"from, to, and into the sea, shall forever remain free and open for the purposes of commerce to the citizens of the United States, subject to any laws and regulations of Great Britain, or of the Dominion of Canada, not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation."

and Stikine.

On the other hand, it was reciprocally provided that the navig....Yukon, Porcupine, tion of the rivers Yukon, Porcupine, and Stikine, ascending and descending, from, to, and into the sea, should" forever remain free and open for the purposes of commerce to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty and to the citizens of the United States, subject to any laws and regulations of either country within its own territory, not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation." This stipulation is understood to secure "the right of access and passage," but not "the right to share in the local traffic" between American or British ports, as the case may be."

By Article XXVII. of the same treaty the British Government engaged to urge upon that 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 its inhabitants; and the United States engaged to grant to British subjects the use of the St. Clair Flats Canal on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the United States, and also tɔ urge upon the State governments to secure to British subjects the use of the several State canals connected with the navigation of the lakes or rivers traversed by or contiguous to the boundary line between the possessions of the contracting parties, on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the United States.

In a note of November 23, 1874, the British minister at Washington stated that United States barges and other vessels, with or without cargo, clearing from ports on the Hudson River, were allowed to pass through the Chambly Canal to the St. Lawrence, and thence from Montreal through the Lachine Canal and through the canals on the Ottawa, to the city of Ottawa or any other destination."

December 9, 1873, instructions were given to the United States collector of customs at Sitka, with a view to enable British vessels to enjoy the privilege of navigating the Yukon, Porcupine, and Stikine rivers."

a Mr. Adee, Second Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Woodbury, Jan. 6, 1898, 224 MS. Dom. Let. 229.

Mr. Cadwalader. Acting Sec. of State, to Sir Edward Thornton, British min., Aug. 19, 1876, MS. Notes to Great Britain, XVII. 211.

© Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Sir Edward Thornton, British min., Dec. 13, 1873, MS. Notes to Great Britain, XVI. 281, enclosing copy of a letter of the Secretary of the Treasury of Dec. 10, 1873, relating to the navigation of the Stikine River.

The navigation of the Stikine was the subject of further conferences between the two governments."

Regulations for the navigation of the Yukon and Porcupine rivers and their tributaries may be found in Treasury Department circular No. 24, February 2, 1898, while the navigation of those rivers between Dawson and Rampart forms the subject of Treasury Department circular No. 98, June 6, 1898. The Canadian regulations for the navigation of the Yukon in British territory by American vessels were set forth in Treasury Department circular No. 26, February 5, 1898. The United States regulations for the navigation of the Stikine River and its connecting rivers and lakes are embodied in Treasury Department circular No. 76, May 9, 1898.

St. John.

By Article III. of the Webster-Ashburton treaty of August 9, 1842, it is provided that the navigation of the St. John, where that river is declared to be the boundary between the United States and the British dominions, shall be free and open to both parties; that "all the produce of the forest, in logs, lumber, timber, boards, staves, or shingles, or of agriculture, not being manufactured, grown on any of those parts of the State of Maine watered by the river St. John, or by its tributaries, of which fact reasonable evidence shall, if required, be produced, shall have free access into and through the said river and its said tributaries, having their source within the State of Maine, to and from the seaport at the mouth of the said river St. John's, and to and around the falls of the said river, either by boats, rafts, or other conveyance; that when within the Province of New Brunswick the said produce shall be dealt with as if it were the produce of the said Province; that, in like manner, the inhabitants of the territory of the upper St. John, determined by this treaty to belong to Her Britannic Majesty, shall have free access to and through the river, for their produce, in those parts where the said river runs wholly through the State of Maine: provided, always, that this agreement shall give no right to either party to interfere with any regulations not inconsistent with the terms of this treaty which the governments, respectively, of Maine or of New Brunswick may make respecting the navigation of the said river, where both banks thereof shall belong to the same party."

May 16, 1844, Mr. Calhoun, Secretary of State, instructed Mr. Everett, then minister to England, to bring to the attention of Her Britannic Majesty's Government the fact that the legislature of New Brunswick had imposed an export duty of a shilling a ton on all timber shipped from any port in the province, the authorities of Maine contending that the duty contravened the provision of Article III. of the treaty of 1842 as to “ free access" to the port at the mouth of the St.

a Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Sir Edward Thornton, Brit. min., Oct. 16, 1878. MS. Notes to Great Britain, XVII. 615.

John for Maine lumber and produce. Lord Aberdeen on the 9th of December replied that it was no violation of the treaty, as American and Canadian articles were treated alike, the treaty providing that Maine lumber and produce should," when within the Province of New Brunswick, be dealt with as if it were the produce of the said Province." Great Britain had, said Lord Aberdeen, given a liberal construction to this article by allowing the produce of Maine, when once brought within the province of New Brunswick, to be exported thence, and imported into England and the British possessions, on payment of the same duties as the produce of the province itself."

It is to the timber or other produce of Maine, without regard to the nationality of the owner, that the treaty of 1842 secures unimpeded access to the ocean by the St. John."

A complaint having been made by Mr. John Kilburn, a British subject, to the effect that he was called on to pay customs duties on his equipment required in the driving of logs on the St. John, the British ambassador at Washington subsequently conveyed to the Department of State a dispatch from the governor-general of Canada, expressing his high appreciation of the prompt action taken by the United States Treasury Department "to secure the observance of the Ashburton treaty." e

By Article XXXI. of the treaty of May 8, 1871, Great Britain engaged "to urge upon the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada. and the legislature of New Brunswick that no export duty, or other duty, shall be levied on lumber or timber of any kind cut on that portion of American territory in the State of Maine watered by the river St. John and its tributaries, and floated down that river to the sea, when the same is shipped to the United States from the Province of New Brunswick."

March 19, 1875, the British minister at Washington was requested to furnish any information which he might be able to obtain in regard to a report that preparations were being made to construct a bridge

a Br. and For. State Papers, LI. 934, 937.

Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lowell, min. to England, May 16, 1884, MS. Inst. Great Britain, XXVII. 201. "The instruction to Mr. Lowell

of May 16, 1884, . . . was the last of a correspondence in relation to the obstruction of waterways in Canada. It was in reply to his No. 742 of March 18, 1884, which in turn was in response to the Department's No. 640 of July 25, 1883, on that subject. A copy of this instruction . . . will be found on pp. 445-447 of the volume of Foreign Relations for 1883. Mr. Lowell apparently made no reply to the Department's instruction of May 16, 1884.” (Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Attorney-General, Dec. 5, 1895, 206 MS. Dom. Let. 316.)

e Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Sec. of Treasury, March 14, 1896, 208 MS. Dom. Let. 513, enclosing a note from the British ambassador of March 11, 1896.

across the St. John's on several piers about a mile below the Tobique River, which bridge, if constructed. would impede navigation or make an obstruction in the river and prevent the free access into and through the St. John's of lumber and other articles, which is guaranteed by treaty provisions." The minister subsequently stated that at the point where the bridge was being constructed the river had a width of 550 feet at low water and nearly 900 at extreme high water; that the bridge had five spans of 160 feet each and a draw; that provision was made for the passage of rafts and logs and of such boats and steamers as frequented the river during the season of navigation; and that there was nothing in the location of the piers that would cause any obstruction to the navigation of the river."

The legislature of the Province of New Brunswick, by an act of March 27, 1845, incorporated a company to erect and maintain a boom at Woodstock, at or near the mouth of the Meduxnikeag River, a tributary of the St. John. By an amendatory act of April 8, 1874, apparently passed for the purpose of giving effect to the treaty of 1871, it was provided that "no boomage shall be chargeable by the said company for logs or other timber intended to be driven into the St. John River."

Columbia.

by Article II. of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain of June 15, 1846, with regard to limits westward of the Rocky Mountains, it is stipulated that from the point where the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude shall be found to intersect the great northern branch of the Columbia River the navigation of the said branch shall be free and open to the Hudson's Bay Company, and to all British subjects trading with the same, to the point where the said branch meets the main stream of the Columbia, and thence down the said main stream to the ocean, with free access into and through the said river or rivers, it being understood that all the usual portages along the line thus described shall, in like manner, be free and open. In navigating the said river or rivers, British subjects, with their goods and produce, shall be treated on the same footing as citizens of the United States; it being, however, always understood that nothing in this article shall be construed as preventing or intended to prevent the Government of the United States from making any regulations respecting the navigation of the said river or rivers not inconsistent with the present treaty."

a Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Sir Edward Thornton, British min., March 19, 1875, MS. Notes to Great Britain, XVI. 535; Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to the Hon. H. Hamlin, Oct. 29, 1875, 110 MS. Dom. Let. 376.

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hale, M. C., April 20, 1893, 191 MS. Dom. Let. 342. See, also, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lowell, min. to England, May 16, 1884, MS. Inst. Great Britain, XXVII. 201.

The treaty contains no stipulation with regard to the navigation of the river within British territory.

As to the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, I. 253, 262.

"On principle there is a great difference between the rights of the riparian population of the upper tributaries of a river and the riparian population of the river as it descends to the sea. To the former access to the sea is essential and can be had without any invasion of the rights of the latter. To the latter penetration into the territory of the former is not essential and may be productive of many embarrassments to the country which is thus explored.

Trading in the latter case can only be with the inhabitants of the inland state. Trading in the former case is understood to be limited to trading beyond the sea. And hence it has been held in many cases in which the right of free egress to the sea by the inhabitants of the upper territory is given that this does not involve a right of free access to the interior by the inhabitants of the lower country."

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lundy, July 25, 1885, 156 MS. Dom. Let. 358.

By Article VI. of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of February Rio Grande and 2, 1848. it was agreed that the vessels and citizens of the Colorado. the United States should in all time have "a free and uninterrupted passage by the Gulf of California, and by the river Colorado below its confluence with the Gila, to and from their possessions situated north of the boundary line " laid down in the treaty.

By Article VII. it was agreed that the navigation of the river Gila, and that part of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) lying below the southern boundary of New Mexico, where it formed the boundary between the two countries, should be "free and common to the vessels and citizens of both countries," and that neither should, without the consent of the other, "construct any work that may impede or interrupt, in whole or in part, the exercise of this right."

The territorial situation having been changed by the cession to the United States of the Mesilla Valley, by the treaty of December 30, 1853, it was stipulated by the same treaty (Art. IV.) that the vessels and citizens of the United States should continue to have free and uninterrupted passage by the Gulf of California and the river Colorado to and from their possessions north of the new boundary; and that the stipulations and restrictions of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo as to the Rio Grande should remain in force only below latitude 31° 47' 30".