IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 
 
 /. 
 
 & 
 
 ^6 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1^ 1^ 12.2 
 t 134 '""^ 
 g- lis 12.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 IL25 lliu IIIIII.6 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716)872-4:03 
 
 ■mimm^smmm 
 
 ?-R9»ss*a««^' "" ■ 
 
;:<p 
 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 ■ ^t^mm^ 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage 
 sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 « 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommagde 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommag6es 
 
 D 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Ccuverture restaurde et/ou pellicul^e 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es 
 
 I I Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 I I Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gdographiques en couleur 
 
 I I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 
 li 
 
 Pages ddcolordes, tachet^es ou piqu^es 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages d^tachdes 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 I I Showthrough/ 
 
 Transparence 
 
 □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 D 
 
 Quality of print varies/ 
 Quality in6gale de I'impression 
 
 D 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 D 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been emitter' from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6td filmdes. 
 
 n 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6X6 film6es 6 nouveau de fagon 6 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppldmentaires; 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 SOX 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
tails 
 du 
 
 idifier 
 une 
 nage 
 
 The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Library of Congress 
 Photoduplication Service 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol ^^ (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 L'exemplaire filmA fut reproduit grdce d la 
 gAnArositA de: 
 
 Library of Congress 
 Photoduplication Service 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetA de l'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimte sont film6s en commenqant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmAs en commenpant par la 
 premiAre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernlAre page qui comporte une teile 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ", le 
 symbole V signifie "FIN ". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmte A des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 d partir 
 de Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mAthode. 
 
 rrata 
 
 
 
 lielure. 
 Id 
 
 □ 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 J 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
TWENTY UNSETTLED MILES 
 
 IN THE 
 
 
 NORTHEAST BOUNDARY. 
 
 T. C. MENDENHALL. 
 
 iH'j: 
 
1/ 
 
 TWENTY UNSETTLED MILES 
 
 IN THE 
 
 NORTHEAST BOUNDARY. 
 
 [Pnox IHB Bkport of the Council of tiik Amkrican Antiquauian Society, 
 
 PnESENTSD AT TIIK ANNUAL. MEETING HELD IN WORCESTKIt, 
 OCTOUBK 21, 1896.] 
 
 I 
 
 ^■ 
 
 By T. C. MENDENHALL. 
 
 a 
 
 mummtt, mm., «. ii. i^. 
 
 PRESS OF CHARLES HAMILTON. 
 311 Main Street. 
 
 1897. 
 
 7>vO 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 %' 
 

 4Q66( 
 
 OF CON(. , 
 
 
 w 
 
TWENTY UNSETTLED MILES IN THE NORTHEAST 
 
 BOUNDAUY. 
 
 \ 
 
 Fou nearly three hundred years, and almost without cessa- 
 tion, there has raged a conflict of jurisdiction over territory 
 lying near to what is known as the Northeast Boundary of 
 the United States. It has been generally assumed, how- 
 ever, that the Webster- Ashburton treaty of 1842, together 
 with the Buchanan-Packenham treaty of 1846, settled all 
 outstanding differences with Great Britain in the matter of 
 boundaries, and few people are aware that there is an 
 important failure in these and earlier treaties, to describe 
 and define all of the line which extends from ocean to ocean 
 and fixes the sovereignty of the adjacent territory. From 
 the mouth of the St. Croix River to the ocean outside 
 of West Quoddy Head is a distance of about twenty-one 
 miles, if the most direct route through Lubec (Channel 
 be taken. Somewhere, from the middle of the river at its 
 mouth to a point in the ocean about midway between the 
 island of Campobello and Grand Menan, the boundary be- 
 tween Maine and New Brunswick must go, and, infercn- 
 tially, for about one mile of this distance it is t^i rably well 
 fixed. But this is only an inference from ttic ^||:ene^ally 
 accepted principle that where two nations exercise jurisdic- 
 tion on opposite sides of a narrow channel or stream of 
 water, the boundary line must be found somewhere in that 
 stream. That this has not been a universally accepted prin- 
 ciple, however, will appear later. Throughout the remain- 
 ing twenty miles, the territory under the jurisdiction of the 
 United States is separated from that under thp dominion of 
 

 Groat Britain by a long, irregularly ahapcd estuary, almost 
 every wljero more than a mile in width and over a largo part 
 of its length opening into Passamaquoddy Bay and other 
 extensive arms of the sea. This large body of water, with 
 an average depth of twonty-Hve fathoms and everywhere 
 navigable for vessels of the largest size, flows with the alter- 
 nations of the tides, the rise and fall of which is here eight- 
 een to twenty feet, now north, now south, with a current in 
 many places as swift as five and six miles per hour. Noth- 
 ing like a distinct channel or ♦•thread of stream" exists, and 
 it can in no way be likened to or regarded as a river. When 
 once the mouth of the St. Croix is reached, the boundary 
 line is defined by the treaty of 1783 to be the middle of 
 that river, up to its source, but literally, as well as figura- 
 tively, we are at sea as to its location from that point to the 
 open ocean. It is the purpose of this paper to give some 
 account of the circumstances which gave rise to such a 
 curious omission ; the incidents which led to a diplomatic 
 correspondence and convention relating to the matter, in 
 1892, between the two governments interested; and the 
 attempt which was made during the two or three years 
 following the convention to determine and mark the miss- 
 ing boundary. 
 
 The present controversy really had its beginning nearly 
 three hundred years ago. Up to the end of the 16th 
 century, not much attention had been given by European 
 colonists to the northeastern coast of America, although 
 it had been visited by Cabot before the beginning of that 
 century. The coapt was tolerably well known, however, 
 and it had been explored to some extent by both Eng- 
 lish and French, who were alive to the importance of 
 the extensive fishing and other interests which it repre- 
 sented In 1603, the King of France (Henry IV.) made 
 the famous grant to De Monts of all the territory in 
 America between the fortieth and forty-sixth degrees of 
 north latitude, thus furnishing a beautiful example of the 
 
definition of n most uncertain quantity in n most certain and 
 exact manner, an example wliich later l)oundary-lino nialc- 
 ors might wi8cly liavo followed. The Atlantic coast-line 
 covered l>y (his extensive charter, extends from a point 
 considerably liolow Long Island to another point on Cape 
 Breton Island and includes all of Nova Scotia. In the 
 spring of 1004, De Monts sailed for his now domain, to 
 which the name Acadia had been given, carrying with him 
 Champlain as pilot. After landing on the southern coast of 
 what is now known as Nova Scolia, ho sailed around Cape 
 Sable to (he northward, entered the Bay of Fundy, discov- 
 ered and named the St. John River, and afterward entered 
 Passamaquoddy Bay, and ascended a large river which 
 came into the bay from the north. A little distance above 
 its mouth, he found a small island, near the middle of the 
 stream, which at that point is nearly a mile and a half wide. 
 As this island appeared easy of defence against (he natives, 
 he determined to make a settlement there, and proceeded 
 to the erection of buildings, fortifications, etc. A few miles 
 above the island, the river was divided into two branches 
 nearly at right angles to the main stream, and the whole so 
 resembled a cross, that the name <*St. Croix'' was given 
 to the new settlement, and the same name came, afterward, 
 to bo applied to the river. The subsequent unhapi>y fate 
 of this first attempt to plant the civilization of Europe upon 
 the northern coast of America is so woll known that further 
 reference is unnecessary. This most interesting spot is 
 now partly occupied l)y the United States Government as a 
 lighthouse reservation, about one-third of the island hav- 
 ing been purchased for (hat purpose. The St. Croix River 
 lighthouse, carrying a fixed white and dO-sec. white flash- 
 light of the fifth order, now stands whore in 1605 stood 
 the stone house and palisade of the dying Frenchmen, 
 who found in disease a worse enemy than the aborigines. 
 The area of the whole is only a few acres, and it has 
 apparently wasted away a good deal since the French 
 
 I 
 
 \ 
 
sottlomcnt, relicH of which are occasionally found even at 
 this (lay. Tho JBhind has horno various names, that first 
 given having long since attached itself to the river. On 
 modern Government charts, it is l<nown as Dochet's Island, 
 derived, doubtless, from DoucetV, one of its early names, 
 hut it is, perhaps, more generally known as Neutral Island. 
 The significance of its discovery and settlement as affecting 
 the <iue8tion in hand, will appear later. 
 
 Very shortly after the grant of the French King in I (503, 
 King James of England issued a charter to all of tho terri- 
 tory in Ameriiui extending from the Atlantic to tho Pacific 
 Ocean, included between the thirty-fourth and forty-sixth 
 degrees of north latitude, covering and including the pre- 
 vious grant of the French King, and thus setting fairly in 
 motion tho game of giving away lands without considera- 
 tion of the rights or even claims of others, in which the 
 crowned heads of Euroi)c delighted to indulge for a century 
 or more. Colonization was attempted, and now one power, 
 now another, was in the ascendant. Occasional treaties ^ 
 in Europe arrested petty warfare on this side, and out of it 
 all came a general recognition of the St. Croix River as the 
 boundary between the French possessions and those of the 
 English. It is impossible and would be improper to go 
 into these historical details, most of which are so generally 
 known. It is only important to note that tho province 
 known as Nova Scotia by the one nation, as Acadia by tho 
 other, after various vicissitudes became the property of tho 
 English, and that it was assumed to be separated from tho 
 province of Massachusetts Bay by the river St. Croix. 
 While the latter province remained a colony, loyal 
 to the King, and the former a dominion of the Crown, 
 there was naturally no dispute over boundary lines. In 
 the provisional peace treaty of 1782, between the United 
 States and Great Britain, and in the definitive treaty of 
 peace in 1783, it is declared that in order that "all dis- 
 putes which might arise in future, on the subject of the 
 
1)oundar{efl of the said United States may be prevented, it 
 'm hereby agreed and declared tliat tlie following are and 
 shall be their Imundaries," and in this embodiment of 
 peaceful intent is to l)0 found the origin uf international 
 controversies which lusted more than a half a century, and 
 which were often provocative of much bitterness on both 
 sides. The phrase in which reference is made to the line 
 under consideration is as follows: *'East by a line to be 
 drawn along the middle of the river St. Croix, from its 
 mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source." During the 
 last days of the Revolutionary War many who had been 
 loyal to the King during its continuance fled from the 
 Colonies to Nova Scotia, and naturally they were not much 
 in favor among those who had risked all in the founding of 
 a new republic. It was believed by them that the loyalists 
 were encroaching on the territory rightfully belonging to 
 the province of Massachusetts, and even before the defini- 
 tive treaty of peace had been proclaimed. Congress had 
 been appealed to to drive them away from their settlement 
 and claim what was assumed to lie the property of the 
 United States of America. There at once developed what 
 proved to be one of the most interesting controversies in 
 the history of boundary lines. It was discovered that 
 although the St. Croix River had long served as a bound- 
 ary, ** between nations and individuals," its actual identity 
 was unknown. The treaty declared that the lino of demarc- 
 ation between the two countries should be *' drawn along 
 the middle of the river St. Croix from its mouth in the Bay 
 of Fundy," but it was found that there were several rivers 
 debouching into this bay and that several of them had 
 been, at one time or another, known as the St. Croix. 
 In accordance with time-honored diplomatic practice, the 
 English were for taking the most westerly of all these, and 
 the Americans contended with much vigor and no small 
 amount of justice that it was the most easterly. The St. 
 John, a large river emptying into the Bay of Fundy, had 
 
 
 \ 
 
8 
 
 been so long and so well known that it was out of the ques- 
 tion. There remained three considerable streams, which, 
 beginning with that farthest east, were known as the 
 Magaguadavic, or popularly at the present day, the "Mag- 
 adavy," the Passamaquoddy and the Cobscook, all pouring 
 their waters into the Passamaquoddy Bay. 
 
 In the Grenville-Jay Treaty of 1794, the settling of this 
 dispute is provided for in an agreement to appoint three 
 commissioners, one each to be named by the respective 
 governments and the third to be selected and agreed upon 
 by these two, whose duty it was to "decide what river is 
 the river St. Croix intended by the treaty," and to declare 
 the same, with particulars as to the latitude and longitude 
 of its mouth and its source, and the decision of these 
 commissioners was to be final. In a supplementary treaty 
 of 1798, this commission was relieved from the duty of 
 determining latitude and longitude, having, for some reason 
 or other, found difficulties in the same, or, possibly, recog- 
 nizing the absurdity of defining a boundary in two distinct 
 and fndependent ways. It was not until 1798 that the 
 commissioners made their report. As is usual, indeed, 
 almost universal in diplomatic affivirs, it represented a com- 
 promise. There seems to be little doubt that the river 
 which was called St. Croix at the time of the negotiation of 
 the treaty of peace in 1783 was really the most easterly 
 river or the "Magadavy," this being the testimony of the 
 commissioners, Adams, Jay and Franklin. But at the 
 same time it cannot be denied that the stream finally 
 accepted as the St. Croix was the real river of that name, 
 referred to in the traditions and treaties of two centuries, 
 and the discovery of the remains of the French settlement 
 on Dochet's Island quieted all doubt in the matter. Eng- 
 land gained a decided advantage by the not-unheard-of 
 proceeding of adhering to the letter of the treaty rather 
 than to its spirit. 
 
 But the report of the commission of 1798 fell far short 
 
 I 
 
IMlBfi 
 
 Eng- 
 
 of terminating the boundary-lino controversy. The iden- 
 tity of the St. Croix Kiver was fixed and its mouth 
 and source determined, but from tiio beginning of tiio 
 lino in the middle of the river there were still twenty 
 miles before the open ocean was reached. Along this 
 stretch of almost land-locked water were numerous islands, 
 several of them largo and valuable, and on some of them 
 important settlements had already been made. The Com- 
 missioners of 1794 were urged to continue the lino to the 
 sea, thus settling the sovereignty of these islands and end- 
 ing the dispute. They declined to do so, however, on 
 account of a lack of jurisdiction, as they believed, and it 
 was not then thought that these subordinate problems 
 would be difBcult of solution. As a matter of fact. Great 
 Britain claimed dominion over all of these islands and 
 exercised authority over most of them, except Moose 
 Island, upon which was the vigorous American town of 
 Eastport. A treaty was actually arranged in 1803 between 
 Lord Hawkcsbury and Rufus King in which the question 
 of the extension of the boundary line to the open sea was 
 n<rreed upon and in a most curious way. It was declared 
 that the boundary line should proceed from the mouth of the 
 St. Croix ard through the middle of the channel between 
 Deer Island and Moose Island (which was thus held by the 
 United States) and Campobello Island on the west and 
 south round the eastern part of Campobello to the Bay of 
 Fundy. This would apparently give the island of Campo- 
 bello to the United States ; but it was especially declared 
 that all islands to the north and east of said boundary, to- 
 gether toith the island of Campobello, should bo a part of 
 the Province of New Brunswick. The curious feature of 
 this treaty, providing that an island actually included on 
 the American side of the boundary lino should remain in 
 tho possession of Great Britain, resulted from a provision 
 of the treaty of 1783, which declared that all islands here- 
 tofore under the jurisdiction of Nova Scotia should remain 
 
 I 
 
 \ 
 
. i 
 
 10 
 
 the property of Great Britain. It is also an admission of 
 the fact that the natural extension of the boundary lino is 
 around the eastern end of Cainpobello, as described above ; 
 and while this treaty was never ratilied, it is of great 
 significance as proving the admission on the part of the 
 English, that the natural boundary would include the island 
 of Campobello in American territory. 
 
 During the war of 1812 matters remained in slatu quo, 
 and Moose Island (Eastport) continued to be regarded as 
 American, although Great Britain had yielded nothing of 
 her claims. Finally, just as peace had been declared, an 
 armed English force appeared before the town and com- 
 pelled its surrender. This was undoubtedly to gain that 
 possession, which is nine of the ten points, before the meet- 
 ing of the Commission at Ghent ; and in the discussion 
 which afterward took place, the British Commissioners 
 claimed absolute and complete ownership of Moose Island 
 and others near by. T » this the Ar<ericans would not 
 yield ; but they finally gave way to the extent of allowing 
 continued possession until commissioners, to be appointed 
 under the treaty, could irvestigato and decide the question. 
 Thus the boundary lino was thrown into the hands of 
 another commission, which was again unfortunate in not be- 
 ing clothed with sufficient power to definitely fix it. Indeed, 
 the importance and desirability of considering the extension 
 of the boundary line to the sea does not seem to have been 
 realized, the commissioners being restricted in their duties 
 to the determination of the sovereignty of the several islands 
 in Passamaquoddy Bay. The report of this commission 
 was made in November, 1817. As this decision has a most 
 important bearing on the matter under consideration, it 
 will bo well to quote its exact language. The Commission- 
 ers agreed "that Moose Island, Dudley Island and Freder- 
 ick Island, in the Bay of Passamaquoddy, which is part of 
 the Bay of Fundy, do and each of them does belong to the 
 United States of America ; and we have also decided, and 
 
immmmnir-* 
 
 11 
 
 do decide, that all other islands and each and every one of 
 them, in the said Bay of Passamaquoddy, which is a part 
 of the Bay of Fundy, and the Island of Grand Menan in the 
 said Bay of Fundy, do belong to his said Britannic Maj- 
 esty, in conformity with the true intent of said second 
 article of said treaty of one thousand seven hundred and 
 eighty-three." A very superficial examination of this 
 d^ision reveals the possibility of a decided advantage to 
 Great Britain in consequence of its wording, an advantage 
 doubtless foreseen and foresought by the more shrewd and 
 accomplished diplomatists by whom th^t nation was repre- 
 sented in this instance, as in almost every other contro- 
 versy with this country. Here is a group of scores of 
 islands, lying in an inland sea, separating the two countries. 
 It is true that the sovereignty of one or two of the most 
 important is apparently deterpincd by the treaty of 1783, 
 but on this the arguments were almost equally strong on 
 both sides. In any event it would have been easy, and 
 infinitely better to have drawn a line through the Bay, 
 from the mouth of the river to the open sea, and to have 
 declared that all islands on one side of that line should 
 belong to Great Britain and all on the other side to the 
 United States. Had this been done, much subsequent 
 dispute would have been avoided. With much ingenuity, 
 however (as it seems to me), the American Commission 
 was induced to accept three islands, definitely named and 
 pointed out, as their share, while the Englishmen, with 
 characteristic modesty, contented themselves with every- 
 thing left. Of the sovereignty of Moose, Dudley and 
 Frederick Islands, there was hardly room for discussion, 
 notwithstanding the three or four years' occupancy of the 
 town of Eastport by British troops after the War of 1812. 
 Our being worsted in the matter, as we unquestionably 
 were, is to be attributed to the general indifference of the 
 great majority of our people to the future value of outly- 
 ing territory, the resources of which have not yet been 
 
 I 
 
 \ 
 
-wm 
 
 sm 
 
 12 
 
 explored. This unfortunate indifference is quite as general 
 today as it was a century ago, and is in marked contrast 
 with the policy of our English ancestors. 
 
 It is important to note that this partition of the islands 
 in Passamaquoddy Bay, unfair as it unquestionably was, 
 gave no definition of the boundary line from the mouth of 
 the St. Croix to the sea, except inferentially. In the 
 absence of description it must be inferred that the bound- 
 ary is to be drawn so as to leave on one side all territory 
 admitted to be American and on the other all admitted to 
 be British. For a distance of about a half a mile the island 
 of Campobello lies so close to the American shore that a 
 channel, known as Lubec Channel, not more than a thous- 
 and feet in width, separates the two countries, and the 
 thread, or deepest axis of this channel might well define 
 the boundary. For the remajning score of miles, however, 
 as has already been explained, the estuary is too wide, its 
 depth too great and too uniform to afford any physical 
 delimitation, except that based on equal division of water 
 areas. 
 
 This ill-defined, or rather undefined boundary line has 
 so remained for nearly eighty years. It is true that gov- 
 ernment chart-makors, both English and American, have 
 often indicated by dotted lines their own ideas as to its 
 whereabouts, but they have not been consistent, even with 
 themselves, except as to making Lubec Channel a part of 
 it, and they have had no authority except that of tradition. 
 There has been no small amount of commercial activity 
 among the settlements on both sides of the Bay, and a con- 
 siderable proportion of the population have been, at one 
 time or another, engaged in fishing. The customs laws of 
 both countries, and especially the well-established fisheries 
 regulations of the Canadians, and the activity of their fish- 
 eries police, have led to various assumptions as to the loca- 
 tion of the boundary by one of the interested parties and to 
 more or less tacit admission by the other. It happens that 
 
 !!!i 
 
Htmtmm 
 
 ■HI 
 
 18 
 
 the greater part of the best fishing-grounds in the immedi- 
 ate vicinity of the town of Eastport is distinctly within 
 Canadian waters, so that most of the trespassing has been 
 done by the Americans. This has resulted in a great 
 development of Canadian police activity, which necessarily 
 implies assumption as to the existence and whereabouts of 
 the boundary. The continued readiness to claim that 
 American fishermen were trespassers, accompanied occa- 
 sionally by actual arrest and confiscation, naturally led to 
 a gradual pushing of the assumed boundary towards the 
 American side ; and there is no doubt that during the past 
 twenty-five years, the people on that side have acquiesced 
 in an interpretation of the original treaty which was decid- 
 edly unfavorable to their own interests. On the other 
 hand, from Lubec Channel to the sea, through Quoddy 
 Roads, a condition of things just the reverse of this seems 
 to have existed. Here certain fishing-rights and localities 
 have been stubbornly contended for and successfully held 
 by Americans, although the territory involved, is, to say 
 the least, doubtful. In the matter of importation of duti- 
 able foreign goods into the United States, there existed 
 for many years an easy liberality among the people whose 
 occupation at one time was largely that of smuggling, for 
 which the locality offers so many facilities. It is plain that 
 this condition of things would give rise to no great anxiety 
 about the uncertainty of the boundary line, although in one 
 or two instances the activity (no doubt thought pernicious) 
 of the Customs officers resulted in disputes as to where the 
 jurisdiction of one country ended and that of the other 
 began ; and in at least one notable case, to be referred to 
 at some length later, this question was adjudicated upon 
 by the United States courts. 
 
 The question was not seriously considered by the two 
 governments, however, from the time of the treaty of Ghent 
 to the year 1892. It is not an uncommon belief that this 
 part of the boundary line was considered in the famous 
 
 \ 
 
14 
 
 Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842; and many people 
 have unjustly held Webster responsible for the continued 
 possession by Great Britain of the island of Canipobello, 
 which, by every rule of physiographic delimitation, ought to 
 belong to the United States. But, as already recited, the 
 sovereignty of this island was settled in 1817, and practi- 
 cally so in the original treaty of 1783. The Webstor- 
 Ashburton Treaty was apparently intended to settle the 
 last outstanding differences between Great Britain and the 
 United States in the matter of boundary linos, but disputes 
 relating to them seem difficult to quiet. The treaty of 
 1842 carried the line only as far as the Rocky Mountains, 
 and another in 184G was necessary for its extension to the 
 Pacific. Examining both of these in the light of today, 
 there can be no doubt of the fact that the United States 
 was seriously at fault in yielding, as she did, her rightful 
 claims at both ends of the great trans-continental line. 
 Enormous advantages would be hers today, if she had not 
 so yielded ; and her only excuse is that at the time of 
 negotiation the territory involved did not seem of material 
 value, at least when compared with her millions of acres 
 then undeveloped. 
 
 In all of these controversies nothing was said of the little 
 stretch of undefined boundary in Passamaquoddy Bay, and 
 it is quite probable that those who had to do with such 
 matters were quite unaware of its existence. 
 
 On July 16th, 1891, the Canadian cruiser. Dream, doing 
 police duty in those waters, seized seven fishing-boats, 
 owned and operated by citizens of the United States, while 
 they were engaged in fishing at a point near what is known 
 as Cochran's I-edge, in Passamaquoddy Bay, nearly oppo- 
 site the city of Eastport, Maine. It was claimed by 
 Canadian authorities that the crews of these boats were 
 engaged in taking fish in Canadian waters. On the other 
 hand, the owners of the boats seized contended that they 
 were well within the jurisdiction of the United States at 
 
 'iL 
 
16 
 
 the time of the seizure, and there wus much interest in the 
 controversy which followed. The matter was referred 
 to the Department of State, where it became evident 
 that future conflict of authority and jurisdiction could be 
 avoided only by such a marking of the boundary line 
 as would make the division of the waters of the Bay 
 unmistakable. 
 
 Accordingly, in Article II. of the Convention between the 
 United States and Great Britain, concluded at Washington, 
 on July 22, 1892, it is agreed that each nation shall appoint 
 a Commissioner, and that the two shall "determine upon 
 a method of more accurately marking the boundary line 
 between the two countries in the waters of Passamaquoddy 
 Bay in front of and adjacent to Eastport in the State of 
 Maine, and to place buoys and fix such other boundary 
 marks as they may deem to be necessary." The phrasing 
 of this Convention furnishes in itself, a most excellent ex- 
 ample of how a thing ought not to be done. There is no 
 doubt that a large majority of the boundary-line disputes 
 the world over, are due to the use of faulty descriptions 
 involving hasty and ill-considered phraseology. We are 
 particularly liable to this sort of thing in the United States, 
 by reason of the fact that most of our diplomatic affairs are 
 too often conducted by men of little experience and no 
 training, and who are unaccustomed to close criticism of the 
 possible interpretation of phrases and sentences relating to 
 geographical subjects. A treaty of this kind is usually 
 satisfactory to both parties when entered into, and it is 
 only at a later period, when it must be interpreted, that one 
 or the other of them is likely to find that it is capable of a 
 rendering and an application very diflTerent from what had 
 been thought of at the time. Innumerable examples of this 
 looseness of language might be given if necessary, but it is 
 important to call attention to the inherent weakness of the 
 document now under consideration. The first phrase, re- 
 quiring the commissioners "to determine upon a method of 
 
 \ 
 
16 
 
 more accurately marking the lioumlary line" implies that it 
 was already marked in some unsatisfactory manner, and it 
 implies still further, that such a boundary line exists, 
 neither of which assumptions is correct. As a consequence 
 of this erroneous hypothesis, the description of the part 
 of the line to be marked, namely, that in front of and 
 adjacent to Eastport, is vague and inadequate, and, 
 indeed, there is nowhere a hint of a recognition of the 
 real facts. 
 
 Under this convention, Hon. W. F. King, of Ottawa, 
 Canada, was appointed commissioner on the part of Great 
 Britain, and the writer of this paper represented the United 
 States. 
 
 The commissioners were immediately confronted with 
 the fact that they were expected to mark a boundary line 
 which really did not exist and never had existed ; but by a 
 liberal interpretation of that part of the convention in which 
 it was agreed that they were "to place buoys or fix such 
 other boundary marks as they may determine to be neces- 
 sary," they found a basis on which to proceed to the con- 
 sideration of the question. Evidently the just and fair 
 principle according to which the boundary might be drawn, 
 was that which, as far as was practicable, left equal water- 
 areas on both sides. There was no other solution of the 
 problem clearly indicated by the physics of the estuary or 
 the topography of the shores. Furthermore, there is a 
 precedent for adopting this principle, in the treaty of 1846, 
 in which the extension of the boundary from the point of 
 intersection of the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude with 
 the middle* of the channel between Vancouver Island and 
 the Continent, to the Pacific Ocean, is along the middle of 
 the Strait of Fuca. This was agreed to by both sides ; and 
 also, that the boundary line should consist, in the main, of 
 straight lines, because of the impossibility of marking a 
 curved line on the water, or indicating it clearly by shore 
 signals ; that the number of these straight lines should be 
 
 ..', 
 
17 
 
 as small os possible, consistent with an approximately equal 
 division of the water area. In view of the great desirability 
 of fixing the line for the whole distance, from the mouth of 
 the St. Croix River to West Quoddy Head, the commis- 
 sioners tentatively agreed to so intori)ret the words "adja- 
 cent to Eastport," as to include the entire twenty miles, 
 thus hoping to definitely settle a controversy of a hundred 
 years' standing. Proceeding on these principles, the whole 
 line was actually laid down on a large scale chart of the 
 region at a meeting of the commission, in Washington, in 
 March, 1893, with the exception of a distance of a little 
 over half a mile, extending north from a point in the middle 
 of Lubec Channel. The omission of this part in the Wash- 
 ington agreement was due to the existence of a small island 
 al)out a quarter of a mile from the entrance to the channel, 
 now known as "Pope's Folly," but early in tfie century 
 known as "Green" Island and also as "Mark" Island. The 
 sovereignty of this island hos been almost from the begin- 
 ning a matter of local dispute. It contains barely an acre of 
 ground, and except for possible military uses, it has practi- 
 cally no value. Its location is such, however, as to form a 
 stumbling block in the way of drawing a boundary line, 
 which, if hiidlHown with a reasonable regard to the princi- 
 ples enunciated above, would certainly throw it on the side 
 of the United States, while a lino so drawu as to include it 
 in Canadian waters would be unscientific and unnatural. 
 It was agreed to postpone further consideration of this 
 question until the meeting of the commissioners in the field 
 for the purpose of actually establishing the lino, which 
 meeting occurred in July, 1893. 
 
 Nearly two months were occupied in the surveys neces- 
 sary to the establishment of the ranges agreed upon and in 
 the erection of the shore signals. It was agreed that the 
 line should bo marked by buoys at the turning-points, but 
 as the strong tidal currents which there prevail promised to 
 make it difficult, if not impossible, to hold these in their 
 
 \ 
 
18 
 
 places it was dotormined to mark each straight segment of 
 the boundary by prominent and lasting range-signals so that 
 it could bo followed without regard to the buoys, and cross- 
 ranges were also established by means of which the latter 
 could be easily replaced if carried away. Permanent natu- 
 ral objects were in a few instances used as range signals, 
 but for the most part they were stone monuments, conical 
 in form, solidly built, from five feet to fifteen feet in height, 
 and painted white whenever their visibility at long range 
 was thus improved. At the close of the work, first-class 
 can-buoys were placed at the principal turning-points, al- 
 though with little hope of their remaining in place. As a 
 matter of fact, it was found impossible to keep in place more 
 than three of the six or seven put down, but, fortunately, 
 these are at the most important points in the line. As 
 already stated, the commissioners had failed to agree, in 
 Washington, as to the direction of the line around Pope's 
 Folly Island, and on further investigation of the facts they 
 were not drawn together on this point. As the work in 
 the field progressed, other important difterences developed 
 which finally prevented the full accomplishment of the 
 work for whicli the commission had been appointed. A 
 brief discussion of these differences will properly form a 
 part of this paper. 
 
 As to jurisdiction over Pope's Folly Island, the claim 
 of the British Commissioner is, at first blush, the strongest. 
 It rests upon the report of the commissioners appointed 
 under the treaty of Ghent for the partition of the islands 
 in Passamaquoddy Bay. It will be remembered that in 
 this report three, only, of these islands were declared to 
 belong to the United States, and Pope's Folly was not 
 one of them. As all others were to be the property of 
 Great Britain it would seem that the sovereignty of this 
 small island was hers beyond doubt. There is, however, 
 very distinctly, another aspect of the question. In the 
 first place, it is highly probable the Commissioners under 
 
19 
 
 ^ 
 
 the treaty of Ghent restricted their considomtion nnd 
 action to those islanda tlio domain of wlticli was nnd had 
 been actually in dispute. The hmguaj^e of tlio treaty dis- 
 tinctly implies this ami the language of the report closely 
 follows that of the treaty. It is true that reference is had 
 to " the several islands in the Hay of Passama*] noddy, 
 which is part of the Bay of Fundy," r^-., hut it is further 
 said that "said islands are claimed as belonging to Flis 
 Britannic Majesty, as having been nt the time of and previ- 
 ous to the aforesaid treaty of one thousand seven hundred 
 and eighty-three, within the limits of the Province of Nova 
 Scotia"; for by that treaty all of the important islands of 
 the group would have como to the United States, had not 
 exception been made of all then or previously belonging to 
 this province. Obviously, then, the partition commission- 
 ers would consider only those for which such a claim could 
 bo set up. There is also good reason to believe that the 
 island called Pope's Folly may not have been considered 
 by the commission, on account of its trifling importance. 
 It is a significant fact that there are many other small 
 islands in the bay, some of them much larger and more 
 important than this, of which no mention was made by the 
 commission, yet Great Britain has never claimed or even 
 suggested that they wore rightfully British territory. 
 Their sovereignty was probably not even thought of by the 
 commission. In short, a literal interpretation of their 
 report is not admissible and it has never been so claimed. 
 Its phraseology is another example of hasty diplomatic 
 composition, into the acceptance of which the Americans 
 may have been led by their more skilful opponents. 
 
 At the time this question was under consideration, the 
 region was sparsely settled, many of the islands having no 
 inhabitants at all; and the whole dispute was thought, 
 at least on our side, to bo a matter of comparative little 
 importance. It was natural, therefore, that in selecting 
 those islands which were to belong to the United States, 
 
 \ 
 
so 
 
 I 
 
 only tho iiio8t iinporttiiit would lio (liouj^ht of, it hoing 
 undorHtood Ihnt goograpliictil rulationsliip Hliould detorniino 
 jUi'iHdiction over tnnny small inlands not named and douht- 
 IcsH not thought worthy of enumerating at that time. But 
 if it could 1)0 uhown that tho iuland wait at the time of tho 
 treaty of 1783, or had been previously, n dependency of 
 tho Province of Nova b'cotia, tho claim of tho British 
 Commissioner tvould bo good. On this point I believe tho 
 ovidonco is entirely with uh. It goes to itiiow that so tar 
 as there has lieen any private ownership of tho island it hat 
 boon vested in American citizens. At tho time of my 
 investigation, in tho summer of 1803, I had tho pleasure 
 of a long interview with tho owner of this little island, 
 Mr. Winslow Bates, who was born in the year 1808, in 
 which year Pope's Folly was deeded to his father by ono 
 Zcbn Pope. A copy of this deed I obtained from tho 
 records at Machias, but I was unable to find any trace of 
 an earlier proprietor than Mr. Pope. It was deeded to 
 Mr. Bates under tho name of "Little Green Islarid"; but 
 there is evidence that Popo had erected u[>on it a house and 
 a wharf, tho usclcssncss of which had suggested to his 
 neighbors tho name by which it is now known. Bates, the 
 father of my informant, continued in peaceful possession of 
 tho inland until tho British forces came into control at 
 Enstport ut tho close of tho war of 1812. In August, 
 1814, David Owen, of Campobello, posted n placard 
 proclamation in tho town of Eastport, announcing his 
 assertion of ownership of this island. It Avas hardly 
 posted, however, before it was torn down by an indignant 
 American patriot, probably Elias Bates hitnself, for it is 
 now in tho possession of Mr. Winslow Bates. It shows 
 tho holes made by the tacks by which it was originally 
 bold and is a curious and valuable rolic of thoso Iroublu- 
 somo days in tho history of Eastport. 'Backed by tho 
 British army, Owen took forcible possession of tho island 
 and removed tho buildings to Campobello. Tho American 
 
II 
 
 -! 
 
 owner, Batofl, procured n wri» for the nrrcst of Owen, 
 claiming tlamngcs to the exlcn* of $2,000. The writ 
 wn« never served, ns Owon was c«roful never to cotno 
 witliin the jurisdic 'ion of tliu (;ourt, after the withdrowal 
 of tlio UriliHli troops. After this it wns in the continued 
 occupancy of Americans ; Batca pastured shcop on it, and 
 Canadians who had attempted to erect a weir at the oast 
 end of tlio island wore prevented from doing so by a 
 warning from Wlnslow Bates, and did not furtiicr assert 
 their claim. The island was incorporated into the town 
 of Eastport, and when that town was divided it was 
 included in that part known as Luboc. As long ago as 
 1823, the sovereignty of the island was adjudicated upon 
 by the American courts, on the occasion of the confisca- 
 tion near its shore, of "sundry barrels of rum" by olort 
 Customs officers. Judge Ware made an elalwrato decision, 
 in which the whole case was admirably presented.' 
 
 His construction of the Report of the Commission was 
 ♦• that it assigns to each party a title according to its 
 possession, as it was held in 1812," and ho finds that the 
 island is within tho domain of the United States. 
 
 If further ovidenco wero necessary, it could be found in 
 tho early cartography of this region. 
 
 In a map entitled "A Map of Campobello and other 
 Islands in the Province of Now Brunswick, the property of 
 Will Owen, Esq., solo surviving grantee, etc., drawn by 
 JoImi Wilkinson, Agt., to Wm. Owen Esq., Campobello, 
 30th September, 1830," there is drawn a broken straight 
 line extending from tho southern end of Deer Island to tho 
 eastern point of LuImjc Nock, which lino is designated 
 " Fllium Aquoo" which must bo interpreted as meaning 
 water lino or boundary. Pope's Folly is on tho American 
 side of this line. Moreover, it is an hislurlcul fact that 
 English and American vessels formerly exchanged cnrgoes 
 
 1 Wurc'8 Reports, 1823. 
 
 \ 
 
22 
 
 
 I 
 
 on such u line, not far from Eastport, which was assumed 
 to be the boundary line. A British Admiral's chart of that 
 region, dated 1848, shows a dotted line intended to repre- 
 sent the boundary, which runs to the eastward of Pope's 
 Folly. Moreover, the principal ship channel is between 
 the island and Canipobello. 
 
 In the light of all of this evidence, and more of a similar 
 character, it seems unreasonable to suppose that the Com- 
 mission under the treaty of 1814 ever intended this island 
 to bo included in the general declaration ''all other islands 
 shall belong to His Britannic Majesty." According to all 
 recognized geographical principles, to traditional ownership 
 and continued possession, and to early and authoritative 
 maps and charts, it is a part of the State of Maine. To 
 deflect the boundary line so as to bring the island under 
 British control, would distort it to an unreasonable degree, 
 and would result in greatly increased diflSculty and con- 
 fusion in the administration of customs laws and regula- 
 tions. Against all of this the British Commission could 
 only set up a literal interpretation of the report of the 
 Commissioners under the treaty of Ghent, to which the 
 representative of the United States felt compelled to refuse 
 assent. 
 
 Another difference of opinion, almost trivial in magnitude 
 but suggestive in character, arose as soon as the range- 
 marks defining the line as agreed upon in Washington had 
 been actually located on the ground. Nearly opposite the 
 city of Eastport there is rather a sharp change in the direc- 
 tion of this line, amounting to about 57° 25'. It was dis- 
 covered that there wos included in the angle at this point, 
 on the side towards the United States, the better part of a 
 shoal known as Cochran's Ledge, a locality much fre- 
 quented by fishermen, and, indeed, the very spot on which 
 the American fishermen had been arrested by the Canadian 
 police in 1891. The result of this discovery was that the 
 commissioner representing Canadian interests declared his 
 
28 
 
 unwillingness to agree to the line as laid down at this 
 point, and desired to introduce a new short line cutting 
 off this angle so as to throw the ledge into Canadian 
 waters. 
 
 In some measure growing out of this controversy was a 
 third, relating to the line from Lubec Channel to the sea. 
 For about half of this distance the channel now and for 
 many years in use is a dredged channel, created and main- 
 tained at the expense of the United States. Through this 
 it was proposed and agreed at Washington to run the 
 boundary line. Previous to the making of this there was 
 a more or less complete ard satisfactory natural chan- 
 nel, through which all vesseh passed. It was crooked, 
 and was, for the most pail, much nearer the Canadian 
 shore than the present channel. It has now largely filled 
 up and disappeared; the principal current having been 
 diverted into the new channel. In running the bound- 
 ary line through the latter a much more even and, in 
 the judgment of the American Commissioner, a much 
 more just division of the water area was secured, but 
 it was discovered to have the locally serious disadvantage 
 of throwing to the Canadian side certain fishing weirs 
 which had been maintained practically in the sanjo spot for 
 many years and which were mostly owned and operated by 
 American citizens, resident in the town of Lubec. It is 
 true, as suggested in an earlier part of this paper, that 
 their continued occupation had been stoutly resisted by the 
 Canadians, and serious conflict had once or twice arisen. 
 There was, of course, a certain amount of reason in de- 
 manding a line following the old channel, which undoubtedly 
 was the only channel, when the original treaty was made. 
 Adherence to the well-founded principle of equal division 
 of water areas, however, was thought to bo wiser and more 
 just by the representative of the United States, even if it 
 required the surrender of a few comparatively valueless 
 fishing-privileges, the right to which was of very doubtful 
 
24 
 
 origin. 
 
 Those who thought they would suffer in this way 
 made strong appeals to the Departnacnt of State and a 
 claim for the old channel was afterwards embodied in the 
 propositions made by the United States. 
 
 The differences between the Commissioners regarding the 
 three points above referred to were the only differences that 
 were at all serious, and these, it is believed, might have 
 been removed had they enjoyed absolute freedom and full 
 power of adjustment. Thus restricted, the Commissioners 
 could not and did not come to an agreement. At their 
 meeting on December 30th, 1894, the American Commis- 
 sioner submitted three propositions, to any one of which 
 ho was willing to subscribe. The first proposed the entire 
 line as originally laid down in Washington, with an addi- 
 tional section throwing Pope's Folly Island into the United 
 States ; the second suggested a literal interpretation of the 
 Convention of July 22nd, 1892, restricting the marking to 
 three lines " in front of and adjacent to Eastport" ; tlio third 
 recommended an agreement on portions of the line, with 
 alternative propositions as to Pope's Folly and Lubec 
 Channel, to be afterwards determined by such. methods as 
 the two goveinmoiits might agree upon. None of these 
 was acceptable to the British Commissioner and in turn he 
 submitted five propositions, none of which was satisfactory 
 to the representative of the United States. They all 
 involved non-action as to Pope's Folly Island, but included 
 action favorable to Canadian interests below Lubec. 
 
 At the last meeting, in April, 1895, it was finally agreed 
 to disagree, and the preparation of a joint report, setting 
 forth the principal lines of agreement and disagreement 
 was undertaken. It was at last resolved, however, to 
 report separately, and a full and detailed report of all 
 operations was made by the American Commissioner and 
 submitted to the Department of State. 
 
 What was actually accomplished by this joint Com- 
 mission was the laying out in Washington of a rational 
 
nnnii^iify. 
 
 1 this way 
 ito and a 
 C(1 in the 
 
 irding the 
 enccs that 
 ight have 
 1 and full 
 nissioncrs 
 
 At their 
 
 Coinmis- 
 
 of which 
 
 tlie entire 
 
 nn addi- 
 le United 
 on of the 
 nrking to 
 tlic third 
 lino, with 
 d Lubec 
 cthods ns 
 
 of these 
 1 turn he 
 lisfactory 
 rhey all 
 included 
 
 \ 
 
 y agreed 
 t, sotting 
 ^reemcnt 
 'ever, to 
 rt of all 
 oner and 
 
 it Corn- 
 rational 
 
 5T ^UOOOY 
 Mt*0 
 
 Sketch Map of Passamaquoddy Bay showing proposed Boundary with alternate lines 
 
 below and above Lubec. 
 
 I 
 
 I i|iiiWiCiiL'Bilift.'JU'i.""""<" 
 
25 
 
 boundary line, extending over the entire twenty miles of 
 undetermined boundary, and the actual erection on the 
 ground of range-signals and monuments indicating this Ime. 
 These still remain and, as a matter of fact, are quite gen- 
 erally accepted as authoritative in the immediate vicinity, 
 thus making it every day easier for a future convention to 
 fix definitely the direction of the boundary and thus quiet a 
 dispute which has already continued a century longer than 
 was necessary.