Opinion ID: 395214
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Canadian-United States Treaties.

Text: 67 The Local Appellants assert that section 4 of the Act, limiting the use of snowmobiles and motorboats in the BWCAW, cannot be enforced on the waters along the international boundary because the restrictions conflict with two treaties between the United States and Canada, the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842, 8 Stat. 572, and the Root-Bryce Treaty of 1909 (Boundary Waters Treaty), 36 Stat. 2448. The Lac La Croix Indian Band and Campbell's Cabins and Trading Post, Ltd., also raise the conflict between the motor use restrictions and the Root-Bryce Treaty. 68 Appellants assert that both Treaties, by guaranteeing that the border waterways remain free and open, grant individuals the right to engage in commerce in those waters and that the limit on motorboat use interferes with this right by preventing individuals from engaging in commerce. They argue that the restrictions cannot be applied to the waters along the international boundary because section 17 of the Act 41 operates as a saving clause, in effect voiding any section of the Act that conflicts with any treaty. The district court held that the provisions of the BWCAW Act are consistent with both treaties. 42 National Association of Property Owners v. United States, supra, 499 F.Supp. at 1251, 1272. We agree. 69
70 The Local Appellants assert rights arising from article II of the Webster-Ashburton Treaty: 71 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 citizens and subjects of both countries. (8 Stat. 574.)This section, however, does not preclude the governments of both Canada and the United States from enacting reasonable regulations affecting commerce along the waterways, as long as the regulations apply equally to citizens of both countries. As the Assistant Secretary of State wrote in response to questions about the effect of the Treaty on the Act, 72 (w)e believe that the intent of the free and open provision for these waters was to ensure that this important route remained open, on an equal basis, to the nations of both countries. It would not be correct, however, to interpret free and open so broadly as to prohibit either United States or Canadian authorities from imposing any limitation upon the manner in which such waterways and portages may be used. In agreeing to free and open use of these waterways and portages, neither party intended to relinquish its sovereign role of imposing statutory limitations on behavior which would not be in the best interest of the respective country. (National Association of Property Owners v. United States, supra, 499 F.Supp. at 1234.) 43 73 Looking to the restrictions at issue, we conclude that they fall within the United States' retained sovereign power to regulate conduct on the waterways. 74 We are influenced by Canada's and the United States' determination of their powers under the Treaty. As the Supreme Court has explained, where ambiguities exist in a treaty it is appropriate that we should look to the practical construction which has been placed upon it. Pigeon River Improvement, Slide and Boom Co. v. Charles W. Cox, Ltd., 291 U.S. 138, 158, 54 S.Ct. 361, 366, 78 L.Ed. 695 (1934). 44 By enacting section 17 of the Act along with section 4, Congress clearly indicated its belief that the Webster-Ashburton Treaty did not inhibit its power to preclude motor use along the international boundary. 45 Canada, as well, through the Province of Ontario, similarly banned motor use of the waterways along much of the border, indicating its view that the Treaty permits each party to evenhandedly restrict use of motorboats on their side of the border. 75 This practical interpretation, given by the parties to the Treaty, is a reasonable one. We conclude, therefore, that the Webster-Ashburton Treaty does not conflict with section 4 of the BWCAW Act. 76
77 Appellants make a similar argument with respect to the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Article I of the Root-Bryce Treaty provides: 78 The High Contracting Parties agree that the navigation of all navigable boundary waters shall forever continue free and open for the purposes of commerce to the inhabitants and to the ships, vessels, and boats of both countries equally, subject, however, to any laws and regulations of either country, within its own territory, not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation and applying equally and without discrimination to the inhabitants, ships, vessels, and boats of both countries. 46 (36 Stat. 2449.) 79 Appellants argue that the Treaty, by guaranteeing that the waters shall forever continue free and open for the purposes of commerce   , provides an independent guarantee of free and open navigation, beyond insuring nondiscriminatory regulation. Assuming that such a guarantee exists, we nonetheless conclude that the motor use restrictions fall within Congress' retained power to regulate commerce along the boundary waters. 80 As with the Webster-Ashburton Treaty, Congress had the 1909 Treaty before it and enacted section 4 along with section 17, indicating its belief that the Act fell within its power to regulate commerce in a manner not inconsistent with the privilege of free navigation guaranteed by the Treaty. Ontario, as well, by banning motor use on its border waterways, indicated its interpretation of the 1909 Treaty as not prohibiting such regulation. We cannot find such a construction arbitrary or unreasonable. 81 The Treaty allows sovereign states the flexibility to reasonably regulate commerce along the international borders. Although neither may completely close down intercourse between the countries, each has a wide latitude in regulating conduct in the area. Construing the action of Congress in 1978 in harmony with the Treaty of 1909, we conclude that the motor use restrictions fell within the United States' power, retained under the Treaty, to pass regulations consistent with free navigation. 82