Source: http://www.heritage.nf.ca/law/lab8/labvol8_3836.html
Timestamp: 2013-05-26 07:23:19
Document Index: 737892132

Matched Legal Cases: ['art, 1715', 'art 375', 'art 375', 'art 375', 'art 375', 'art 375']

"Remarks by Capt. Frederic Anderson, Cheif Hydrographer, Canada." Volume VIII 3836-3840: The Labrador Boundary Dispute Documents
Contents p. 3836
REMARKS BY CAPT. FREDERIC ANDERSON, CHIEF HYDROGRAPHER, CANADA,
RESPECTING THE “OBSERVATIONS BY VICE-ADMIRAL LEARMONTH, K.B.E., C.B., ON THE HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY AND REPORTS CONTAINED IN THE DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED BY THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT IN THE APPENDIX OF DOCUMENTS IN RELATION TO LAKE MELVILLE, HAMILTON INLET AND THE NARROWS.”
I. Basis of Remarks
Vice-Admiral Learmonth, states that the materials upon which his Observations are chiefly based are the Dominion Government Chart No. 420 and the Hydrographic Report included in the Documents accompanying the Canadian Case.
He further states that, if certain data which he enumerates, had been available, they would have formed a more complete and satisfactory basis “for judging the characteristics of the area under discussion.”
Inspection of these data does not indicate that they would have added materially to the knowledge available, and, in any event, had Admiral Learmonth applied to the Government of Canada, they would have been supplied immediately.
Referring to the survey of lake Melville by the Chief Hydrographer of Canada. Admiral Learmonth states that :
“ Moreover an expansive sheet of water with deep water throughout and a tidal stream of 5 knots in the Narrows area and extending for 20 miles in length had to be surveyed. Apart from the rigours of the climate, the Labrador season is short and there are no facilities on the spot for the conduct of a survey. No data were available from previous surveys, so that a rigid triangulation was necessary over the whole area involving the establishment of elevated stations in a trackless and timbered country. Accordingly it is not unlikely that the time available proved insufficient for a survey in any great detail.”
Admiral Learmonth's statement indicates that he lacked a knowledge of the time during which the survey was carried on, of the size and power of the survey steamship used, of the number of parties engaged upon the survey, of the weather experienced by the survey parties in 1921, of the nature of the country as regards the facility of access to commanding triangulation stations and other pertinent data, and also of the equipment and general
p. 3837
procedure of the Canadian Hydrographic Survey. This Survey has been in existence since 1883, and has charted and published charts of many miles of the inland and coastal waters of Canada. It may fairly be stated that these charts, in point of accuracy and clearness of delineation, are comparable with the best.
With regard to the survey of Lake Melville, the following are the facts of the case :
The steamer Acadia, a vessel of some 1,000 tons displacement and 177 H.P., built specially to meet surveying requirements in 1913 by Swan, limiter and Wigham-Richardson, Newcastle-on-Tyne, England, was detailed for this service.
In addition to the undersigned, who was in command, the surveying staff consisted of the following :—
Three Senior Surveyors.
Four Junior Surveyors of several years experience.
One Junior Surveyor.
Two shore-parties were landed with full equipment, including gasolene launches, at Rigolet, and Carter basin at the west end of the lake, respectively. In the main portion of the lake three parties were operated from the ship.
These parties were employed in carrying out the survey of Lake Melville and the “ narrows ” from 15 July till the end of September. This large organization was employed owing to the shortness of the season and the extensive area to be covered, extending some 90 miles or more from the entrance to the “ Narrows ” to the head of Goose bay. The whole area was triangulated and traversed and the bases measured at either end checking up closely, thus proving the accuracy of the work.
The “ Narrows ” and vicinity were plotted on a scale of 4,000 feet to one inch, also the narrows entering Goose bay, the main portion of the lake being on a scale of 12,000 feet to one inch. It was the intention to extend the survey some considerable distance into Hamilton inlet. However, owing to the non-arrival of the second coal supply, the operations were terminated in consequence of the lateness of the year.
The numerous elevations in the vicinity of the lake furnished exceptionally good triangulation stations some of which were accessible with ease and the others without much difficulty. The survey staff worked with great zeal and accomplished much more than their critic estimates. As everyone will recollect, the summer of 1921 was a particularly fine one and with much less than the average rainfall both in Great Britain and North America.
It is not an over-statement to assert that the survey of lake Melville is of as high a degree of accuracy as the Admiralty surveys.
It should be noted that, throughout his observations, Admiral Learmonth consistently bases his remarks and argument upon the sailor's point of view and ignores geographical and physical facts which absolutely nullify some of his deductions.
p. 3838
II. Admiral Learmonth states that :
“ Chart No. 375 was first published in 1864 and entitled 'Hamilton Inlet' ; the 1864 Chart shows the Pelter's track from Tub Harbour on the Eastern extremity to Goose Bay at the head of Lake Melville. Charts No. 222 and 1422 though they touch the area in question are less valuable for the present purpose.
“ It is noteworthy that Chart No. 375 uses the term Hamilton Inlet as covering the whole of Lake Melville. The Eastern or outer portion of Hamilton Inlet extending so far as the Narrows would be properly described as a Sound, but no distinguishing name has hitherto been given to it in Admiralty publications, the description Hamilton Inlet being used as indicated above to cover the whole Inlet as far as and including Goose Bay. A probably reason why no separate name has been given to the 'Sound' is that it affords no convenient shelter or stopping places for vessels. So far as I am aware the use of the term has not been challenged until the present proceedings. It is true that the term is not so used in the Chart No. 420 included as No. 13 in the Canadian Atlas, but this Chart does not clearly identify the actual geographical locality of Lake Melville and places the comparatively well known name Hamilton Inlet without prominence beyond the Narrows in the margin of the Chart. In spite of the materials disclosed in the documents appended to the Canadian Case I still consider that the descriptive Title used for Canadian Chart No. 420 is incorrect and certainly confusing.”
The history of the nomenclature of present lake Melville and Hamilton inlet may be conveniently divided into French usage and British usage and a study of such history discloses that both French and British recognised the riverine quality of the waterway discharging lake Melville and the lake-expansion of the Hamilton river, now known as lake Melville.
In 1704, Le Gardeur de Courtemanche, in the chart which accompanied the report of his exploration (Map No. 7a, Canada Atlas) designates this waterway Riviere Quesesasquiou.
In an anonymous memoir concerning Labrador, 1716, the authorship of which is attributed to Courtemanche, the author recommended that a post be established at Kessellaki, which he describes as a “ grande rivière entre les 52 ème et 53 ème degré de latitude ” and as “ beaucoup fréquentée par les Esquimaux.”
As the Eskimo did not frequent any portion of Lake Melville except the extreme eastern portion, this statement unquestionably refers to the water-connection between Lake Melville and Hamilton Inlet.
Pierre Constantin's chart, 1715 (Map No. 7B, Canada Atlas) also shows the outlet and designates it “ Grande Riviere de Ouessesakiou.”	In 1743, Sieur Jean Louis Fornel, commissioned by the Governor General of Canada to make the discovery of La Baie des Eskimaux, explored Hamilton inlet and the lower portion of the Narrows, ascending to a point about four miles from the present site of Rigolet. He planted two crosses, raised the French flag, and took possession of the country “au nom du Roy et do la
p. 3839
Nation Francoise.” On his return, he compiled several charts of his explorations and, in the one reproduced as Map No. 8, Canada Atlas, he shows his own explorations and those of a French Canadian named Pilotte, and his son, whom he left in 1743 with instructions to establish a post and to make surveys. In his narrative, Fornel states that he examined the bay “ cy devant nominée des Eskimaux et par les Sauvages Kessessakiou ” and named it “ baye St. Louis,” and, with regard to the river referred to by the savages as Kessessakiou, he says, “ que, nous nommons riviere St. Louis du nom de la baye ou elle se decharge.” On his 1748 chart (Map No. 8, Canada Atlas) the waterway which discharges lake Melville is designated “ R. de Kessessakiou.”
In 1753, Bellin, the famous French geographer, published a chart (Map No. 19, Canada Atlas) of the “ Golphe de St. Laurent contenant les costes de Labrador depuis Mecatina jusqu'a la Baye des Esquimaux.” Bellin designates the body of water to the east of present Ticorolak island, “ Baye St. Louis ou Baye des Esquimaux cy devant Baye des Kessessakiou.” The waterway discharging lake Melville is designated “ Riviere de Kessessakiou.”
The first known use of the name “Lake Melville” antedates Chart No. 375 by 39 years. As applied to the lake-expansion of the lower Hamilton river, it appears in Arrowsmith's chart of 1825 (Map No. 29, Canada Atlas), entitled : “ Chart of Labrador and Greenland, including the North West Passages of Hudson, Frobishers and Davis.” By A. Arrowsmith, Hydrographer to His Majesty. London. Published 1st June, 1809, by A. Arrowsmith. Additons to 1825.
This chart—called for convenience, the Arrowsmith chart—shows the track of His Majesty's Brig 'Clinker,' designated “ Track of the 'Clinker' in 1821,” and contains a printed note in which it is stated, with respect to “ that part of the Coast of Labrador . . . from Okkak to Ivucktoke or Hamilton Inlet, many places are now more correctly laid down from the observations of Mr. Rt. Morison, Surgeon, R.N., when on coasting voyages in H.M. Brig 'Clinker' in 1821 and 1822.” The chart evidently incorporates a survey of Hamilton Inlet and Lake Melville and the connecting water-way, as the configuration of these areas is shown with tolerable accuracy. The lake-expansion of the lower Hamilton is designated “ Melville Lake,” and the outer expanse eastward of the Narrows “ Ivucktoke or Hamilton Inlet.” A small reach of the Hamilton river above lake Melville is shown. and named “ Hamilton R.” The Arrowsmith chart signalizes the origin of the names “ Hamilton,” as applied to the inlet and to the river, and “ Melville Lake ” to the lake-expansion of the river. This lake-expansion is also designated “ Lake Melville ” in chart No. 375, referred to by Admiral Learmonth, but published thirty-nine years later, and in all other charts of this region.
Comparing the foregoing with the French usage, we find that Arrow-smith varied their nomenclature to the extent of applying a specific name —Lake Melville— to the lake-expansion of the Hamilton river and of replacing “ Baie St. Louis ou Baie des Esquimaux cy devant Baie Kessessakion ” of
p. 3840
the Bellin chart, by “ Ivucktoke or Hamilton Inlet” as the name for the outer expanse.
Chart 375, “ Hamilton Inlet,” published in 1860, only includes the inlet and lake Melville, whereas present Chart 375, “ Sandwich Bay to Nain,” includes 3 degrees of latitude and nearly 7 degrees of longitude.
As the use of the same number for two charts which differ so radically is confusing, they are below referred to by their respective territorial names.
Between Rigolet and the lower portion of Hamilton river, there are nine names on the Arrowsmith chart. Of the nine names, seven are included in Chart 375, Hamilton Inlet, 1860. On Chart 375, South Brook is changed to the Indian name—Kenemiehe River. The name Hamilton Falls is omitted, and Melville Island appears. The name “ Lake Melville ” appears on the chart for the first time and was undoubtedly given either by Morison or Arrowsmith.
Chart No. 375, Hamilton Inlet, 1860, adopts Arrowsmith's names for Hamilton Inlet, Lake Melville and Henrietta Island.
On the “ Sandwich Bay to Nain ” chart, published in 1871, and republished, at intervals, since that date, the above names are re-engraved as on the “ Hamilton Inlet ” chart.
Chart 375 (of 1864) shows the track of H.M. Brig “ Pelter,” and is entitled :—“ Labrador, Hamilton Inlet (Ivucktoke Inlet). Compiled from Sketch Surveys by William Robinson, Midshipman, H.M.B. 'Pelter,' Lieut. R. C. Curry, Commanding, 1823, and by J. W. Reed, Master, H.M.S. 'Bulldog,' under the orders of Captn. Sir F. McClintock, R.N., 1860. London, Published at the Admiralty, 9 Feb'y. 1864. Capt. G. H. Richards, R.N., Hydrographer.”
In this connection, the following points are to be noted :—
(1) That Surgeon Morison undoubtedly furnished Arrowsmith with the data which he incorporated in his 1825 chart (No. 29, Canada Atlas). This is practically demonstrated by the note inserted on this chart and by Morison's letter to the Admiralty, 24 March, 1825.
(2) That Robinson's survey was not published by the Admiralty until 1864-39 years after Arrowsmith's chart—and, during the intervening time, Arrowsmith had given to the world the nomenclature which the Government of Canada contends is correct and is not confusing.
(3) That, if it may be assumed that the purpose of an Admiralty chart is the communication of hydrographic information which will conduce to the safe navigation of the ships of all nations, then it is a fair deduction that the Hydrographer, in preparing Chart No. 375 in 1860, intended the name “ Hamilton Inlet ” (Ivucktoke Inlet) to apply only to the outer expanse eastward of the Narrows, for, although many soundings are shown within that area, hardly any are shown within the area of lake Melville. Moreover, that expanse is specifically designated “ Lake Melville.” The more consistent and probable interpretation of the chart is that the Hydrographer did not intend to disregard the nomenclature that had already been used for more than one-third of a century.