"Great Britain." His views on the different points of controversy are fully explained in the volumes published under the authority of the Government of Ontario.

Mr. William McD. Dawson, who was the first to investigate the case on the part of Canada, in .857, than whom no one should have a more thorough knowledge of the subject, expressed himself as follows:

By Mr. Mousseau :

"Q. Have you examined the boundary prescribed by the Arbitrators appointed "by the Dominion and the Province of Ontario, and can you state upon what ground "of history or fact it rests, or can be maintained ?-With all possible respect for the "Arbitrators, two of whom I have known well and esteemed highly, and the other of "whom, occupying a diplomatic position that commands the confidence and respect of "two great nations, is entitled to the highest consideration, I must nevertheless "candidly say, that their decision has no basis whatever of history or fact to sustain "it. If the Arbitrators conceived that they were to make a boundary, it was, of course, a matter of opinion as to where it would be suitable to place it, in which they would "be right to exercise their own judgment and views of expediency; but if they had merely to examine and declare where the boundary was, or where it had ever been, "they have adopted that which was not a possible one. They had, I think, one of "three things open to them to declare. 1st. That Ontario embraced the whole North"West Territory under the Proclamation of 1791, which I have just dismissed as "untenable. 2nd. That it was bounded by the line prescribed by the Quebec Act in "1774; or 3rd. That a more recent definition, which they seem to have intended to "adopt in part, should prevail. The boundary they have adopted was not a possible (6 one under any circumstances.

"As to the first, apart from the untenable character of any proposition based upon "the Proclamation of 1791, with the analysis I have just given of its contents, I think "that Ontario practically entered Confederation without it, as well as that Confedera"tion would have been practically impossible with it, as the smaller Provinces would "not have consented to stand like pigmies beneath the shadow of a colossus; assuredly, objection would have been taken by Lower Canada, already stripped by the "division of the Province in 1791 of the just inheritance of her people (jointly con"sidered as regards both races), and a new Province established in the very garden of "the then available country, whose people, rapidly accumulating the wealth that soil "and climate poured for them into the lap of plenty, have been sometimes but too "ready to decry the less rapid advance of those whose lot has been cast in the more "sterile regions of the north; and finally, if Ontario even had any such colorable "claim, she abandoned it when a majority of her representatives voted for the erec"tion of the Province of Manitoba

"As to the 2nd, had the British North America Act declared that the Province of "Ontario should consist of Upper Canada as it had existed for 47 years, from 1791 till "1858, instead of as it existed at the passing of that Act, it would very clearly have "embraced all that it had originally possessed as the western division of the former "Province of Quebec; but its description having been changed by competent author"ity at the last named date, it ceased to have the same boundaries as before and "entered Confederation as it then existed.

"On the 3rd alternative, therefore, that was open to the Arbitrators, and wh ch "they seem to have intended to, and did, in part, adopt, I would observe that, for "a consecutive period of 47 years, in every document issued by competent authority, "after describing the divisional line drawn due north from the head of Lake Temiscaming "to the boundary line of Hudson's Day," the Province of Upper Canada was "declared in the most brief and intelligible language as simply "to comprehend all "such lands, territories and islands lying to the westward of the said line of division as were part of our Province of Quebec." Its boundary on the north, therefore, was "the boundary line of Hudson's Bay,' which, by the statute which gave a limit to "its boundary in that direction, necessarily, was the southern boundary of the Hud"son's Bay Company's territories, wherever that might be found. It was positively

"restricted by statute from going further. Its westerly extension has already been "fully dealt with.

"In 1838, however, the description was entirely remodelled, all reference to what "it had been as a division of the former Province of Quebec expunged, a new descrip"tion formulated and a new, distinct and, in some respect, entirely different boundary "given to Upper Canada by competent authority, as embodied in the commission to "Lord Durham, and continued in every succeeding description thereafter.

6

"By this new boundary the Province of Upper Canada was extended on the "north to the shore' of Hudson's Bay, and curtailed on the west to the entrance "into Lake Superior.'

"I observe that it has been contended that "the boundary line of Hudson's Bay" "and the shore of Hudson's Bay' were convertible terms and meant one and the "same thing. I cannot admit this; the law does not admit it, for it has declared that a territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company existed, and if it existed it had "to be found somewhere between its southern boundary and the shore of Hudson's Bay, and its southern boundary being, by statute law, the northern boundary of the "Province of Upper Canada, it could n't be identical with the shore of Hudson's Bay.

"The question then arises, had the Crown the prerogative right o extend the "boundary of Upper Canada to the north beyond that provided by statute, and if so "did that right include the power to extend it over any part of the Hudson's Bay "Company's territories? On this point, it may be observed that the Hudson's Bay "Company's territories had already been put by law (Act of 1821) very effectually "under the Government of Upper as well as Lower Canada-reserving whatever "peculiar rights may have appertained to them under their charter. The Hudson's "Bay Company were a trading concern, having certain rights, but they were not a government-rotwithstanding that they made some efforts in that direction, "and, I see nothing in the law, as it then stood, to render it incompatible for the Royal prerogative to have extended the limits of Upper or of Lower Canada over these "territories, reserving the rights of the Company as the law already did.

"This seems to have been the view taken by the Arbitrators, for they commence "their description at the shore of Hudson's Bay, where an extension of the due north "line from the head of Lake Temiscaming would reach it.

"It would not, however, appear to be the view taken by the Department of the "Interior, if I may judge by the Dominion maps issued since thé si ting of the Arbi"trators, for these maps carry the boundary of Ontario to the shore of Hudson's Bay, "as if the Arbitrators had made a boundary there, but do not carry the contiguous "boundary of Quebec to the same point, but indicate it as extending only to what may "have been considered the boundary line of Hudson's Bay.' The Department must "necessarily be in error in this, for the Arbitrators have not made or declared a boun"dary for Ontario between these points. They have assumed it as existing by com"mencing at the shore of Hudson's Bay, but if the Department is right there is a hiatus "and no legal boundary whatever provided for Ontario in the large gap between the "point where the boundary of Quebec is made to terminate and the point where the "Arbitrators commence their description, for if they were right in commencing there, "Quebec also extends contiguously to the same point, as the same extension of Lower "Canada to the north was made in 1838 as of Upper Canada, in a separate and distinct "description.

"I think, therefore, that in commencing their description at the shore of Hudson's "Bay, the Arbitrators were correct, and that the Crown had the prerogative right to "extend the boundary to that point, just as the first Province of Quebec was created "in 17 3; and as the extended Province of Quebec might have been further added to "by Proclamation in 1791, had it been so done by proper authorization, and con"veyed in intelligible language, which it was not.

"I now come to the other point, the curtailment of the Province on the West by the "same instrument the Arbitrators have recognized as extending it on the North.

By that instrument it will be seen that all reference to the former Province of "Quebec, to be found in every descriptive act of authority for the preceding 47 years,

"is entirely dropped, and a new description, complete within itself, formulated, not resting upon any previous law, proclamation or order. From that date the Province "of Upper Canada no longer subsisted as a divisional part of the old Province of Que"bec; it subsisted from that date independently, on the merits of the description by "which it was duly designated by competent authority, and by which its limits were "extended to the shore' of Hudson's Bay on the north, and curtailed to the entrance "'into Lake Superior' on the west. I apprehend that there can be no constitutional "objection to the prerogative right of the Crown to make the extension. Those who "maintain that the Province of Quebec was extended by the Proclamation of 1791 26 cannot, at least, controvert it. If, then, it was a constitutional exercise of the pre"rogative to extend it to the north, as assumed by the Arbitrators and acquiesced in by Ontario, how can the legal exercise of the prerogative, authorized by a specific "provision of statute law to curtail it in the west, be denied? That specific provision "of law will be found in the Quebec Act of 1774, enlarging the Province by certain "additions that were to subsist only 'during His Majesty's pleasure,' by which power was undoubtedly given to the Crown to curtail it again, which was done by the new "and specific description most carefully and minutely drawn up for the Earl of Dur"ham in 1838, and continued thereafter.

"I conclude, therefore, that the Arbitrators wore right in their construction of "that part of the description of Upper Canada existing at the time of the passing of "the B. N. A. Act-as it was, in fact, contended for by the Ontario Government-by "which the Provinces had been, about thirty years before, extended to the shore of "Hudson's Bay; and that, whether from their not being experts in matters of the "kind, accustomed to deal with matters of boundary, or from the exceedingly defective 46 manner in which the case for the Dominion was placed before them-which was, in "fact, no case at all-they failed to give effect to the whole description, on one part "of which they acted, and consequently failed to define correctly the western limit of "the Province.

"The following is the description of Upper Canada as it entered Confederation:"The said Province being bounded on the east by the line dividing the Province "from Lower Canada, beginning at a stone boundary on the north bank of Lake St, "Francis, at the cove west of the Point au Beaudet, on the limit between the Township "of Lancaster and the Seigneurie of New Longueuil, running along the said limit in the "direction of north thirty-four degrees west, to the westernmost angle of the said "Seigneurie of New Longueuil; thence along the north-western boundary of the "Seigneurie of Vaudreuil, running north, twenty-five degrees east, until it strikes the "Ottawa River, to ascend the said river into the Lake Temiscaming; the said Pro"vince of Upper Canada being also bounded by a line drawn due north from the head "of the said Lake until it reaches the shore of Hudson's Bay; the said Province of "Upper Canada being bounded on the south, beginning at the said stone boundary "between Lancaster and Longueuil, by the Lake St. Francis, the River St. Lawrence,. "the Lake of the Thousand Islands, Lake Ontario, the River Niagara, which falls (leads) "into the Lake Erie, and along the middle of that lake; on the west by the channel of "6 Detroit, Lake St. Clair, up the River St. Clair, Lake Huron, the west shore of Drum"mond Island, that of St. Joseph and Sugar Island, thence into Lake Superior."

"The description given as to its easterly boundary from the Ottawa, is a due north "line to the shore of Hudson's Bay, and as its westerly limit the commencement of "Lake Superior; and taking the description simply on its own merits, on the one point as well as the other, its westerly boundary must run from its extreme westerly "extension where it enters Lake Superior, parallel to its eastern, due north to the "shore of Hudson's Bay."

The Hon. Wm. McDougall, C.B., M∙P., in his evidence, as well as in a memorandum which he wrote for the Government of Ontario, which will be found in the appendix, holds that the western boundary of Ontario extends to the north-west angle of the Lake of the Woods. Both he and the Hon. Mr. Mills dwell a good deal on what they conceive to have been the intentions of the Imperial Parliament in passing the Quebec Act, but in the opinion of your Committee it would be difficult to

arrive, with any degree of precision, at the views of men who lived in very troubled times over a hundred years ago, and they would consider it rather unsafe to go beyond the Act itself for evidence of the intentions of its framers, or outside the official documents issued under its authority for its interpretation. Besides, in those times the Parliamentary debates were not published, and the only record of the discussion on the Quebec Act is a book bearing the title of the "Cavendish Debates," which first saw light 65 years after the date of the occurrences to which it refers. Judge Johnson, on being interrogated as to the value of these debates as an authority, said: -"They would have the authority of any reports, if published at the time, subject to "contradiction or correction. But when published 65 years afterwards, when the people who could contradict or correct them were dead, they could not possess any value."

The following is from the Hon. Mr. McDougall's evidence:

By Mr. Trow :

"Q. After having made researches in this matter, being employed by the Ontario "Government, where did you consider the western boundary lay ?-I considered that "the Act of 1774, and the evidence derived from the language of the preamble of the "Act, from the history of the Act, and from the surrounding circumstances of the "time and policy of the Government which are recorded and open to us, show clearly "that the Mississippi River was intended to be, and after the passing of that Act "was the western boundary of the then Province of Quebec. The Imperial Govern"ment desired to extend the western boundary of Quebec, which we know was a line "drawn from Lake Nipissing to Lake Champlain. They wished to include in the "Province of Quebec, as it then stood, certain French posts in the territory called the "Illinois country. My impression is, and I think it can be conclusively proved before "a court of justice, that the Government intended to make, and by the Act of 1774 did "make the Mississippi River the western boundary. I dare say, you have had before you most of the evidence which, according to my view of the matter, establishes "that point.

"Q. You take the Mississippi to its source?-Of course, when a river is taken as a boundary you must follow its winding and find out the main channel, We are not "driven to do that now, because by a subsequent treaty with the United States, that country was ceded or transferred to them, and therefore it is only as to the interpre"tation of the Act of 1774, and its effect on our country beyond the head of the Missis"sippi, that it is important to enquire.

"Q. What interpretation do you put on the word "northward," when you come "to the confluence of the two rivers ?--I put the same interpretation on the word in that "Act as I would in a deed in the case where any object is described lying to the north"ward from a point of starting, and being the point at which you are aiming. There "has been a good deal of discussion in the House as to whether this word northward "does not mean due north in the Act of 1774. I observe that in your enquiries you "have resorted to the judgment given, in 1818, by the Court of Queen's Bench at "Quebec in De Reinhardt's caso. In that case the evidence of a surveyor, Mr. Saxe, was taken. His opinion differed from that adopted by the court.

"Q His definition is the same as yours? Yes. Where you have no fixed terminal "point in view, the word northward or westward standing alone, without anything to "explain it where there is nothing to incline to one side or the other-must be taken "to mean, and the courts have so held, a due north or due west line; but when there is "some object mentioned in the description, that lics either east or west of north of the "point from which you are starting, and you say northward to such a point, you do "not mean, and you cannot be held to mean, due north.

By the Chairman :

Q. But the direction was northward to the southern boundary of the "territories of the merchant adventurers. These territories, as exhibited in the maps "of those times,lay rather to the castward than the westward of a due north line. There"fore, do you not suppose the northward line would run to those territories ?—Yes; "that is a correct interpretation if it was not clear that the Imperial Government, in

"the description which they themselves prepared and placed in the Act, and which "passed the House of Lords, as well as from the surrounding circumstances and their subsequent Acts, meant the Mississippi River to be the boundary of Quebec on that "side; unless the evidence is sufficient to satisfy a court of justice (assuming that this case may go before a court of justice) that the Mississippi River was the natural 'boundary which the Imperial Government and Parliament had in view, then the "word "northward," as the Chairman assumes, might, and probably would, be read "due north." You would have nothing to direct you on the one side or the other, "and having mentioned the Hudson's Bay territories which are mostly, as he says, "east of a due north line, that would be a correct construction; but in the face of "positive evidence that it was the intention to make the Mississippi River the western "boundary of Quebec, and as the word "northward" is not opposed to that intention I do "notsee how it is possible to get over it. I am speaking of it now as a lawyer, or rather as a judge if called upon to decide the question.

66

*

'Q. You believe the Hudson's Bay Company had territory, whatever its extent may have been, or the shore of Hudson's Bay, immediately on the confines of the "Bay? I think so. It never was defined, but it must be held now that they had "territory there.

"Q. Do you believe the boundaries, as set up by the award, are the real "boundaries of Ontario ?-At what point?

"Q. At Hudson's Bay. Is the boundary line, as laid down by the award, "the true northern boundary of Ontario? That question raises the whole difficulty, I "think, with respect to the northern boundary. If you will permit me, I will explain "my view of it by reference to this map. In the first place, I think as a matter of "law, we must admit to-day, for I think the courts will hold that the Hudson's Bay "territories referred to in all recent negotiations exist, or did exist, as a matter of fact. "You will observe in the British North America Act we have distinguished (it was "done at my suggestion) between the North-West Territories and Rupert's Land (the original name of the Company's plantation), and they are treated as two distinct "territories, the boundaries of which had been, or were capable of being, ascertained. "I think, therefore, you must look for the southern boundary of Rupert's Land, some"where inland in the neighborhood of Hudson's Bay. I think the evidence is sufficient to justify a court in deciding that question in the affirmative, though I admit it is a vely difficult one, when you come to fix the metes and bounds. I dare say you have "in the course of your enquiry,ascertained the fact that Commissioners were appointed "by England and France, before the conquest by Canada, to settle the question of "disputed boundary around Hudson's Bay. The English proposed a boundary extended "two or three hundred miles into the country; the French proposed a narrower "boundary near Hudson's Bay. The Commissioners came together, but never arrived "at a binding agreement.

"Q. Still, both were inland from the shore?—I think the French always insisted. "on access to the Bay; but wars broke out, and in the end we succeeded to the inheri"tence of both those rights, the French right, wherever that might be, and the English "right; but it will probably be held that we, as Englishmen, will be bound to say that our ancestors did not make any improper claim, and we will have to admit that the "line extends further inland than the French would allow. With respect to the boundary between Upper and Lower Canada, when it leaves Lake Temiscaming you have got beyond the limit of old Quebec. When you pass the height of land you are in "the disputed territories, and in order to get to the shore of Hudson's or James' Bay, "you have to cross a portion of Rupert's Land, according to the English claim; and, "therefore, I should say that in running a line along James' Bay to Albany River, and "from there to Lake Winnipeg, the Arbitrators lost sight of the order of reference. "All this country that will be taken out of the award by a line defining Rupert's Land,