72 



distortion of words to put such a construction upon it. But the word 

 "equally" has a history. In the original draft of the treaty the word 

 "equally" did not appear, and in other sections of the treaty the 

 word "equally" does not appear with regard to the New Brunswick 

 waters. 



Mr. MiGNAULT: Can you suggest, Mr. Guthrie, why it was put in? 



Mr Guthrie: Yes, I am going to suggest why it was put in. 

 Would you permit me to proceed, because that is the point I am 

 making. The word "equally" did not appear in the first draft. 

 Now, this is a matter, perhaps, of some slight importance. It is an 

 historical point anyvva\'. In The Works of Daniel Webster, published 

 by the well known house of Little, Brown & Company, of Boston, in 

 1856, we get some light upon the question as to how the word 

 "equally" came to be inserted. 



Mr. MiGNAULT: Will you give me the reference, please? 



Mr. Guthrie: The reference is to Volume VI of The Works of 

 Daniel Webster, published by Little, Brown & Company, of Boston, 

 in 1856, at page 282. The first reference is to a letter written by Lord 

 Ashburton and addressed to the Honourable Daniel Webster on July 

 16, 1842. In this letter, Lord Ashburton enters a mild protest or 

 suggestion that, under certain circumstances, the passage of a British 

 vessel through the Long Sault channels might be refused, and he 

 suggests : 



"We want a clause in our present treaty to say that, for a short 

 distance, namely from the upper end of Upper Long Sault island to 

 the lower end of Barnhart's island, the several channels of the river 

 shall be used in common by the boatmen of the two countries." 



Mr. Webster replied to that letter in a communication dated 

 July 27, 1842. From his letter I read the following, at page 284: 



" Besides agreeing upon the line of division through which these 

 controverted portions of the boundary pass, you have suggested also 

 as the proposed settlement proceeds upon the ground of compromise 

 and equivalents, that boats belonging to Her Majesty's subjects may' 

 pass the falls of the Long Sault, in the St. Lawrence, on either side 

 of the Long Sault islands, and that the passages between the islands 

 lying at or near the junction of the river St. Clair with the lake of 

 that name shall be severally free and open to the vessels of both 

 countries." 



Mr. Webster's interest was in the Detroit river. It happened 

 that, near Detroit, the channel passes through Canadian waters. He 

 saw that, if the clause were [not] made plain and the treatment for both 

 countries made equal, it might afterwards be contended that the 

 important channel at Detroit was wholly in Canadian waters, and 

 that might not accord equal treatment to the ships of the United 

 States. He agreed that the matter shall be straightened out, and, 

 toward the end of his letter, he says: 



"It being understood that all the water communications and all 

 the usual portages, along the line from lake Superior to the lake of 

 the Woods, and also Grand portage from the shore of lake Superior 

 to the Pigeon river, as now actually used, shall be free and open to the 

 use of the subjects and citizens of both countries." 



At the close of Lord Ashburton's letter of July 29, 1842, he says: 



