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

Heading: The Webster-Ashburton Treaty.

Text: 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