ARGUMENT OP JOHN 8. EWART. 1413 



with the treaty. If those words were in our treaty they would not 

 make any difference to the treaty, they would only supply what 

 Senator Turner thinks does not exist, a case in which a grant of the 

 liberty is not a grant of an unrestricted liberty, but one subject to 

 regulation a case in which there might be regulations which would 

 not be inconsistent with the grant of the liberty. 



I do not know whether it will have been observed that, in the clause 

 I have read from the United States Argument, the United States 

 suggests that those two clauses (26 and 28) may be used in throwing 

 light upon the intervening clause 27 in which there is no reserva- 

 tion of authority to make laws. The suggestion is, that although 

 there would be a right of regulation in respect of the navigation of 

 the St. Lawrence, and the Yukon, under section 26, and of Lake 

 Michigan under 28, that there would be no right of regulation (be- 

 cause none was reserved) under 27, by which the British Government 

 conceded the use of the canals to the United States. 



I should like to call attention to that article 27 in order to see 

 whether such an interpretation of it is possible that there would 

 be no right, I mean, on the part of the Dominion of Canada to make 

 any regulation with respect to the liberty that is granted by the 

 Article : 



" The Government of Her Britannic Majesty engages to urge upon 

 the Government of the Dominion of Canada to secure to the citizens 

 of the United States the use of the Welland, St. Lawrence, and other 

 canals in the Dominion on terms of equality with the inhabitants of 

 the Dominion, and the Government of the United States engages that 

 the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty shall enjoy the use of the St. 

 Clair Flats canal on terms of equality " 



I need not read further. The Tribunal sees what the effect of the 

 clause is. 



It does not seem to me, Sirs, possible to contend that under such 

 a grant of liberty, there would be no power of regulating the use by 

 the United States of the Canadian canals. One cannot conceive the 

 confusion that would arise, either from the absence of all regulation 

 or, as Senator Turner would suggest, regulation by the United States 

 for United States vessels, and regulation by Canada for the Canadian 

 vessels. 



It seems to me it is absolutely necessary and essential that there 

 should have been, and that the negotiators must have intended that 

 there should have been, the right on the part of Canada to regulate 

 reasonably the use of the canals, and a reciprocal right on the part of 

 the United States to make regulations applicable to the Canadian 

 vessels using the United States canals. 



JUDGE GRAY: You will notice, Mr. Ewart, in article 27 there are 

 the words " on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the Domin- 

 ion," and the same for the United States. 



