77 



When the Long Sault Development Company got its charter 

 to construct that dam it was a very broad one. They set out that 

 " the rights hereby granted shall never be so used as to impair or 

 obstruct the navigation of the St. Lawrence river, but, on the contrary, 

 that such nav^igation shall be preserved in as good condition as, if not 

 better than, the same is at present, regard being always had to the 

 amount of the natural flow of water in said river as affecting its 

 navigability from time to time." 



Now, New York State undertook to grant lands under the South 

 Sault to this company. It was held by the United States Supreme 

 Court that they could not do so, but, all through, the Development 

 Company took the position that it was navigable water and they were 

 going to actually improve it. Their charter certainly forbade them 

 injuring the navigation, and I point out also to the Commission that 

 in every permit issued at Washington the navigation of the river has 

 been recognized because the clause has been put in that they must 

 not injure navigation. The three permits contain the clause. The 

 charter the St. Lawrence Power Company obtained from the State 

 of New York has the same clause — they must not injure navigation. 

 The navigation has been recognized. As I said before, though, the 

 matter has been so clearly proven and demonstrated here that I 

 need not argue the question any further. 



Now, I go back to the treaty, and, as one of the Commissioners 

 remarked, that is certainly our strongest ground. That is the ground 

 that we rely on as a bar to any action by this Commission in regard 

 to this application. I stated in the beginning that, in the opinion of 

 the Government of Canada, the Commission had no jurisdiction. 

 Whether I used the word "jurisdiction" correctly or not may be open 

 to question, but certainly I am putting it on fair grounds when I say 

 that the Commission has no right to do it. We claim a treaty right. 

 If that Article VII of the Ashburton Treaty does not give the people 

 of this country free and open right to those channels for the ships, 

 vessels and boats of this country, if this Commission has power to 

 close that channel by this dam, it can close the Detroit river; it can 

 close the St. Lawrence river. Where is it going to stop? This Gov- 

 ernment relies on that treaty. It looks on it as sacred, and it claims 

 its rights under it. Treaties must be respected. The whole world 

 is convulsed with a war now because a nation in a moment of madness 

 undertook to deny treaty rights. We want every right that is given 

 to us under that treaty. For that reason we ask this high tribunal 

 not to seek to vary it, not to deny our right in a single particular, 

 but to keep open and free that channel specifically mentioned in 

 Article VII. 



Now, as I said yesterday, the Government of Canada is not 

 disposed to play dog in the manger in this matter. We have no sucii 

 desire and no such wish. I think it would perhaps have been better 

 if my learned friend, Mr. Koonce, yesterday, had obtained a letter 

 from the Secretary of War directed to the (i<)\ernment at Ottawa 

 instead of to this Commission, asking that this matter lu' taken up. 

 I can assure him it would have been taken up and would be yet, and 

 the shortest cut to obtain the relief in this matter is for the Govern- 



