CHAPTER VII.
THE NIAGARA FALLS OUTRAGE.
T he case of William Forsyth—commonly known in the chronicles of the time as the Niagara Falls outrage—differed materially from that of Captain Matthews, not only in kind, but in degree. In the latter case there was no gross violation of the decencies of life, or of the outward forms of law. The mischief was effected by means of spies and secret information, and the damage inflicted was incidental rather than direct. The Forsyth case, on the contrary, was more in the manner of the type riot. It was a violent and utterly unjustifiable exercise of brute force. But in one important respect it was worse than the type riot. That display of ruffianism had been accomplished without the open approbation of the authorities. The Niagara Falls outrage was committed not only with the full assent, but by the express command, of the Lieutenant-Governor himself. Not even the poor excuse that it was done in a moment of anger or irritation could be made for it. It was done deliberately, in cold blood, and was as deliberately repeated. It was a simple case of Might versus Right.
A few words of explanation are necessary by way of prologue.
In the year 1786, before the setting apart of Upper Canada as a separate Province, and just after the commencement of the settlement of the Niagara Peninsula by Butler's Rangers, the territory contiguous to the west bank of the Niagara River was surveyed and laid out into lots by Augustus Jones, a surveyor whose name is familiar to all students of the early history of this Province. In pursuance of instructions received from the Government, Mr. Jones, in laying out these lots, made a reservation of a chain in width—sixty-six feet—along the top of the bank.
The reservation was made partly with a view to the military defence of the Province, and partly for the purpose of preserving a convenient communication.[90] It was expressly specified in the Crown Patents to the owners of adjoining lands, and embodied in all subsequent deeds upon successive transfers. It may therefore be conceded that the Crown's title to the reserved land was indisputable.