Arrowsmith chart of 1825. Even part of the printed note which appears on the latter chart is reproduced on the chart of 1871. There is, consequently, no basis in fact for Vice Admiral Learmonth's assertion “ that Chart 375 uses the term 'Hamilton Inlet' as covering the whole of Lake Melville.” The fact that, in later editions of this and other charts the name “ Hamilton Inlet (Ivucktoke) ” is engraved in a manner which might suggest (though, perhaps, not intended to do so) the application of this description to Lake Melville (which is so specifically designated on all the Admiralty charts) as well as the Inlet, is not a sufficient ground for putting forward this innovation as against settled prior usage.
(5) Again, Chart No. 375 (Hamilton Inlet) published in 1864, is not in any sense the same Chart as No. 375, published in 1876 and bearing the title “ Sandwich Bay and Nain including Hamilton Inlet.” The latter is not on the same scale as the former ; it includes a much larger area ; it does not include lake Melville in Hamilton inlet and has no connection with it except that it bears the same number and, incidentally, includes lake Melville and Hamilton inlet.
Admiral Learmonth states that Chart 320 (No. 13 in the Canada Atlas) “ does not clearly identify the actual geographical locality of Lake Melville and places the comparatively well known name Hamilton Inlet without prominence beyond the Narrows in the margin of the Chart.”
The purport of this statement is not quite clear. Chart 320, as clearly stated in the title, is a chart of “ Lake Melville.” The surveys, though carried eastward only a short distance beyond Broomfield island in the Narrows, were not continued into the Inlet owing to the lateness of the season and the name “ Hamilton Inlet ” was engraved at the outer end of the seaward part of the Narrows merely to indicate that expanse as being the body of water into which the Hamilton river, through its outlet, locally known as the “ Narrows,” debouches.
III. Admiral Learmonth states that, for “ practical purposes a useful Test often adopted in determining what is an Inlet of the Sea is whether the waters in question are permanently navigable by ocean-going vessels ” and that this “ test was adopted by the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Limits of Territorial Waters appointed by the British Government in 1922.” He, further, says that such a “ Test is specially applicable to cases where, as here, no rivers navigable by such vessels flow into the waters under consideration.”
These statements are of such a surprising nature that it is difficult to reply to them. The application of such “ test ” would result in such anomalies and absurdities that it is difficult to imagine a Committee of such high standing adopting a test* that converts the St. Lawrence to Three Rivers, the Amazon for 1,000 miles, the Mississippi to New Orleans, the Yangtsekiang to Hankow and many other well-known “ rivers ” into “ sea-inlets.” Moreover, in many instances, it is absolutely opposed to the usage of centuries and numerous legal decisions.
Probably the nearest analogy to conditions at the outlet of lake Melville is to be found where the St. John river, in New Brunswick, falls into St. John harbour, discharging through “ a narrows ” about one mile long. Above the “narrows,” the St. John expands into a lake designated on the Admiralty charts Kennebecasis “ bay. ” The Nova Scotia and Bay of Fundy Pilot describes conditions at the “ Narrows ” —commonly called the “ Reversible falls ” —as follows :
“ The Falls.—A little more than a mile above the city [St. John] are the Falls, narrow channels about 80 yards in width and about 3 ½ cables apart, where at low tide the surface of the river water is from 11 to 15 feet above that of the sea ; as the ordinary tidal rise is from 23 to 27 feet, the sea level at high water is (except in great freshets) from 8 to 12 feet higher than the
waters of the river.
“ Thus there are two falls during every tide, viz., one outward, and one inward, the vessels can only pass when the waters of the ocean and those of the river are on a level, and this occurs only for the space of about 10 minutes during each ebb and flow of the tide ; at all other times it is either impassable, or extremely dangerous. During great freshets, which generally happen between the beginning of April and the middle of May, from the melting of the snow, the Falls are absolutely impassable to vessels bound up the river, as the tide does not rise to the river level.”
* For obvious reasons, the “ Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Limit of Territorial Waters, 1923,” is a highly confidential document, and it is not permissible to quote the whole or any portion of it. An examination of this document by a representative of the Government of Canada, however, failed to disclose anything which bore out the statements by Admiral Learmonth respecting the adoption by the Committee of such “ Test. ” Further, a member of the Inter-Departmental Committee has confirmed that said Committee did not adopt the “ Test ” referred to.
The foregoing contains some anomalous statements but, apparently the writer intended to state that, during the low-water season, mean tide in the St. John river above the “ Narrows ” is 1½ feet above mean tide in St. John harbour.
In 1908, a line of levels was run from a gauge at Indiantown, on Kennebecasis bay, to the Tidal and Current Survey gauge on Reed's Point wharf, St. John.
The gauge readings at Indiantown during the period, 29 August to 27 September, showed that, during the summer-water season, mean tide in Kennebecasis bay is 2.00 feet above mean tide in St. John harbour.
Dr. W. Bell Dawson states that the difference of level between Half-tide at Indiantown, on Kennebecasis bay, and Mean Sea-Level in St. John harbour, was deduced from observations of the tide at Indiantown, obtained by the Tidal Survey in 1908 ; the tide gauge at Indiantown being connected with the permanent tide gauge in St. John harbour by levels taken by the District Engineers of the Public Works Department.
The Half-tide level at Indiantown was obtained by computing the average level of High Water and the average level of Low Water during periods of a lunar month at a time in the Autumn of 1908, when the water of the river was low. In this way, the true level of Half-tide was obtained, as the mean between High tide and Low tide.
The result in September comprised the lunar period, August 29 to September 27. The result in October comprised the lunar period, September 29 to October 28.
||During Sept., 1908.
||During Oct., 1908.
Half-tide level at Indiantown ; above the Low-water Datum of the tide in St. John harbour . . . . . .
Mean Seal-level in St. John harbour above Datum ; as determined from 19 complete years of observation . . . . . . . .
Half-tide level at Indiantown above Mean Sea-Level in St. John har.
The gauge at Reed's Point wharf was established before 1896 and the readings, therefore, extend over a period of 30 years.
In this connection, a comparison with the Thames is pertinent. The Hamilton river at the foot of the “ Narrows ” has a drainage area of 54,110 square miles. Using the results obtained for the Ottawa river as a basis, namely, a mean run-off of 1 cubic foot per second per square mile of drainage
area, and assuming that the discharge of the Hamilton is two-thirds of the Ottawa, would give an average discharge of 36,073 cubic feet per second.
The “ Encyclopaedia Britannica ” states that :
“ The average gaugings at Teddington for the summer months of the years 1883 to 1900 were in July 413,000,000 gallons a day [767 cubic ft. per second] in August 395.000,000 gallons a day [734 cubic ft. per second] and in September 375,000,000 gallons [697 cubic ft. per second]. The normal natural flow in ordinary summer weather is about 350,000,000 gallons a day [601 cubic feet per second], and of this, after the companies have taken 130,000,000 only 220,000,000 gallons are left to pass over Teddington Weir. After a long period of dry weather the natural flow has been known to fall considerably below 200,000,000 gallons [less than 371 cub. ft. per second].”
In short, the average discharge of the Hamilton would be 47 times the discharge of the Thames in July, 49 times the August discharge and 52 times the September flow.
Down to its expansion into Goose bay, no one questions the identity of the stream claimed by the Government of Canada as the Hamilton. Down to that point, the river current ranges from fairly strong to rapids and falls. At Goose bay, the river expands and for a distance of 80 miles between Goose bay and Pike run, at the east end of Henrietta island, it passes through what is known as lake Melville. Lake Melville has an average width of about 10 geographical miles and a maximum width of 20 miles. In this expansion, the river necessarily flows with a very slow current and the flow is affected by the tidal inflow at the eastern extremity but it cannot be too strongly stated that, except for these modifying conditions, lake Melville is just as much a part of the Hamilton river as any part of the stream commonly known by that name, above Goose Bay. I repeat : That, although increased width and depth slow down the current, the character of the Hamilton river in its Lake Melville expansion is not lost though it is materially modified. Every drop of water that enters Goose bay, unless lost by evaporation, eventually passes through the “ Narrows ” and into the ocean. And that the riverine character is not lost was demonstrated when the precise levels by the Geodetic Survey of Canada proved that there is a descent at the outlet of the lake-expansion of the Hamilton called, for the sake of convenience — “ lake Melville.”
Admiral Learmonth states that Canadian Chart 420 (No. 13 in the Canada Atlas) “ does not clearly identify the actual geographical locality of Lake Melville.”
It is submitted that it is quite clear that lake Melville extends to Henrietta island. If there were any doubt as to the eastern extremity, it would be placed beyond question by the plans to illustrate the Tide Gauging and Levelling operations in the vicinity of Rigolet (No. 15, Canada Atlas) which indicate plainly the eastern limits of the lake.
In the case of large rivers which discharge into inlets of the ocean, such
as Hamilton inlet, it not infrequently happens that the exact point where the river ends and the inlet begins is a question concerning which there may be an honest difference of opinion. There is one criterion, however, concerning which there can be no dispute, namely, that a river does not end until it reaches the point at which it ceases to descend whether part of the fall to said point be measurable or immeasurable.
In the case of the Hamilton, it has been demonstrated that there is a descent to at least as far as Lester point and there are substantial grounds for believing that it falls about 0.1 foot below it and that the river continues to descend to at least as far as Ticorolak and Turner headlands.
Admiral Learmonth's comments regarding the passages entering lake Melville both to the eastward and westward of Henrietta island do not exactly coincide with the facts obtained during the progress of the survey. Generally speaking, navigation through these channels is greatly handicapped by excessive cross currents. Even with a fair tide the greatest caution must be exercised in order to keep out of trouble.
The passage to the eastward of Henrietta island, known as Pike run, at the narrowest point, is not recommended for navigation, except at slack water, even with a fair tide, owing to the great disturbances and cross-currents to be found at this point and combined with a sharp bend of 9 points in the channel.
It is true that the powerful steamer Acadia made this turn against an ebb neap tide, but with great difficulty, and it would be unsafe for a modern freight vessel, with or against the current, as a ship of this size could not be handled with the same ease as the Acadia.
The passage close to the westward of Henrietta island was always used by the Acadia and generally with a fair tidal current, but under these circumstances frequently the cross-currents both above and below Henrietta island were such that the greatest care was required to be exercised. Therefore this channel would not be available for modern freight vessels except at slack water or perhaps at neap tides with a fair current under favourable conditions but could not be attempted with safety at spring tides.
The channel to the westward of Henrietta island is quite out of the question for navigation except for small craft owing to the narrowness of the channel and the strong cross currents.
Observing these strong tidal disturbances from the islands in the vicinity gave one the impression that the slope in the river to the lower entrance to the Narrows would be much greater than that shown by the precise levelling. It is to be regretted that time did not admit of current observations being taken at these points, which would undoubtedly prove considerably in excess of that found in the Narrows off Rigolet.
The Commissioners appointed under the terms of the Reciprocity Treaty, 1854, disagreed respecting the mouth of the St. John river, in New Brunswick. the British Commissioner claimed that a line connecting Sheldon point and Inner Mispeck point designated the mouth of the St. John river, while