IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // >* , < 1.0 SK4 I.I itt itt lU u ■u 14.0 2.2 2.0 «* - 11.25 IJi& n* .V /; ^; FhotDgrapdiic Sdmces (jQrporatiQn ;\ 23 WIST MAIN STRHT WnSTM.N.Y. I4SS0 (716)«72-4503 '^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICIVIH Collection de Canadian Institute for Historical Microroproductions / Institut Canadian da microraproductions historiquas Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notoa tachniquas at bibliographiquaa Tha Instituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat original copy availabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia copy which may ba bibliographicaHy uniqua. which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha raproduction, or which may aignificantly changa tha uauai mathod of filming, ara chackad balow. L'Inatitut a microf ilmA la maillaur axamplaira qu'il lui a itA poaaibia da sa procurer. La« details da cat axamplaira qui sont paut-Atra uniquas du point da vua bibliographiqua. qui pauvant modifier una image reprodulte. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dene la mlthoda normale de f iimage aont indiquia ci-deaaous. □ Coloured covera/ Couvarture da couleur □ Covera damaged/ Couverture endommagia □ Coloured pagea/ Pagea de couleur □ Pagae damaged/ Pagea endommagtes D D Covera reatored and/or laminated/ Couverture reataurAe et/ou pelliculAe Cover title miaaing/ La titre de couverture manque D D Pegea reatored and/or laminated/ Pegea reataurAea et/ou peiliculAea Pagea diacoloured. stained or foxed/ Pages dteolortes. tachattes ou piquias D D Coloured meps/ Certea g^ographiquaa en couleur Coloured inic (i.e. other than blue or blacit)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) □ Pages detached/ Pages dAtachias rrpi Showthrough/ LzJ Transparence D D D D Coloured plataa and/or illuatrationa/ Planchaa et/ou iijuatrationa an couleur Bound with other material/ Rali4 avac d'autrea documenta Tight binding may cauae ahadowa or diatortion along interior margin/ Lareiiura serrte peut cauaar da i'ombre ou de la distortion la iong de la marge intArieure Blank leavej added during restoration may . appeer within the text. Whenever possible, these heve been omitted from filming/ il se peut que certainea pagea blanchaa ajoutAas tors d'une reatauration apparaiaaent dans la taxte, meia, iorsque ceia itait possible, ces peges n'ont pes «t4 fiimtes. D D D D Quality of print varies/ Quaiiti inAgale de I'impression includes supplementary material/ Comprand du materiel suppi^mantaire Only edition available/ Seuie Mition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc.. have been refilmad to ensure the best possible image/ Les peges totslement ou partiellament obscurcies par un feuiilet d'errata. une palure. etc.. ont M filmAes A nouveau da fapon A obtenir la meiileure imege possible. rrr Additional commenta:/ UlJ Commantairea supplimentairas; This copy it a photoreproduetton. This item is filmed at tha reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmt au taux da rMuction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X nx y 12X IfX 20X 24X 28X 32X TtM copy fllmttd her* haa b««n r«produo«d thank* to tha ganaroaity of: Lmv Library York University Toronto Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara tha baat quality poaalbia conaMarlng tha condition and laglblllty of tha original copy and In kaaping with ttia filming contract apacif Icationa. Original eopiaa in printad papar covara ara fllmad iMginning with tha front covar and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- ilon. or tha back covar whan approprlata. All othar original eopiaa ara fllmad baginning on tha firat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa* alon, and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraaaton. Tha laat raoordad frama on aach microflcha shall contain tha symbol — »> (moaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha symbol y (moaning "END"), whichavar appiiaa. L'axampiaira filn«i f ut raproduit griea A la g4n4roaitA da: Law Libra.'y York University Toronto Laa imagaa auivantaa ont 4ti raproduHaa avac la plua grand aoin. compta tanu da la conditton at da la nattat* da l'axampiaira film*, at mt conf ormit* avac laa condltlona du contrat da fHmaga. Laa axamplalraa origlnaux dont la couvartura an paplar aat imprlm4a aont fllmte an commandant par la pramiar plat at an tarminant adt par la damMra paga qui eomporto una ampralnta d'Impraaalon ou dllluatration. sdt par la sacond plat, salon la caa. Toua laa autraa axamplalraa origlnaux aont fllmte mt commandant par la pramMra paga qui comporta una ampralnta dimpraaaion ou d'iltuatratlon at an tarminant par la damlAra paga qui comporta una taila ampralnta. Un daa aymbdaa auhranta apparattra aur la damiira Imaga da chaqua microflcha. salon la caa: la aymbola -^ aignifla "A 8UIVRE". la aymbola Y aignifla "FIN". IMapa, plataa. charts, ate., may ba fllmad at diffarant raduction ratkM. Thoaa too larga to ba antiraiy included in ona axpoaura ara fllmad baginning in tha uppar iaft hand comar. iaft to right and top to bottom, aa many framaa aa required. The foltowing diagrama illustrate the method: Lee cartee, planchaa, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre fllmAe i dee taux do rMuctlon diffArenta. Loraqua la document est trop grand pour Atre reprodult en un soul cllchA, 11 est filmA A partir da I'angia aupAriaur gauche, do geuche A droha, at da haut wt bee, en prenant la nombra d'imagea nAcaeaalra. Lee diagrammea suivanta illuatrent la mAthoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 •''"■•'«} • ,■;■• J:'>vV "I ..... ■M ',-'.':>■■■ '^i ■ • '■■■'■■■.. .-r" .-.J.,/>. ■ '. '»3 ^ iil )S.J, • tr. .. • i ' i...'f^'V-:,w'.;:J ;; ';>■-.■ .-. .' |:-^^:>'.^^ . ^■.:;^* '■•■;■■/■:; '.l'*i''» .'■."-■■; *:''■'' ■■.^/^■::■<>;^v'si '.;-»;,..>/ >,>■>. '.i-w :'V.'.; .';;■•...■,? • .',"■■ ■ '.■v..i :V' \ ^!*fiV.-'r- ■■:■■•' ■-,■'*■■■■'■•.■■ ■.■'■ "/ • ■.■'*''-'!'.■■' J. J •" ■"-•§/,■''•!,'!<' "■.4'*' i'.' ' i~.-?. ''■■■.■ - .<;."■/.. 't; -.-1 .'1 I. i \ f I ^U^AJcA '/ SECOND STATEMENT ON THE VABT Of GIIE/IT BKITAIW. ACCOBDIMO TO TUE PROVISIONS <)«• wwiM (smfwmwwm^ CONCUIDEO BETtVEE.V ©ceat 53ritam ani t|)e 'SKttitctj g>tate0. OiN THE 29th SEPTEMliEK, 1827, rOR BEGt'LATISG THE E.EFBIIH2^C22 TO ilRBITn^^TIOiN' OF THE DISPUTED POINTS OF BOUNDAHY ^ ^ •■.f^S,Jn t UNDER THE FIFTH .ARTICLE OF THE TEEjITY OF GHENT- (I ». m^T \."i I ?"s ft '•.t *,> ■:'Wt. ■-'- • .,k..:fc-. '. •»> 1 SECOND BRITISH STATEMENT. . -I *.>• . ^ ■; .-S-li- I *;'■5^•.•': r CONTENTS. rii«. INTRODUOTION 1 OccajioD and object of this Second Statement ..... 1 I. Point ubsicnateo in the TneATtEs as the North-west Auglc of Nova Scotia, amd Line tuencc to the NoRTH-wEaTERctiogT head of CoMrrxTiciT river . 2 to 34 Circiiunstiinces to be borne in tniodin coniideringthe Trenty cf 1783 . . 3 Leading Principle of the Treaty of 1783 ...... 6 Negotiations which preceded the conclusion of the Treaty . . . 6 to 8 L Instructions of the American Congress • • . . .6 — Declare no principle of Settlement as to the Boundaries . . .7 2. Report of Committee of American Congress . ... 7 • 3. Correspondence of American Plenipotentiaries ■ . . . 8 Notions enterttiined of disputed Territoiy in 1783 . : . .9 Terms of the Treaty considered ....... 10 Higliliinds . . . . . . . .11 Highliinrls dividing Rivers, and Rivers to be divided . . . . 12 . Meaning of term Atlantic Ocean ..... . . 12 Bny of Fundy distinct from Atlantic Ocean . . . . .13 Gulf of St. Lawrence and Bay of Fundy not included in term Atlantic Ocean ; and respective Riven contradistinguished also . . , . .16 Boundary Line not to be carried to the North of the St. John . . .16 Reaions fur silence of Treaty on that point . . . .18 Treaty sufliciently explicit as it i:i . . , . . .19 Geiier.)! belief of the existence of Highlands South of the St. John . . SO Actual existence of such Highlands . . . ■ . •21 M.iPidfill . . 22. Mcaniii); under the Treaty of the term N. W. Angle of Nova Scotia . . '23 Its positioi, no more known in 1783 than now . . . . .26 Spot cisiinied by the United States as the N. W. Angle of Nova Scotia, and Highlands claimed by the same as their Northern Boundary . . ^ .26 Assertion of the United States that the ancient Provincial Boundary Line and the f. Treaty Line are identical . . , . . . . S8 Discussion on that Subject foreclosed by the Treaty . . . .38 Rpvieu' of Documents brought forward by United States -. . . .29 Map Evidence ......... 32 Possession ......... 32 Summary, ......... 33 H. NoRTH'WESTERNMOST HeaD OF CoN'NEGTICVT RlVER . . . 34 tO 38 Terms " Head" and " Branch" confounded in American Aigument . . 35 British Chiim established ..'..*.. 37 in. Boundary Ijine from the Connecticut River to the River St. Lawrence, along THE Parallel of 458 Horth LATiTtOE . . . , 38 to 41 Proceedings on old Line imperfect . . . . . .39 Intention of the Treaty of Ghent to substitute a correct Line of Bouodaiy for the Old one . ....... 40 f^onclusion in favour of British Claim . • - . . .41 ^ mi.- is m^ K*f: !^i^ mk ■' / SECOND BRITISH STATEMENT. INTRODUCTION. In the Convention, by which Ills Britannic Majesty and The United States of imrwineiiaaM- ' •• ' plnnatoi/orthn America agreed to refer to a final and conclusive Arbitration the disputed points of the .^/"flS,*^^!^^ Fifth Article of the Treaty of Ghent, it is stipulated that new and separate Statements of '"*'*^'"- 'the two Cases, drawn up by the Parties, and mutually communicated by each to the other, should be substituted for the reports of their respective Commissioners. It was farther agreed that, after such communication, each Party should have the power of drawing up a second and definitive Statement in reply ; the second Statements to be also communicated by the two Parties to each other within a certain specified time. The former part of this twofold stipulation having been duly carried into eflect, it now rests with the Contracting Parties to avail themselves of the power reserved to them by the latter clause. On the side of the British Government, the exercise of this power might, perhaps, be waved without danger to the justice or success of their claim, established, as it is, on the grounds set loith in their First Statement, and confirmed by the documents annexed to it. Whatever research and ingenuity may have been employed in framing the argu- me * O'f the United States, it is, doubtless, on the substantial merits of the case, examined .with jv't discernment, that a decision will ultimately be made. But if either Party, by going anew over the points at issue with immediate reference to the arguments advanced by the other, may hope to render the task of deciding less irksome to the Arbiter, there b at once a sufiicient inducement, little short of positive obligation, to present u Second Statement agreeably to the terms of the Convention. This duty, it is obvious, may be performed on the part of Great Britain either by following the American Statement, paragraph by paragraph, throughout its several divi- sions, or by exhibiting a general succinct view of the British Case in. its own natural order, correcting, as it proceeds, the errors, and exposing, when requisite, by particular application, the fallacies, of the advetse argument. Though something might possibly be gained in point of precision by adopting the more conti-overslal form, there is little doubt that the latter mode of proceeding will be found more thoroughly in unison with that spirit of equity and mutual forbearance, which Influenced both Governments in conclud- ing the Treaty of Ghent, and led them not only to anticipate some diflerences in the course of its execution, but to provide the most effectual means of settling such difleren- ces, whenever they might arise, in a friendly and satisfactory manner. B a. 8^ ■.A 0} ';\:;-A' '.^'•^ l: i >'i Ita ^:' - 111 Rrit. Kui, py. I • iJ 'J. Ill Am. Sui. Wlitlnil Lvl- T!iic« oiMitivni lartrrMl !• A«bi> t'ltlw. It ii not iKiofitiiary, on (his occuiori, cither to rn- tain tlie point* or liiiTur'^ncf, fur a just solutiuii of which the Conlractin^ I'nrtie* Iiiiva ii^r»!«:.l to Jtnort to thii Arbitratioa ofn tVieixIiy Huveieign, or to recapitulate the hi»toriral circumitaiicus iiuniiiJiatcIy coii- iiec(*:il witii thn three Qucstiuni iti dispute. I'honc Qufitiuiis aaJ tho»c Circuuutnnc)*'), together with tlie passagos of theTrt'atles iinnieiliately rcliii.iii}{ lo the funiMir, have alreaJy I'ouiiJ n 8uitnblo place in tho ojiening pages of the Fir.4t Britisli Statcnioiit. The Com- mercial Treaty of 1791, uiul thu 'Jeclaration of jhe Coiniiii.siioiiurs appointed under its filth Article to determine what River was the true St. Croix iutcitded by Treaty, may r,Uo be fitfil us affording some additional n.atter of refi:rf;n<;e. They ar« ann<;x€d i > the American istntement, and the Arbiter will have an opjjortunity of observing, in the -iih and 5th Articles of the Commercial Treaty, how very crror.euus an idea of the country to be traversed by parts of the Boundary Line must have been entertained by the Ncgo* tiatorsof 17c(3. Of the three questions referred to Arbitration the one, which stand) first in tba Statements already communicated, is that which is principally characterized by its rela- tion to the Western Boundary of the Province of Nova Scotia, since divided into Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. There is no reason to depart from this order of arrange- ment now. FIRST BUAiNCH OK DIFFERENCE. riiii .lUMiimi. It i.s justly observed in the opening of the American Argument, that those rlause» .i.r.f..fThou'iiii.of the second Article of the Treaty of 1783, which rejfard the Northern and Kastem iii^via.suL Boundaries of The United States, must be brought tojjcther and connected in order to alTord a clear and exact view of the case submitted to Arbitration. The words of the Treaty are these : " From the North West Angle of J\''ova Scotia, viz. that Angle •' tnhich Is formed by a line draien due ^Yorth from the source of St. Croix Rivtr to tk* " HigMands, along the said Highlands which divide those. Rivers that empty themselves s*' " into the River St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic OccA.t "to the north-westernmost head of Connecticut River ; — F.ast, by a line to he draws " along the middle of the River St. Croix from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source, " and from its source directly North to the aforesaid Highlands which divide the Rivrn " that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the River St. Lattrrtct: . «' comprehending all islands within twenty leagues of any part of the shores of the Uaitrd ♦' States, and lying between lines to be drawn due East from the points where the afore* " said Boundaries between JVora Scolla on the one part, and East Florida on the other. " shall respectively /ouc/t the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean." It wID b« remembered that the last clause of this extract refers to a preceding part of the sane art** cle in which the Southern Boundary of The United States is described as folloirinj; tU course of St. Mary's River to the Ocean. Although the British and American Governments differ as to where the po*at of departure for the northern Boundary of The United States, designated by the name «| the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, is to be placed according to the intention of iW Treaty ; and although the conflicting claims involve a difl'erencc of 105 luilcs ditt»M« on the due north Line, and of 10,705 square miles in total extent, both Parties ajrtc fai stating, that in order to determine the true situation of tho above-mentioned point odit- parlurc, the highlands intended by the Treaty must first be determined. The correctfi^M t>( . — — — _ — — I ■ * 'I'lie rcfcrcncd are inaJ» lo tlie Briti.'h reprint of thr fir-t Atucrionn StntcmcoU App. Id Rfiu 6i»l. p. *). I>| Are. Sim. D. &. ■■•■ 'iS _s f ■m CO*' r»Jy |i«4rr ><• liT*; »•»*» : r''*''' m t r.s. -' ' lOf^r to AdcW «• *^ tar OntAJ* ~» !»«» Vtt, f"' ♦ ^j«i" a lint (Iruim dut lufrth frmh tht tonrc* of thn St. Vroh, i$ (As noi-thern Jhuudanj of Tile UniUd Stalii to bi carritd, wtilmkfti, 10 tht nort/i- vtttimmo»t htnd of the Connrdicut Riitr? Ilowevei- simple the form in which this (jiiestion i« stated, there would be no g'"e»* tIl'iI.wTI'ii"n.'n'« candour In represfntln,'? it as one of easy solution. The cirPHm.Ht.inrsi's nnder which the f Treaty of 17^3 was concluded, were such iw to make it extremely probHbie that serious "*^ difficulties would arise in the course of its execution. The ftrst object of the negotiation, common (0 both I'nrliti, was peace ; the second was the establishment of peace on solid and durable foundations. It was essential to tiie latter purpose that Che Boundariaa of The United 8tntos should be explicitly and conclusively defined by mutual consent. By waiting for all the topographical information necessary to give n detailed description of the Boundaries, the negotiators would have cxpo^d the whole work of pacilication to the • most imminent risk. This cannot fail of striking every one who beam in mind the im* mense extent of inland boundary claimed by the United States, us well on the side of the British Provinces as on that of tho western wilderness. A considerable portion of the frontier territory was, at that time, altogether unknown, or, at best, very imperfectly ex. plored. The fromers of *he Treaty were therefore reduced to the altrrnative either of confining themselves to a general definition of the Boundary according to such notion* as' theyalready possRSscd of the principal features of the country, or of abandoning every uncertain and disputed part of it to subsequent negotiation. That tho former course of proceeding was ultimately preferred, notwithstanding the inconveniencies attached to it, on distinct and deliberate conoideratlon, is evident from the recorded fact of the British Plenipotentiary having rejected, after reference to his Government, the proposal of the American negotiators to apply the principle of an indefinite postponement to a part of the '**'''*■ ''^'■ frontier involving that which is immediately in question. The nearest practicable ap- proaclt to settlement, preceded by a statement, ps well in the Treaty itself as in its pre- amble, of the wise and conciliatory foresight which influenced the Contracting Parties, was naturally deemed more likely to promote a permanent good understanding between them, than a mere agreement, tacit or expressed, to complete thq definition of the Boun- daries at some later eventual period. .The Treaty of Ghent appears to have been concluded under a like anxiety to pre- sent or settle disputes arising out of the uncertain state of the Boundaries. How indeed could it be otherwise with the experience which had been acquired afte.- the peace of 178S, and convincing evidence of which exists in the 4th and 5th Articles of the Com- mercial Treaty concluded in 1794 1 In the former of these Treaties it was presumed that the River Mississippi would be intersected by a due west line drawn from the north- westernmost point of the Lake of the Woods. The 4th Article of the latter is applied to the correction of that error. In the same manner it was found necessary to appoint a Commission for tho purpose of determining which river was meant to be the St Croix de- lignated in the Treaty of 1783, as forming part of the Eastern Boundary of The United States. ' Other instances of the perplexity and ignorance which evidently prevailed to 1 rery late period respecting many parts of the frontier territory might be easily adduced. ^ Bnt let it suffice for the present to observe, that if little was ascertained concerning the sources and directions of rivers, which generally afford the earliest means of communica- tion, and the most convenient places for settlement in newly occupied countries, how very ■i'l u i I'' ii; 4 ml ■i, I' i-s «^ § *':r 1h II N^ I'l Biit Swt. p. t,&c lit ViiU Sttt. p.6. much has was probably known of a Iiilly or mountainous tmct, situated at a distaace fruia thu sea, over«;i-own with forests, and intenningled with extensive nioraiises. A moment's reflection on what precedes cnnuot fail of shewing bow extremely diflicult, or rather how utterly impracticable it must have been for the Negotiators of 1783 to describe the Boundary throughout its whole extent in such terms as to leave no room for hesitation or dispute iu fixing its actual delimitation. It would surely be luorc reasonable to wondur at the degree of success which has attended the labours of the Com- missioners employed in that operation, than to be unpr.?paied for some occasional i.ti^oQ'* sisteiicy between the expressions of the Treaty and the localities of the country when ascertained by regular surveys. In no inquiry of this description can the ends of justice be attained, except by looking steadily to the intentions of the Treaty, or, in other words, of those who framed it. Fevr Treaties would afford occasions for dispute, none certamly for arbitration, if the terms, in which they are expressed, could always be applied with clearness and cer* tainty to the cases for which they were meant to provide. It is precisely the obscurity, or contradiction of the terms, or a want of evident conformity between them and the thing to be done, which is the frequent cause of didiculty in carrying Treaties into exe- cution. This defect attaches more or less to all human agreements. In those which subsist between Governments and Nations, separated from each other by distance, and still more so by the difference of their views, circumstances and interests, there must necessarily be greater room for its operation. From what special causes the Treaty of 1783 was pectdiarly liable to this evil, in so far as respects the Boundaries of The United States, it would be superfluous to repeat. The cogent evidence, however, which comes ' in aid of the letter of the Treaty to indicate the real intention of the Parties, and to en- force the adoption of a just decision, would leave as little reason to regret any want of prcciseness that might be found in it.4 terms, as any such inaccuracy would itself be col* culated to create surprise under the known circumstances of the case. But if it can be shewn that the terms of the Treaty, rightly understood, are not ia contradiction, either with the principal features of the country, as now ascertained, or with the presumed intentions of the Parties, and, on the contrary, that they correspond* to all declared intents and purposes, with the Boundary Line indicated by the present British claim, such a concurrence, which could hardly have been reckoned upon with entire confidence when the Treaty was signed, must surely he entitled to its full weight The conclusion to which it leads would be the more inevitable, when taken in conne«< tion with what has been proved in the former Statement ; namely, that the wording of the Treaty, in one decisive particular,* was clearly and cautiously selected, with a view to that very limitation for which Great Britain contends in support of her claim. Eri. dence of this description leaves little or nothing to be desired. But, after all, the maia object of the Arbitration is to ascertain the real intention of the Parties to the Treaty, and provided that object be attained according to the best available means of informatioD, k is of small comparative importance whether the sphil or the letter of the Treaty be found most conducive to its accomplishment. One thing is certain: the letter is only of vain* in proportion as it tends to the discovery or maintenance of the truth. Now, truth i« by no means of a narrow or partial character. It cannot, indeed, be entirely severed from the letter, but it is diffused through the context, and lives in the spirit of » Treaty. Vattel has been cited in the former Statement to confirm the justness of this renaric. The same distinguished Author expresses himself as follows, in the 17th chapter of Im Second Book. <' If it happens that the Contracting Parties have not made known tbdr I ' 1 1 .1 I — ~ * This rerers to tho term ** Atlantic Occau," used in the second Article of the Treaty of 1TB3, tail tttOar explniucd in t? i) cour«« oftho tntuin; paje". . -► J , J ?! ' t ■i > .-:f A ■V-»v' ■ ;n ^ ^ -*3 m :i'i riff- f^^ :,:r f '1^ «• will with safficitint clearuess, and with all the necessary precision, It la certainly wore " conformable to equity, to seek for that will in the sense most favorable to equality and " the common advantage, than to suppose it in the contrary sense." Thu* it is, that the authority of the most approved writers on the Law of Rations is found in strict accord . with the maxims oi common sense and good faith. The United States have, indeed, spared no effort to make out that the terms of the i^iiii.*,>iin.i- Treaty, taken in their obvious and literal sense, establish incontcstably the line of boun-'f «« dary claimed by them to the exclusion of every other. The truth of this assertion is positively denied on the part of Great Britain, f he words of the Treaty Article, taken by theinseWes, lead to no such conclusion ; taken with reference to the Treaty at large, they lead to a very different conclusion ; and taken with reference not only to the Trea- ty, but also to the intentions of those who framed it, as further manifested by various corroborating circumstances, they esfablish clearly and satisfactorily the justice of tl^e British claim. Looking, first, to the Treaty itself, nothing can be clearer than the great govern- ing principle upon which its provisions were founded. This principle is distinctly laid down in the preamble of the Definitive Treaty concluded in 1783, and also in that of the Prelimmary Articles signed in the preceding year. «« It is agreed,*' says the latter, «« to '*form the Articles of the proposed Treaty on such principles of liberal equity and reciprocity, " as that partial advantages {those seeds of discord) being excluded, such a beneficial and satis- "factory intercourse between the tuo Co^ntries may be established, as to promise and secure <* to both perpetual peace and harmony." , In the Definitive Treaty it is declared to be the intention of the Parties to establish their relations with each other " upon the gromd of <' reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience,'* in such manner as to promote and secun; the same great object of perpetual harmony between both. In addition to these general but forcible expressions, the Article immediately relating to Boundaries is prefaced by n specific statement of the motive which indue ' the Parties to declare them by mutual agreement, namely, «' that all disputes uhichmight arise in future on the subject of the Bonn,- • *« dai-ies of the said United States may bepnvented" No words could express more dis- tinctly than these passages the desire of both Parties, not only to preclude the possibility of future dispute by defining the Boundaries as positively as it was then ]iracticable to de- fine them, but also to settle them in such manner as would best consult the convenience ol each Party, and thereby conciliate the acknowledged rights and true interests of both. It further results from an examination of the Treaty, that although the agree- ment to define the Boundaries originated in the above-mentioned motives, the act of defini- tion itself was peremptory, and purposely rendwed independent of every principle or motive, but the declared consent of the Parties. The first Article contains a recognition of the inde- pendence of the Thirteen United States and of their territory. The second Article declares; by mutual agreement, what the extent of the territory so recognized was meant to be. The recognition and the declaration are two separate things. The Treaty being silent, it cannot be presumed that they were intended to be strictly co-extensive, in the teeth of that uncer- tainty which was known to hang over the ccnflicting claims of the two Countries with respect to a considerable portion of the common frontier. ^ This peremptory definition of the boundaries, it is also to be remembered, was ap- plied exclusively to The United States. There is no question of the Boundary of the British Colonies, except as a consequence of the settlement of The United States' Boundary. Wherever the States border on those Colonies, the same Boundary Line which limits the one must necessarily limit the other also. The t^vo Countries did not stand in correspond- ing situations towards each other when the Treaty of 1783 was negotiated. Whatever advantage might accrue to The United States from having their sovereignty recognized by Great Britain, the validity of the British title to the remaining British Posspssions could derive no additional strength from being acknowledged by them. ^ Ml ^ ^ ^ t i i '■i. I n ^m ■ 11 IS ^& §m W ■.>*?3 wm m »hich prfc«{<«Ml of the River St. John is expressed 0DI7 with reference to tho catt boundary, it is. nevcrthelo, mioifnt iHtl, owing to the bend of that River to the westward, it would, in iioint of fact, constitute a considerable fart of tb» northern boundary also. ~. ■ . App. lit Biit. 8l(t. p. 40. i ■^ 'm &ii^H if^r;. m im if!?*'*-- It ii observable, indeed, that the American Instructions declare no principU of JJ;;jj»^,»;,"f;, . Seltlflment with respect to the Boundaries. To say that "tin Bowidarie$ of thttt Slates ii^X^y^iiM "art atfollo\es," is the assertion of a fact, not the declaration of a principle. Supposing the propasition contained In these words of the instruction to be true, it may have been true on the princi|ile of possession, or on that of right derived from any one of several dis- tinct sources, or from all. It may have been a right of the United States, taken severally, or of the same States constituting one political Body, The only part of the instmctioii relating to Boundaries, which even Innts at a principle, is that incidental clause wherein a suhstitution for the proposed eastern boundary is placed eventually at the discretion of the ^^^ j^^y^i^ American Minister. Speaking of the appointment of Commissioners as conditionally sug- ^'•" '■ *»■ gested, the clause in question runs thus : " Jlccording to such Line as shall be by Ihetn settled "md agreed on us the Boundary belueen that part of the State of MassnchisfAts Bay, for- "merhj called the Province of Maine, aivd the Colony of Kova Scoltn, agreeably to *'««''■ ^,J?; ^."^"'• "respective rights." But this proposal having been rejected by the British Government, and a new arrangement substituted authoritati\'ely in the Treaty for the original proposal which preceded it, there is no ground whatever for concluding that the Treaty Ktipulation, as it now stands, was, in any degree, connected with that principle. The presumption is, indeed, entirely the other way. In giving a discretionary power to their Minister on the two points before-mentioned. The United States express themselves ns follows : " Mlmlhstanding the " CLEAR RIGHT of ihtse States," (viz. to. the set of boundaries first proposed) " and the im- uij. "portance of the object, yet they are so much influenced by the dictates of religio.x and "HUMANiTr, ^'C. that t/ott are hereby empowered to agree to some other Line, 4'C." That Is to say, the "clear right" of the United States was eventually to be given np from general motives of "humanity" to the objections, as such, of their adversary' ; not, observe, to any convincing proofs which that adversary might furnish of his superior title to parts of the frontier territory, but to his determination rather to carry on the war, than to sign a peace in strict conformity with the pretensions of The United States. Such forbearance is worthy of the highest praise on grounds of "religion and humanity;" but it is anything .•, rather than evidence that the Boundaries, as ultimately agreed upon, were regulated by a ' fixed acknowledged principle of right. Another document calculated to throw light on the present inquiry, is one of infe- g^„ji,, b,v„i rior authority, but not without interest, as having been composed under the sanction of the Jh.'AmS'iiMo "' American Congress in 1781, and exhibiting the notions, which then doubtless prevailed in *''"'""" that Assembly, concerning the territorial rights of The United States. An attentive perusal of the Extracts of this Report annexed to the First British Statement can hardly fail to ^p^ JJV"' suggest the following conclusions: — 1". That although The United States may not have, thought it prudent 'to ground their territorial claims upon any distinct principle in the instruc- '^ tion prepared for their Plenipotentiary, they well knew that their only plausible title was that derived under their charters as British Colonies, modified by subsequent Acts of the Government. 2". That, although they deemed the justice of their claims too manifest to require the exhibition of any direct proofs, they, nevertheless, anticipated opposition from Great Britain to their proposal respecting the north-eastern Boundary, and perhaps even the assertion of a counter-claim, as far west as the River Penobscot or the Kennebec. 3°. That with reference to the limits of the Sagadahock Territory, they felt the necessity of urging probabilities, " because in the early possession of a rough unreclaimed country, accu- jm^ p, «?,. "racy of Lines cannot be vmeh attended to." 4". That it was their "xeish" to have the "north-eastern Boundary of Massachuslts left to future discussion." There is no necessity for going into any length of reasoning on these conclusions. It is sufficient to consign them here for eventual reference in future stages of the argument. To one point, however, it may be well to direct immediate attention, namely, the "wish" . expressed by the American Congress that the north'tastern Boundary of Massachusetts should ^ ^ 9 ^ . :j :i II i:|! W^ ml ^M'. h. .1 ti i jkm.; • a • be reserved for future discussion. Some of the circuiastnncea under which that wish wa» ' ■ eutertalned may be easily collected from the ilocutneats already referred ta It nppears, in the first place, that The United States were then actually in poisession ; of "Grants, Charters, Royal Commissions and Indian Cessions," suincleutin their opinion to prove the '* clearness" of their "right." It also appears that the channel of the lliver i St. Jolin, such as it was afterwards proposed in negotiation a% their north-eastent Boundary, i was comprehended in that right ; that the independent sovereignty of The United States, so closely connected with their tenitorial right, remained to bo established; and that \u estab- I lishmerit in virtue of the formal recognition of Great Britain was the m.Vin object, to which i they were looking with eagerness as the crown and consummation of their struggle. The apprbximation of these circumstances ia by no meaiu unimportanL It was , ~^ natural to inquire why there should have been any ici^/t on the part of The United States to • ':::3 leave their north-eastern Boundary unsettled in the Treaty of Peace, which wa.-i to settle "^ all otlier parts of the Boundary, when they were already possessed uf such convinciag i "^ proofs of the "clearness" of their "right 1" The answer is now obvious. The American ■ >S Congress, besides wishing earnestly for Peace, did not overlook the advnntagtt with which - ^ they might hope to maintain their pretension in its almost extent ailter the recognition of t -^ their independence should have been placed by an act of solemn ratification beyond the *^ reach and option of Great Britain. It might be diflicult to prove that the same reason was f ^ among the motives which induced the Britisli Government to insist upon defining the whole >C:^ Boundary Line in one and the same Treaty; but it is at least evident, in point of fact^ that "^ Great Britain could not have acted more strictly in accordance with that suppMition than ']>.. she did; and that the agreement ultimately consigned to the Treaty bore every appearance i~^ of proving an effectual safeguard against future dispute or encroachment. t^ 'rhiniir.CMm- The correspondence of the American Plenipotentiaries, and the evidence which "^ ^I'aricut Pbai- tlit^ subscqucntly gave on oath before the Commissioners appointed under the Treaty of 1704 to ascertain the true River St. Croix, also present and confirm facts which it is IiLIitie.But. p. 15 M M>|. lit ArnkSttt. p.IL material to bear in mind. The letters and evidence in question are so particularly noticed and explained in the First Statement, that it a sulScient to refer to them here as fumishtng the data which follow. 1°. The proposals made to the British Plenipotentiary, in the Negotiations of 1783, were in substance precisely the same as those which appear in the instructions drawn up by the American Congress in 1779, and to which the approved Report of their Committee, in 1782, refers. S**. These proposals, on their being sent to London by Mr. Oswald, were rejected by tlic British Government. S°. The American Negotiators, after some did'erence of opinion, agreed anmpi tliemselvej to regulate their demand by the Charter of Massachusetts Bay. 4". Between the rejection of the first American proposals, and the adoption of the Article, which now stands in the Treaty, much strenuous contestation took place respecting the Boundaries, the British Negotiators demanding successively to the Kea* nebec, to the Penobscot, and to the St. Croix. C. No mention is made of any principle agreed upon by both P(frties as the basis on which the conflicting territorial claims were to be adjusted. The American Statement, which perfectly coincides with the first four clauses of this exposition "clearly infers" that "the confirmation of the Boundary Line between "the Province of Massachusetts and the other British Provinces, as it existed prior to "hostilities, was adopted as the basis of that part of the Treaty." It has already be«n fihewn that this is a forced and unwarranted inference. The British Government bad rejected the Boundary of the River St. John, proposed of right by The United Slatc«, and had also rejected the proposal of i:eserving the disputed Boundary for Bcttlcmentpo I 1 < ■ !t: ►•.- ■,»1 , .*: » ■r-f*'^ W Iha basU of iJin Colonial ri^^hts. The American Stntein«nt \n(vT*, nnvrriMrss, from tlic inura fact of (Iih Huli»ei|iicnt agreement, as cotui^ieil to the IVaty, th«t Unuu Hriiaiii, in rcfwitiiiK the postpoifinfeiit u( the ijiiestion, hnd accepted the Hoi-t nf half cxprcNxcd principle with which it wns m'wfi] up. Surely, this is eqiuvalent to tay'iag that the r; II l.tl 'r. pn^liiniuuiy expres.sioiH i-niployed therein, is fully borne out hv "iicli nddilionni information 'r.^MH'ti«i<.» of nu authentio Kind, as can now be obtained respecting the hcgolI;aions, cither during theii"'*""- pnij(re«s or immediately prior to their commencement. The insi ructions and correspon- dence of the American Negotiators coincide with the Treaty itself, in dhowin^, thaj notwith* 8tandiiij< the conviction professed by The United States nf the "clenrn(!s.»" of their " riglit," a (,'reut degree of uncertainty prevailed on both sides respecting the claims of cither I'artjr to the Territory in dis|iiitu, and that it was ultimately found best to cut the knot by n per- emptory decini'tn, rrsiiiig on no principle but that of mutual consent and the obvious utility of removing any immediate causes of disagreement and collision from the iatercourse of tho two Countries. Having thus endeavored to form, on grounds already explained, n distinct and correct ,'i*l,'^"fl'illf ju conception of what the frnmers of the Treaty had generally in view when they defined fn^nii*""*'* the UoiiiMlaries, in the absence of any settled line then existing between Massachusetts and the adjoining llrifish Provinces, it may considerably advance the nrppiment to know what notions were at that time entertained of the country, to wliich both Parties asserted a claim. No very detailed or perfect information can be expected to result from such an inquiry. The opinion of the American Congress has just been cited to the effect that ** probabilities" only can bo " unjed" with respect to a "rotigh unreclaimed country." Some knowledge, however, though in many respects limited and inaccurate, must surely have existed of a region not wholly destitute of settlers, which had been traversed not long before by a body of Troops, and previously investigated by an Officer in th>.' public employment, and of which several maps exhibiting the supposed courses of the principal rivers and the general outline of the coast and bays hw\ been published. That knowledge, whatever may have been its degree, must surely have reached the Negotiators of the Treaty ; and there can be little doubt that in describing the Boundaries of The United States, they were more or less guided by its inlluence. The extracts from Pownall's topography, annexed to the First App. i,t Brit. Biitish Statement throw a strong light on this part of the inquiry, and serve to bring into one pl'^aiiv t^ point of view what was known, and what was not known, respecting the high ranges of land from which the principal rivers, to the east of Lake Champlnin (fallinpf, according to his threefold division, either into the St. Lawrence, or into the Ocean, or into the Bay oj Fundy) derive their head waters. First, there is a range running in a north-easteriy direction from the source of the Connecticut River, form'ng " the height of land between Kcnnebaig and Chauditjre Rivers." Secondly, there is the range, also termed " Height of Land," in which are situated *' nil the heads of Kcnnebaig, Pcnobscaig, and Passamaquoda Rivers." This Height of Land runs " east north-east," and is rather a prolongation of the former range than a sepa- rate one. Thirdly, thn tract of Country lying between this " Height of Land" and the St. La^vrence, is described as fifty miles in breadth, ollering " a dilhcult and very laborious " route," and one only practicable for Troops, when unaccompanied with artillery and heavy baggage. It must be added, that with the exception of the head tvatcrs of the River Connec- ticut, which had been recently ascertained by an actual survey, the latitudes of the rivers at their respective sources appear to have been laid down with no great precision. Mr. Pow- D 3 ^ g :?:» I r»-;- .•;>• ','y,-'^i 'r~K: . , fe'i'KS . Mr^ "^i^n I?--.' .•■.*.'-."i. » •f-H •-'■■•: > Nwii>ll*tT*(ia| Mfkr.p. 17. 170.1. App Ui Dril. ■t*L p »l. IM Am.Mll. »>• anil 16. T*fm»r (hn TnMf coniirie 10 . nail Knyii, Imwuver, timt on Inking poiscMtion of Ihc l*cnobiiriii(; (^oiintrj, he Ii-td *' nil ( " carn branrhei of (hit rivur (rored to Ihrir MiirRm, nn*l ilin coininumcationa hetwi'ttn :hc " anil the wtlRn of I'annli.<ealc!nf ofliir whol«> range of highlanH.4 nt thr hcaJ of tlia Atlantic Kivcnntarr to tln! Connecticnt, the Author obnrrvfii nit follows : •' ik-twicn thin \\\^\ numntainoui tre " nnd the Ocran, Imtli In its northern nnd its eii^trrn range, there \* a I'ietlmont of Irregi " Inrly broken hilly Inml. Ol' that, in the riiHtcrn parts of Niiw Kn^laml, cxpecially cait • *' Prnoliiirniif, I ca« •lay ^tiling with accurncy, nnd will thfitToic *ay notlting at all." Tli'iK, it »m»A !)• allowed, i* the Innf^na^^u of an Amlior fcnipuluusly altadicii I (nith ; and, on ih* wImI>>, it may be inferred with safety fmni I1I4 worl<, mat all the Hivci flowing; into th* Atlniitii! butween the Connecticut nnd llni St. Croix \vrrc either known t kiip|H)spil tokkvc their Ill-ad waters in a range of highUiiilii, or iinmntauiout tract, itretchin eastward «4ih a stronp; northerly inrlinnlion ; unil thut Iim waH known of tho rango io pn) porticr** »« it extended townnln Nova Scotia. It in hardly conciiif able that Hurli a work as ^^r. PownuHVi should have been iinknowi to thi! ptTsons who iifj?!)! iht! Treatien of 1782-3, nor is it at nil likely that much hoi iHwn added to the tripo^rii nl Rccniints of New Unglanij and the adjoining district^ be twprn the periodof H-! niii'in ■ > in 1778, luiU the conclusion of the Prclimioatj Articlct of r<-acc. At on enrlier pn 1 than ilier ol those tb'' Royal Proclamation of 17G3, which is referred to in botii the ^'> ;ent already cunuTuinicated, makes mention of " highiai.(li " which divide tl* Rivers it cmpi ' themselves into the IVwtr St. An crmcc, fmm those '• which fall into Sea." "'it. the irms in \Thich it is drawn up are too general to Ihrotr any additional light (in this pit '^t: bject. The utter impossibility, which is now known •o cxi.it, of joining the two e.xtm' ties the Line therein described as passing "along the •• )%'hland.s" and also " along Coast of the Bay des Chaleurs," and a similar in- consistency which had been pi ii<( ..vered and imperfectly remedied in another part f'fthe same boundary line, by tl 'ci 4> n of that line in its counterpart the Quebec Act, render that document a» well as ti. itter \vhoIly inapplicablr, for any geographical purposes^ to tho present question.* It is now time to consider le particular expressions of the Treaty in which the difTiculties of this Question are inrr. J, <1 it may be hoped thai the preceding inquiries and remarks will contribute f fleet v j their solution. The precise words of the second Article arc til ^sc, "From 1 north-west angle of Nova Scotia, viz. that ang\t " wlorh i) formed by a I'm* draien dnr 'th from the souret nf St. CroiJ River to th* ^Ttgh. *< Jandi, along the said highlands whf- divide those Rivers that empty theroseites into " hi; River St. Lawrence, from thos<> vhich faM into the Jlllantie Ocean, to the north- " westernmost head of Connecticut Riv* " This passage declares that the " .. rth^nest angle rf Jfova »S>cofja" was to be the poiiii of departure for the Boundary line of Tho United States. What does the north, west ingle of Nova Scotia mean ? The words which follow in the Treaty explain its signification : " Thca angle nhiek is formed by a line drown due north from the tourti of St. '« CVoir River to the highlands." This definition, which was not in the Article as first propo«:pd by The United States, and which was, therefore, in all probability, made ne- cessary by some subsequent consideration, evidently comprehends two lines : the one, artificial, viz : a due north line drawn from the source of tho River St. Croix ; the other, a natural line, formed by one of the most striking features of the country, that is to say, (he "Highlands.** The former of these Lines having been sufficiently ascertained for .. * For R further ezpUnttion ofthisi aee pB«;o 30. :3 '3 K I- , «i ^^! ' Hiilifren eary to TI.e tei ■with w] to cx|in tlireclioi tors of i any epit taken al above A the fiigi the same depart tin tvai} to til Mice (o c E intended, under the view the promineui in the Arr E) the Negot : tbere arc high land, the Rivers other parts Hampshire used, as ii A)es not c accounts fo of 1763, b 11 tlic {lurposes of this invesfij^nfion,* the first object of the preaent inquiry Is to fix tlic proper • ^ sense of the term " Higlilinniy Jis iiilHnded by the Treaty. It cannot be denied, with any appearance of reason, that in common usage the nighiolki.. word «' Highlands" suggests the iJea of a mountainous tract or range of conspicuous ele- vation,. Such i.s the idea we natuia'Iy convey in "speaking of the Highlands of i?Rotland or ot those of the Hudson River, 15y the word Highlander is meant, iii genera), a Moun- taineer. Tlint a tract or range of h'gh broken land, rising occasionally into emiupncps seen from a . c. the Negotiators of 1783 looked exclusively to the rivers and water courses of the couutr)-, ; there arc traces of its having been thought at that time that elevated tracts or langesof high land, more or less marked \v\i\\ conspicuous eminences, lay generally to the north of the Rivers falling into the Atlantic Ocean. On comparing that part of Mitchell's map witli - other parts which represent the known mountainous regions, such, for instance, as New « Hampshire, but little difference is perceptible in those graduated marks which are there used, as in other maps, to indicate hills or mountains. The American Statement, itself, ^'o,.""' ^"• does not entirely discard the idea of \isible elevation from the term " highland," .«iiicc it accounts for the af)plication of that term to the dividing lands designated in the Proclamation of 1763, by supposing that the early navigators of the River St. Lawrence observed certain * An rxplormg line only, run by Uie rnmpnss, with oocojiontl nllowances for th« rariatioo of the needle, hubqen traced from the ioure* of the Pt, Croix iliic north. •'^ I ^ ^ i t i II . ■ ; b \^-\l ii 'i w^ 'm ... M t: ■!r I A t J ^. 12 fc'.?> Tlijihtaii'Is divid- ing Biver>. \V) At Iliveij 10 Ut. Am. Sftal.pp. 6 and 7.' ■, Tiur nieanini ot tho t«rm " AUui- tic Ccnn." niountainona nppearances in that «lirectlon, ana to believe that the 'adoption of this term is solely attributable to the position of the sprjl where the Highland Boundary was to begin, since it was .substituted for the more compre- hensive word " Sea" which appears in the coi responding part of the Proclamation of 1763, whence the Congress of The United States had, doubtless, borrowed the substance of many parts of their proposed Article. i V r » I v. :3 r? I 5 J I t r V;.; (; \ . ■4 IqdW I '. .^' '■rk M»«lf »#, if: . ■ ..X ,■ ?;.■ ;-* ,*;» 13 s - L«wi«< tttft I t ■ 41 • wif- '■ The American Statement denies that there is any diflerence, on which to found the J"'^^* ^'*^ .dUtinction niaintainRd by Great T/itain between the terms " Sea" and "Atlantic Ocean." The Proclamation itself is there appealed to in proof that they were nynonimous. But in those parts of the Proclamation in which Boundaries are defined, aud which were conse- quently drawn d to the Sea Coast. The Fi-umers of the Treaty, when describing St. iMary's River an go'ng " down to " the Atlantic Ocean," and the River St. Croix as having its mou»h ia the Ba^- of Fun dary line passes along St. Mary's River till it touches the Mantic Ocean, it a evident tiut ^1 •3 ^s.--?*'? tz -J«'» l' .,,),• . 1 i .r.!i.w=:l ' J* ^'"U * ■yv.- , , ^ i - ' ^- {/> ' i «i . - , "T.- f ., 1' ' -„'1'^'J^ ■■' -':. - • . 1 ■. { -f. • . ' '\ •<- .'Ji?. *'^ .41. ' ". ■ < *. ( -rs.»An '. ,r ■■-. ■ '^ K'"^ '^^^fA *■ "^ ' f ■. s iv« :«> ^-^4 /'»j :« , .1. ' !. i I « i tl ■3' ^S'y. 15 K if ^.'i: .;i'. K:^^V there w no inten-nl bfthveen the River and tlie Ocean, but, on the contrary, that where the former terminates, llie lutN-r liegins. In this manner, w; iee that the two Jlivcrs ditler essen- tially in that particiilar chnrncteristic by which the Treaty ha^ distimjuislicil thsm; ami thui t'.yo clas:|r»phiciil deicriptios. :h It m :E «_ r; u ''::i :i 'M ,• i 1^' ^m ^mu l(i I at A P V. ife, bf K': I'neuty, cott'^iJered ai Ibid p. 41. lit niib SKI. M7. Ktiilhn inl Born imMi i*M0M nr rUnl tht ■••"^- •*'ttlilr fit ht lice, acconl'mjj to its klM(«-i) lim. 'iliMliiulo til Vtlaotic O''*-**? " TJiIh in M, ^ jII ; ther cilli«rUgM ^gui.lu is 'j a tiueiuteipretalionoftheTreaty, niul t(» sliti-.v will) HiilUcii : lACM «'1^ (fif^htalt^l "ere nu.uit to be desi^uated iu it» Jjfcoiid Aitiole. D»unJ<>y Mm Tlic Unilfd States 'rpQUi'A elt«, -.( Aie Uiv<;i- St. John n» a jmrt of their Boumliry t^thnnoMti'tr on thi; slile, of iMn-ssacLuM:!! - I'he LIm;, ;i» cl«'.icrilietl in theiii.anicliunj ofCotij^rcjt, wiu» i'li". ' " to l)t! ili;i\/n aloiiu the miildlt; ijf St. .IdIiu's River, frvm iif source to ill iiioii'.'n mi the Bay A,.ji. Ill Dill. " •' ' Diiu. t. w. •' of Fiimly." On Mitchell's Maj) tlie course of tlie St. Joiin, -.is to lenj^th and (,'iMorul direc- tion, is Inid down neniiy the huiiiu as on the Map A. It npijeant from the U>.'|M>rt of the C'oinmittfK of Congiesi, which hus l»Ron miticod above, that " when .:>« Boundnnnte iprcJie piiiiciple of riKh*, "( what snob principle, at all caj thnt (juartcr, coniidcrahly to the iiautb of the )li)(hlanil(. TIm aame principle, applied to thv Stijfadahock Territory, would have iarri«d llmse limits, ol \ht nar. rm ixfrtmilij of Us tust Vuiin'hu-y* to the Uivff St. Lawrciirc 'I'lii! priiicijtte of the Pro« cliiriiBtioii would have coii(irincd the Lino of Ho'inihry bctwcrn that Uiver, from the joint where it U atrurlthy tho jmrjllel of 45* north laiitii'lr, and Lake Nij)i.«i(n, tis projioncd in the American Initruetionti. A combination of the two priiicipln ii C'lually iiiclTcctual to explain what must he termed the anomalies of t!ie Treaty nrmngeriiciit, on niiy HUpp j«i(ion but the natural and nt'cesiary one of its having been grounded on inuluul convenience, nincc neither Charter iiur I'rothiinalion could have varrnnted the I'artirn in Oiirrtiiii,; the Boun* (lury Hue, os it was actually settled to bu carried — nut, as the latter wouhl have pre3cril)cJ, to the north of the Great Lakes, nor, as the fonncr indicated, nIon;< th'-ir Mutheru shorrK^ but through the centre of those inland Seas, aud alonj the mid-chanucis of their respective water communications. ' ° It is not the inter* si of Great Britain and her Colonics that is nione concerned in this jr«,!l,"",'!j;\tn discussion. A common interest, the interest of the Tret ** b'>'h Parties, is also at Vlii!,?''" '^ stake. In an early part of this Statement it was »hcwn rnce of onjr express principle specially applied to the question of boundaries, except (hat of settling them so as to prevent future disputes, the general intention of the Treaty, as ilechrcd in its preamble, was to adjust them in sach a manner as to " secure to both Conntrict perpetual peace and " harmony" by establishing "a satisfactoiy ond beneficial intercourse" between them, "on "(grounds of reciprocal advantage and mutual convenience" It is evident, with respect to the Boundaries, that nothing was more likely to aid this wise and benevolent object of the Treaty, by preventing collbions, and promoting (;oo*■ ..■■•>,■>■ •« " -, ■'■■■1 1 I:! i^ I f ■' .■'."■ -5* a; is : M" all reiisonablc appuarauce, the cause of its first intioduclioii into tliut Article, ua place of llie- more coin|ireheusive word "Sea," employed iij the rroclamaliou of 1763. *ii.niii(.hi«ii.i. It follows, of necessity, from the whole of what precedes, lliat the Ilklilandj intend- ' iuL"^r",''.iuth' ^J ^y '•'« 'I'reaty are to be looked for 3oulh of tlie Riuer St. John. Tim American NcgoU- rMU, K,«,8». jjj^i^ haviiiij (l5oti. What reasons may have prevailed w\.h the Negotiators, on the supposition that tliey pr.., ihi.t iowo. intended to desiirnate Highlands to the south of the St. John, as those whicli the due north tiou nttll mot* c» o u>«»iy.'' *" "" ^'"® ^^'"^ '** '"^'='» '"^* *o declare that ^specific intention by an additional clause of ihe Treaty, can now be oidy matter of conjecture. But strong probabilities are not wanting to aid the discovery of the truth even in this particular also. ■ ' In the first place, by retaining in the clause respecting Rivers and Highlands the term "Atlantic Ocean," in connection with the limited sense unctjuivocally attached to it in another part of the same Article, the Biitish I'lenipoteutiary might have reasonably hoped to jMecIude any future disagreement on the subject. In the second place, the inser- tion of a defmition of the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, calculated to obviate any em- barrassment which might spring out of the use of that term us a known and settled point of departure with i-eference to the Colonial Boundaries, may also have contributed to satisfy him as to the efficacy of .the wording, Jis It now stands in the Treaty. • .t It may surely be assumed that the Negotiators meant to define the Boundary in a spirit a. eordant with the just and liberal views declared In the preamble of the- Treaty. If it had been possible to describe the whole Boundary Line with minute exactness, their desire to prevent future disputes would doubtless have led them to do bo. But they evidently did not possess the topographical details necessary for such extreme precision. The Boimdary * was, therefore, of necessity, to be defined Id general terms. A glance on Mitchell's Map was sufficient to shew them, that a due north Line could not be drawn from the source of the St. Croi.\ to the supposed latitude of the head waters of the Atlantic Rivers, flowing westward of that River, without a probability of Its striking some of the smaller and very inconsiderable lakes or water courses falling into the St. John. To have changed the grand features of their agreement, on account of this petty considenition, would have been udwim ; and, at the same time, there was an obvious and disproportionate Incohvenlence In guardipj, in express terms, against a mere contingency of no practical Importance. Again, thry must have known that a considerable part of the Boundary Line would be traced along the Highlands situated nearest to the head waters of the Connecticut, and immediately dividioj the Kennebec from the Chaudiere. All Parties agree that the words of the Treaty «ppl/; without shadow or possibility of doubt, to that portion at least of the Highland Bouiy.!iry. The Highlands, which were fa»oi»» to range along the sources of the more eastern A(hnt">c Rivers, were believed to be a continuation of the others. In order to frame a dcfiailloo more nicely and literally adapted to the varying circumslajices of the Line, as thus prolonj;e«J, it would have been necessary to obtain an exact knowledge of that part of it, where the change of circumstances was to operate ; and this degree of precision, as already obfen-e*^ was necessarily unattainable from the moment that the source of the St. John had ceurd to be in view as the proposed north-west angle of Nova Scotia. The due north Line WM intended to strike Highlands to the south of the River St. John. At the point of intcrvirtiotv the Boundary was to be carried west in such manner as to place all the rivers (lo«in{ oa 3 ■i 3 M ^i: m ^ . i.'f 1. .1'' S'" ,1,1 , t.;.:r! Vt'i -* J .-u '''71: (n >. J- •-' ■' •?> '*■*■-•' -■ ■ ■ ^ '■ ..N./' .:M5 ■,,'■5' i-.: ,1 )(f liaO Crrtt llxi 19 UiW 1.1' I.-,* ij' ' >* tliatside of the St. Croix, and consequently Atlantic Rivers, within the Torrliory of The United States. Towards (he other extremity, there was that large poition of the Highland Line, respecting wliieh Ivith Parties are agreed. Upon these data, it is by no means extra- ordinary that the Negotiatnrs sliould have fallen into the error (for such the pending differ- ence authorizes us to call it) of supposing that they had sulficiently provided, by the present wording of the Treaty, fnr the due direction of that part of the Line which was intended to , y unite the point of departure on the north Line, with the north-westernmost head of Con- , ,, '.• . necticut River, by joining on to that other part of the same Line which immediately separates ^. the sources of th? Kenncb(«; from those of the Chaudiere. , " ., These probabilities, which are not put forward as known undoubted tniths, being, nevertheless, such evidences as the nature of tho. case admits, must have their weight in re- moving the objection to which they immediately relate, and must contribute, in that respect, to contlrm and fully establish the position previously maintained on such just grounds, and by so many cogent and convincing reasons ; namely, thai the Highlands of the Treattj were i»W«rtt to be Jixsd to the- south of the St. John. If, on the other hand, it be supposed, notwitlistanding so many proofs to the con- ineonceivmiM^ trary, that it was the intention of the Negotiators to carry the due noith line to that point, JJ', *!,'•' tonirn" which the American Statement maintains to be the true north-west angle of Nova Scotia, f** ""' ■"*"" the silence which they have kept with regard to the intersection of the River St. John is r(dly very difiicult, if not impossible, to explain. Such silence is, on that supposition, the more incohceivable, since it must be agreed that a principal object of the Treaty was to separate i.e riveis along the adjoining part of the frontier, and to place within the Territo- ries of the respective Parties the whole of each class of rivers so separated. The motives and evidences of this intention- are so numerous and convincing, that even if it were tnie, as •;i the American Statement asserts, that no sufficient criteriort for determining the direction of iii.^ni.siBt. p. '4 the northern Boumlary Line is to be found, unless the precise meaning which that Statement ^1 assigns to what respects the dividing rivers be received without qualification, there would still 4 be wanting sutficient grounds to justify a decision In favor of The United States. Bvit this ■4 imaginary defect of the Treaty is, in truth, the mere offspring of a partial and unwarranted . , 3 vipw of its terms and intentions. I There is no longor any real difference respecting the eastern boundary of '^^^ i^nr^^t ' United Slates. The ditliculties, which are now experienced, regard their northern boun- ri'nlHJ,', "pi""if\'. :3 3 :! it h. < dury, which is to pass along Highlands designated in the Treaty as si.viding certain rivers. i What rivera they are, which are thus to be separated, has been abundantly shewn above. i It has been proved that the Highlands in question were meant to be found south of the River Bt. John, and, also, that no river east of the St. Croix comes within the rdass of Atlandc Rivers specified in the Treaty. Hence, it is clear, that in carrying the boundary line west- ward to the Connecticut, the sources of the Atlantic Rivers are to be left entirely within The Uniipd States' territory, and those of the St. John, which intervBne between the former and the head walei-s of (he Rivers falling into the St. Lawrence, are to be left within the British Ene. The American Statement has given to the Treaty expression *• dividing Rivers," a yi„.g,j,, narrowness of signification which is by no means borne out by the words themselves. The intention of the Treaty being clear as to the rivers to be separated, and therefore to be left ■\ within the territory of the respective parties, any highlands rising above the heads of one set of the rivei-s to be so separated must necessarily divide those rivers (in this instance the Allnnlic Rivers) from the other set of rivers named in the Treaty, although they may not tttend equally along the sources of these last-mentioned rivers. If this had not been tho (pinion of the negotiators, it may fairiy be presumed that they would have adopted some ? «ore preciise term in explanation of their particular meaning, and that tlie term " A 'lantlc I Ocean" would, with equal certainty, hdve been exchanged for some other of a moi j com- I jrehciiMve sense. To go the length of supplying the supposed omission and of enlarging '•;:;:;,j:^i.v:.«.ji '■/■Y';^. [■•:iJ>.V." > ' . ' - ■; *; ■ ■ ~ ■ ^ 20 llio snjipoae J limitation by a V.ce'un of construction which cannot be dtlmittcd without Je- leatiny; the general views of th-? Treaty, as declared by it3 introductory terms, ni;tl further t!Stablished in the foregoing pa^'cs, U a course of proceediiijj dangerous in its example, and tending to introduce a new and unbound practice in the int-irpretatiou of Treaties. i;»ia»ncoiiniiiio The point of departure for tracing the l)oundary line is to be found where the due *iiii"i« """'north line drr.wn from the St. Croix touches the Highlands south of the River St. John. It ef the River Hu ° J*.'I«X'^"'«»- '"'■'' '"-'"" '*'"^^*'n above that the existence of such Highlands was, to all appearance, a matter ia«in» 17W. of general persuasion at the period of 1783, and several year?" before. That .such has since continued to be the impression, there Is no inconsiderable evidence to cstabU.-li. Ap^ No. 1, p. !• In the year 1792 the Government of Rlassachusetls sold, by contract, to two indivi- duals, named Jackson and F'ini, certain lands, the limits of which an; thus described in a , . , . document relating thereto, yivea in evidence by The United States : — " Westerhj, by a line " on the east side of the great eastern branch of Penobscot lliver, at the distance of six " miles therefrom ; 'easlerhj, by the River Scoodiac, and a line extending northerly from the u.- ..'• . «* source thereof to the Highlands ; and, northerhj, by the Highlands, or by the line described ■" " in the Treaty of Peace between The United States and His Britannic Majesty." From this description of the limits in question it b clear that the northern Boundaiy- of The United States, as detennined by Treaty, was to be the northern limit of this tract, and also that, in 1792, the Government of the State of Massachusetts considered the great eastern . "■ branch of the Penobscot River as reaching to the Highlands which form that northern -i!- ■■■ Boundary. , , On the American transcript of the map A, this tract of 'and is marked out, but with ''J.' 5 limits on the east and west prolonged by two straight northern lines across the River St. John to the line of boundary now claimed by The United States, although to the coro- mencement of the straight lines, thus gratuitously added, the limits agree with the terms of » ' the contract. It b not worth while to inquire into the cause of a misrepresentation, which» . • at least, does not appear to have been derived from the printed maps of the country, s'uicein GrcenlcaTs map of Maine the limits of Flint and Jackson's purchase appear to be marked out, though without the names, In conformity with the terms of the document quoted above ; the line being therein represented as terminating on the Highlands, in which are situated the head wsiters of the Penobscot and other Atlantic Rivers. The "Statistical 'View of the District of Maine," published in 1816, by Mr. Green- Icaf, the American author, whose map has just been referred to, confirms the correctne.Js of the conclusion to which the terms of the above-mentioned purchase inevitably lead. The ' ' very explicit passage quoted from Mr. OreenleaPs work, in the 25th page of the First Brit- ibh Statement, permits no doubt as to the fact of there being at least as far east as the head -•- - waters of the eastern branch of the Penobscot, and as liigh north as the head waters of the Resfook, a tract of mountainous elevations, answering in every respect to the Treaty term of " Highlands," and connected with the range which b situated immediately between the sources of the Kennebec an J the Chaudi«re Rivers, — .* Acisti ciUimce It stlU Temauis to be soen whether there are Highlands so situated, with reference to i.nH, ,i,.wn by tliosB ust dcscnoed, as to otter a suitable place for a pomt of departurs from the due north TToin of bur- J • 111 TijfOH. Ji„e^ a„(i for this purpose it is only requisite to refer to the Reports of the Surrejor* and • Commissioners annexed to ihb former Statement. There would be no possibility of executing Treaty provisions, such as are no«f undenonsideration, if the utmost degree of precision were required, and if no allowance whatever were made for the unavoidable want of an exact local knowledge on the part of the Negotiators. It is one thing to define a boundary In q;eneral terms, another to describe it with a minute attention to details. Tiie parties to the Treaty of 1783 did not posses the Dicans of performing the latter oliice. They could only act upon Ihe general ideas which they had then obtained of the state of the froi»tier country. They had no reason to doubt ^ ^ 3 :3 :3 I-- "Si rp... - iw :.i:7".»- .?--/ I* in* rflb ;«%rV' M U«« Urf that Highlnnds, in which were situated the sources of tlie Atlantic llivers, properly so called, extended across tiio meiidian of the St. Crdin, tov/nrdi* the western bank of the St. John. 'I'lifc-y can hardly \)f reproached with not hovini; aent n Commissioner from rnria, the »eat of their negotiations, in order to ascertain, by actual mca.surement, the correctness of bo rea- sormbln a supjwaitiun. They did, however, what un inspection of Mitchell's map was well c'dciilated to siiim-st. Tl»ey agreed to form the eastern Boundary of The United States by drnwinu; a due north line from tha source of tiie St. Croi.\ to the Highlands, which the greater length of ttic coui'se of the Kennebec and Penobscot lliveis, as compared with liiat of the St. Croix, was likely to render necessary. The details were unavoidably reserved for future settlement l»y mean.'} jf an actual survey and delimitation. It was to be expected that in making that survey and tracing the boundary line along imiwmn' mn. the surface of the country, the localities would not be found to correspond minutely with /(»c(lnj"ih»'n«. the idea which had been previously formed of them, Whether it lie sujinosed that the i*"":" aciouii/iu Highlands were intended to have the character of billy or mountainous lieights, or whe- ther they were considered as mere lands, immediately separating the Lead waters of rivers, it is clear that there was more than one chance against their being found in stnct conformity with the terms, in whichever way they might be interpreted, of the Treaty. In one case the due north line might fail to reach any place of sufficient elevation ; in the .: ."„ . % other it might be prolonged, even to the 8t. Lawrence, without intersecting any spot exactly situated between the headwaters of the Rivers specified in the Treaty. The same disappointment might have been anticipated in drawing the north boundary line 'k along Highlands, of whatever designation we suppose them to be. It appears that the peculiar characteristic of the river-heads throughout the disputed territory, is to interlock with each tther, and frequently to form into large pools and spreading morasses. The defects in the line mi9;ht indeed prove so numerous as to operate a decided change in its characteristic qualities, and render it altogether unfit for the application of the Treaty. But if every deviation from the strict rigour of deiinition, — a.i occasional break or the intervention of a swamp or valley in the line of Highlands — the want, in fine, of a single link in the chain, is to defeat and nullify the whole design of the Treaty, it will be extremely diflicuU to conceive by what means any arrangement is to be cflected, or how it will be possible to satisfy either the one or the other of the claimants. It is only repeating the words of the former Statement, to say, that the place, Msrtiiiitiu called Mars Hill, is that which Great Britain claims as the point of departure for the "« fu' »<• • * Dftfllwrn boun. northern boundary of The United States, and cpnsequently as that spot which is desig-^,\'''^'i'j*-8,^^ nated in the Treaty as the north-west angle of Nova Scotia. It appears from the reports'' ^' of the Surveyors, that the due north line crosses its eastern skirt, or flank, at a distance , ofabout 40 miles from the monument, which marks the source of the St. Croix, as fixed / in execution of the Treaty. There arc three points to be considered with respect to this elevation : 1^. ItsThiw cMiidtri- height as compared with that of the country previously traversed by the north line ; 8". m»" ""C"""' Its position relatively to the Rivers; 8°. Its connection with the western range of Highlands. With respect to the comparative height of Mars Hill, it will suffice to quote thoApp. ittBtit. following words of the American Surveyor: "The south peak is 175 fleet higher ""'*' "than the north peak, and about 1000 feet above the general level of the adjacent •' country." This description is decisive of the superior height of Mars Hill, and the concurrent testimony of the Surveyors shews that no ground equal to it in elevation, by many hundred feet, is previously crossed by the North line. The situation of Mars Hill, with respect to Rivers, is not to be taken, as the Ame-^ g^ ^ ^^ Tican Statement insists, from the petty streams ot rivtileta falling into the St. John, in itn G ::3 i3 ; ^1 22 I KM. p. ijh Itl Hfit. 3(«l. p. 21. App. Ill Brit. But p. IM Ibi J. p|i. SO, 16«. immediate nei^jlibuurhooi]. Its principal aummita are bitiialRcl at a .short ilistancc weil' ward of the luirth line, and consequently in the po.sition iulemlfd hy thn Treaty, on that Highland tract, which rises to the north of the Atlantic Uivci.s, and snparatua tiieni m well (Vom the Ukers of the St. Lawrence, as from the Iliver St. John and its priucijial tributary, the Ikvstook. The due north line does not inilRcil pass over its highest peaks; but it is Hiidiclent for every liberal ami elfective purpose of tho Treaty, that the line inter- sects the rihing {{rounds which form its elevation from the lianks of the St. John. As to tbe third point, the British Surveyor, Hoiiohcltc, in his Report dated the 21st of May, 1818, observes, that he look •• the benrini;.'* of the principal range qf liii^h- " lands extending from Mars Hill to the Catahdin Mountain ; the general course, of w}iich " is N. N, E. and S. S..W., and highly conspicuous for its height." Another of the Sur- veyor8, Odell, states in a report liled the 11th ^f May, IS19, as follows : "Looking " westward from this place (Parks's, near the Hjultoii Hettlement,!, which is ithclf coii- " sidcralily elevated, and is easily seen from the top of Mara Hill, there appears a con- •' tinned range of highland, the view of which is terminated on one side by Mars Hill, and " on the oth'T by the Spencer Mountains." It is needless to niako further citations from the reportj of the British Surveyors, since the range of highlands, as resulting from their surveys and reports is traced in full on the British transcript of thn Map A. The general result of these documents with respect to Mars Hill and the adjacent height» ' towards the west, may be expressed in the words of the former Statement : «' A generally " hilly couTTtry is found to extend towards the eastern branch of the River Penobsool." This is confirmed by the report of the American Surveyor Loring, dated ia December^ 1830. It may be added, that the British Assistant Surveyor, Campbi;!!, describes the Highlands where the monument is situated on the height of land between the Kennebec and Chaudiere Rivers as extending in a N. B. to E. N. KL direction and consequently tending to communicate with the Highlands at the sources of the Penobscot River. Judging from the observations on this part of Mr. Campbell's Report, contained in the Appendix to the American Statement, the other party is not able to call in question the exactness of his observations as to the abovementioned part of the country. rcrfftnoniinu- The foregoing information will hardly warrtnt us in concluding that the tract oi" !ufiiiiin..notw range of highland country stretching from Mars Hill, or its immediate neighbourhood, unatcfiiirjr. towards the sources of the Conuecticut, is equally continuous and of one unbroken re- gularity throughout the whole extent of the Boundary Line. But such continuity of height was not to be expected, nor is it necessary for any presumable purpose of the Treaty. It does, however, appear that there is a chain of highlands, not indeed of uni- form' elevation, but in which the head-waters of the Atlantic Rivers arc situated, with the additional circumstance of their partaking generally of a mountainous or hilly character. It is urged In the American Statement, that the three prepositions "from" **atvhich have since been discovered to be too Imperfect to admit of their being traced in conformity with this description. The Acts alluded to are the Proclamation of 1763, and Quebec Act. The boundary described in the Procia- ' inatlon has two evident intemij. j in the course of its liiui, notwithstanding the use of the three pre|)ositions, to which so much efficacy has been attributed. In the firet place, ih« line, which is described as passing along the highlands, and also along the coast of the Bar App, lit Am. htit. |k 43. Jil Am. BMC. p. 3-J. :3 3 4 :1 'r:ki <^.. •<^.1 <;>...- r-1 1 r.. ire - «><< --Kf-. -v k-kSt-i K iJ-i" £. „ V,: t^'- , ,t,^'f„( -i-k ,'■ ??'• -lA V ^ '* ■•'■ ■■'.^ .:■■ '4 ■/■■■•■:?' t8 •I ;•! tJlii'eur* to Cipo Iljiierj, li.n iin intcinns-liiite ipi\c» to trtivera betiv«im llio liit{hl;»nd>i, wti-^civiir they m\y tannin, itt! ;.cCi)nliiij{ to fh»s aiipfjusltion lillh»:rl« in.iiiiiaiiicJ, uiul the n '• th c >'iU of Cha'eiir.s Hay, t'li wliich iid jiiovijirm appe.ir'i to huv« been nuiio hy thii teriii.4 of thy I'lodiuiittioii. Secouilly, there U a siiuilar iiitecval hetvvcoii l.nkf Champlaln and till) ojiposite extiHmity of th« Ili^'lilaniU, which do not extend to the slion-H ol' that Lak«. , ' j\'vj.ir''iii'^ I'V the Qii'liw Act, thu lino was to f[0 yVon» the Hny of Chal-s'ii'', alm^ the IlijlhlaiKli, Sic. lit a point id 4.1'^ north latitude, on the eantiMii hank irf th« lliver Oonnec- ticuit, lit t(!plii,i( the saino latitiiiie directly west throu;,'h thti Lrike Chaui|ilain. 'J'his uni.-nd- iimnl of (lie l-'rociainatioii Itself oixasioned n fresh diliiciiity, wlilcli it wm siilis-qnuntiy I'lunJ uec'.->siiry to obviate in the 'I'renty. . A line described u-i pa.isiiiaf nlon^ the hit;l»land.i in which the sources of the Connecticut are situated could never, it U manifest, hav reached n point on till! bank of that river nt n considerable distance below its sources. What relntea to the w lilt of continuity between the Hay of Chtdeurs and the I {'i^hland.'* is tlie same in the Act i\i iu the Prouianiation. Thorc is a further conaideralion relating to Mars Mill, which cmbrares one of ihoTiutm.aoinj arj^uinents most urged by the United States in support of their line, a» iiideiitified iu their jf'^'j'^"''']^^^ opinion with that of the nucient boundaries, and which it is, therefore, convenient to notice ">•♦« 8«oii.. separately. The Treaty, as we have seen, fixes the point of departure for the Northern Bounda- ry of the United States at a place, where the due north line, drawn from the River St. Croix, touches the Highlands. To that place, wherever it may happen to be, the Tienty has given the name of "th* north-iresl angle of jYova Scolia;" and this expression it is, which is in fact the principal, and essentially the sole, foundation of the American claim. The United States have divided their argument i^ito five oections, three of which are exclusively devoted to the question of the old provincial boundaries ; while the first and last, which ri-late more immediately to the interpretation of the terms of the Treaty, are found, on examination, to rest substantially upon the same principle which the others were also me"; to establish. In the 1st section there are these words: "Inasmuch as the north-weat anijle of Nova Scotia '•*>■• 8ut. "must, necessarily, be formed by the intersection of the lines constitutini; the northern and " western boundaries of Nova Scotia, the Highlands, &c. were, at the date of the Treaty . • - "of \16"i, a portion of the northern boundary of Nova Scotia." Again, in the same sec- tion: "The Highlands, contemplated by the Treaty, are Highlands, which, at a point due jbu. "north from the source of the UivcrSt. Croix, divide the Rivers falling into the Atlantic "Ocean from those that fall into the River St. Lawrence ; Highlands, extending eastw»-j •'■ ':l .' ■i.a.v.s>'--'* 111 Am. Slat, p. 31. P«iiii«a «r tktt kwi«a ia 1783 Ibta DOW, lit Am.aitlr p. U llin wortU of »he lecond Articio of the Treaty, (u alresuly «xplnia«d, do inoiil muloubt- Cilly coiivey. They tr.ani to hnve ovirlookfil au iucoiivniiinco and utrlkin.'; oJijiMiilon wliich necci.iarily reault from thiit mode of tr«atin|{ the (|uc«tion, namrly, that tlii'y n;>|>ly thcniiiulv<4 therqby not to th*; uoiiipletion of their own bouiiilary, nor to t\\» ai!juiiUii>fiil of Mich jiart of the Brititli houuilary line, ui correspondi Immetfiatcly with their owfn, l>iit tofhrt Ktfoil^tiuD of othf^r \n\\U of the Uritiih boundary, — thr notthflin I'miiKliry of Nova Rcotia, for instance, — with which thty h«v« no ri:jht whatevor to inteiltn-, nud the filial iirrnnjjenuint of which in row, as il always hai been, wholly and exclmivcly in the coinpctf ncy of the British Authorities. Such was not the objuct nnd inteiuiju "f the Trniity of 1783, the Hecond Article ot' wh'cli, as v/c hav« already proved, nritueriH tlie definition of the United States' bouudaiies alone, fvi.d ad'ects the bouudanci if the Brif« ish Colonies only in thos*" parts ot the frontier wliero the territories of the one party border immediately on the territories of the other. The words " north-west angle of Nova Scotia" were introduced into the Tr* aty from the article respecting lioundaries, drawn up by tliw American Congress, and pro{)OHcd to Great Britain by the American Commissioners nt Paris. In that article *' the iiorth- '• west nnijle of Nova Scotia" waj coupled with thf. proposal of carryiog the boundary line along tht channel of the River Si. John/rom iti ^"urce to its mouth. In other words, it was then dittlinctly proposed by The United States that " the north-west angle of Nova Scotia" should be fixed at the source of the Iliver St. John, and that a considerable part of their northern boundary line should ]ki8S along the channel of that River. It has already been shewn to demonstration, that, in rejecting that proposal, — for the sake of maintaining which (b« it remembered) the American Congress had exprcsijcd the opinion that it would not be worth while to carry on the war, — Great Britain must obviously have meant to insist upon a boundary line within the line of the St. John ; but, with reference to that proposal, coupled as it was with " the north-we5it angle of Nova Scotia," it is nahiral to inquire by what means the line sopropo.sed was to be reconciled with the line ofcontinuous Highlands from the Connecticut River to Chaleurs Bay, along which the United States pretend that the northern boundary of Nova Scotia, as well as their own, must now uninterruptedly ptsa !a virtue of that same expression in the Treaty. Tlie truth is, that the words in question are wholly subordinate to the definition which (mmediolely follows thera ; and the definition was, in all probability, introduced into the Treaty, for the express purpose of guarding against any misconstruction likely to arise froia their being retained in the Article, after it had undergone the amendments which were de- scribed above. If, as the American Statement asserts, the north-west angle of Nova Scotia was a known undoubted spot, the raere mention of it in the Treaty would have been suffi- cient, in like manner as the .neiiflon of the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of St. Lawrence by their respective names, without particularizing their limits, suffices to convey a diiitinct aod adequate idea of those two separate portions of the Sea. But it is not a little remarkabV, that the north-west angle should have been named without the definition, precisely in &ti Article, which would have fixed it in a spot altogether and entirely inconsistent with the Use now h<;ld up by The United States as that which coincides with the line of the aacient boan* daries and of the Treaty ; and that the definition should have been added to the nsme of the angle exactly in that other Article, where tht- name alone is asserted by The United Eutn to have so delii ite and distinct a signification us to exclude the possibility of any other con* struction. In this confusion of circumstances one thing may be ofHrmed mthout hesitatioa ; namely, that the position of the north-west angle of Nova Scotia was no more kiio«-D a 17iS3, than it is known at this moment The Charter of Massachusetts, as The United States interpret it, would place that angle on the right bank of the St. Lawrence. The IV^- »•<« * 3 ^ 3 vtr. «... Tiwy gtirWik Ml/«N •I im «ii- It* 1>*T Iv*^ )•/«« liw^»- ^ ciainatioii of 17G;5, mid the (ine'upc Act, inlerpretefl by thcni, ^'.•oul(l pKiCR it on certain lll^h'.amls soiitli of tliose Rivera which fall into the St. Lawrence. The first proposal of thwir negotiators at Paris wouM place it at the source of the IWvuv St. Jolin. The fact is, that the nortli-west angle of Nova Scotia is yet to be formed ; and this has been admitted by '"'* ""''' ''' high American authority. Tiie American Statement appears to have confounded the assnni])tion in theory of''^™'^""*!'''- the point designated in the Treaty as the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, with its existence in fact, although it is evident that these two ideas are by no means necessarily the same. Kvcn the true position of tl>e River St. Croix, from the source of wliich the north line was to depart, upon which this assumed point was to be found, was not )sionei-s appointed for that purpose entered upon the consideration of the subject, they found that they had to de- cide between two rivers, both having claim to the appellation of the St. Croi.K, and between several sources of that one of the two to which the preference was ultimately given ; and further, that, taking the two extreme claims on the east and on tl>c west, the distance be- tween their meridians was no less than 40 miles. From the manner in which the north-west angle of Nova Scotia is mentioned in the . > Treaty, and the terms in which the north-east angle of Maine is fhscrihed in the same sen- tence, it might have been supposed in 1783, that wiienever the position of the boundaiy lines should be ultimately settled, there would be a point where the southern boundary of Canada would, in forming the northern boundary both of Massachusetts and Nova Scotia, be met by . v>> the dividing line between the two latter Provinces : in other words, that wherever the north- v • cast ,'.ngle of Maine should be formed, an angle for the adjacent British Province would be likewise determined. That the finding of the latter was to be consequent to, and not to govern the position of the former; that it wsis a point to be sought, and not a point fixed, is admitted by an authority which The United States will not be inclined to dispute ; namely, by Mr. Sullivan, formerly Agent on the part of The United States, before the Commission for determining the true River St. Croix, afterwards Governor of the Stale of Massachu- setts, an i- ri.k::''i. hi >■;#.:'! 1%: , ^-■M 1 (■l.,ii'.cl»r of M'.ri liill, aul II lijIl'k-IUlK th« v-sit nf H. flii!ri'*i9(H. IVif th« !.urpu^«« of iha W])Ol claimtd by Tho Unit«Nl onl; lTo« N. W. Bii^le or ^ova 5ci'll». lit Ara.SiaL cUimtil hjTha L'nitrtI Stawt aa l>)rminf their truo narlh boun- iity uoilir thn Treaty. jitBrit.8tnt. \i. So «t tei. 20 fcludibeiiigtlie case, there would be little interest in examining the nature of the country cast and north-east of Mars 1 lill. It is enough to know that Mars Hill is calculated to imjiai t a cliavacter of decidedly riupfiiior elevatiou to that part of the country in which it is sitiuiteil, that the due north line crosses its eastern slope, and that there are appearances of a generally hilly or mountainous tract, mn-kcd with occasional eminences of a lofjier kind, going off from it in a westerly or south-westerly direction, anJ allowing the boundar}' line to he cavr-'wl along this uneven riuccession of highlnmls in such manner as to leave the waters of the A tlantic Rivers entirely within the United States' territory. According to the American Statement the only spot on the due north Lin';, capable of answering to the terms of the Treaty so as to constitute the point of departarf, required for the Northfrn Boundary Line, is fixed at the point A, in the map A, about I'M miles from tl'.e source of the River St. Croix. The line so prolonged intersects the main chaimel of the St. John and several of its tributary streams, besides intersecfing also several other streams whose confluence form the River Restigouche ; and it terminates at a place desti- tute of any marked elevation, between one of the branches of the Restigouche and the sour- ces of a stream falling into the River St. Lawrence, and presumed to be the. River Metis. According to the same Statement the Noriiiern 13(>undai7 of The United States is carried from the point thus fixed to the liorth-wcsfcrimiost licail of Connecticut River, pass- ing all along beiwcen the rivers that empty themselves, into the River St. Lawrence, and the tributary streams of the River Restigouche, of the River St. John, and of Rivers which fall into the >flllanlic Ocean. The Highlands, which the Americi n Statement describes as passing, without inter- ' ruplion, from the point propo- ■ by The United States as the tiue north-west angle of Nova Scotia to the north-wcsternm head of Connecticut River, are wholly destitute of any marked or conspicuous elevatio; rough, by far, the greater part of their extent. This allegation is fully substantiated iii le First British Statement, on the authority of various oflicial reports and Surveys annexed to it.* The United States, pureuing their idea of identifying the lire designated in the Treaty with that which they suppose to have existed previously among the British Provinces, have objected to the adoption of Mars Hill, as the point of departure for the northern boundary line, that it is not in immediate connection with any chain of highlands tren 'Ing eastv/ard in the direction of Chaleurs Bay. The reasons which induce the British GGvernment to tre&t ' '' vince of Nova Scotia, whoie boumtarics it was not the object of tlie Treaty to define, and the adjuitjseoi o/ ■ - %¥hich i-itnatler for the consideratioit of Great BritaiualoDe. Thi« n<:7i!rtion of The United States, honeTer.ii no- supported by any proof whatever, unless a line drawn on their Transcript, from Mars HiU to the Gayof Chaleui*, i j intended to aflbrd this proof, by shewing, timt the western extremity of thn Bay of Chaleiin h more north wcA than Mors Hill. Tliis latter inference, howcvci, perfectly immaterial as it is to the present qtiestion, is even alb>> gcther unwarranted, by reason of the total uncertainty of the difference of longituda between those two point*, tt is, likpwisp, distinctly maintained in the American Statement, that the north-west angle of Nora Scotia ialn>d«d ia the Treaty must be found in tlie intersection of the western with the nurthera boundary of that Frortuc^ aal therefore in the line drawn (ain,wtudi Captain Partridge has estimated at 1037 feet. We do not indeetl find, that any land at all niproximatiii^ to ,t » height has been observed along the whol« of that diitoocc, and (here is certainly no *' ridge still more elenVtO,*' near the source of the Metis. ■::3 3 -v. 'A-: ' -i -3 :2i rJ '4i 5-- I? S'^'-fi'^'' - ^ :.;_,> I •■ H, " IT* >V (fvqf lllhrM«i, ,'(i»\« ' 27 ilx ..**.:: 1^ 'V thU objection as irrftlevaiit have been stated iibove, and it has not been thought necessary to go into the exumintitlon ot a fact, which, if it were even established ou indisputable author- ity, would, ill tlieir opinion, be entitled to no weight in the decision of the point at issue. But aiiics- The United States appear to think that the continuation of the highlands eastward of the due north line is so essential to a fulfilment of the terms of th<' Treaty, there may be some interest in nsceitaiiiing hoiv far the line which they themselves cliiiin, is calculated to fulnl this condition. The line which they claim is, in fact, no other than the boundary line. which they suppose to have existed as between Canada an;l Nova Scotia in virtue of the lloyal Proclamatioa of 1763. But that line, it is wel' known, cannot continue along th«: " hijchlands aecoidin^' to the condition on which The Uiiited States insist. It must leave those highlnnds, in order to jiass along the north coast of the Bay des Chnleiirs. In this inannt-r it is evident that whatever may be the character of the country in a direct line between Mars Hill and (Jliiilciirs Bay, the line claimed by "hr. iJnited States is defective in that verj" quality to which they attach so great a degree .:.~ importance. It has been already shewn and fully established in the former Statement, confirmed by what is urged in the pifccding pages, that the River Rcstignuclic and the River »S'(. John arc not classed by the Treaty among the rivers falling into the Atlantic Ocean, and conse- quently that The United States, who maintain that the Highlands designated by the Treaty must be those which immedialely divide the St. Lawrence Rivers from those of the Atlantic Ocean have failed to substantiate their claim in that respect. 1 he consequences involved in the admission of that claim, as well with regard to the general jirincijile and purview of ihe Treaty, as relatively to niany important interests of the British Colonies, which would be •■ thereby prejudiced, without the extension of any corresponding benefit to the United States, it ' are such as to call for the clearest proofs and the most irresistible demonstration. But far • '; if from this being the case in the present instance, it is manifest, that in order to produce even Ji^' an appearance of con.'istency between the American Claim and the letter of the Treaty, one : .V. of the principal limitations of thatTrciity must be wholly set aside, and even its very tcrm.<« . V i submitted to a forced and unnatural constniction, directly opposed to the sense which is jj. incontrovertibly attached to them in other parts of the same Article. The che Br.y of Fimdy and the Atlantic Ocean are contradistinguished from each con,eiucr«» othev and confounded together in one and the same Article of the Treaty ; that the River Sm,t;"n«'i St. John which empties itself into the Bay of Fundy, and the River Rcstigouche which c'''''""""" vS emptier* itself into the J?ay of Chaleurs and through it communicates with the Gulf of St. *;|- Lawrence, fall into the Atlantic Ocean in the sense and meaning of the Treaty ; that the "*:|}word «' Highlani's" is wholly unconnected with the idea of height otheiwise than ps it •* respects the separation of rivers ; that the British Plenipotentiary, after declining the " .^if offer of the St. John as a Boundary, consented to give up the half of that Piver together ;•:* I With a large territory north as well as south of it to The United States ; that the prln- * tiple, declared in tlie Treaty, of securing perpetual harmony and beneficial intercourse I between the two Parties, would receive its intended application by dividing the principal drivers of the Highland Country in such manner as to lay the seeds of " future discord" ;|Vtween the Parties; are among the propositions in virtue of which the claim of The • I United States can alone be made good in opposition to that of Great Britain. ^t ■ The United States, in .supporting that claim, have labored to establish not only that I > rr o > J A«frtiiiin,f T!> .,■5 lie Boundary Line dcsij^'nated in the Treaty is identical with that which subsisted between fh^'t'i'hdini" '.■'•;|fte British Provinces of Nova Scotia, Quebec, and ^Iassachusetts, ])rcvious to the War of ^'-rn'tlwi wiT J Independence ; but further, that the Line, which they now propose, is identical with the cw nneroni"i"tit .Swe and with the other of those two Lines. It has already been proved, in treating of i"*ni.!?ti'. 1t»t point which the United States have claimed as the true north west angle of Noya I Jwtia, that any such iih^ntity between their line, and the supposed liue of the aiiciert 1 ' ..a _ • n. - I- , 'S» *' §# • ;!*■«''■. •< !;.;! Ill Am, nut. r. If. Phcuiiion on that ^ufijnrt forO' cUvti\ by tho I'rosi/. lit BiIU Stat, p. 17. lit Am. Stat, p. I'l llri«r review nf f..*r\» Iff hy Tho t* •it'.tJ futo« in ■dp^mrt of their pfopuiiUon. 28 ■ pvoviiiclril brtuiidnries, is mere matter of coiijfccture. In goinj^ into this (Hiestloii of the' ciicie'it Uoiiiniaiies The Unitetl States have tiot bweu abl.3 to couccal lliu inconvenience, and indeed {\\k in iiinnountablc objections attached to such a (liicimHton at the digtuucH of foiiy. six yean from the. conclusion of the Treaty. Their Statement disa-ov/u their havinjc any inf -ntion f(i disciii5«« •' the respective rights or pretensions of the Parties on a subject wlikh has "bein drfuiiikfhj settled." It was, in tnitli, so cicJirly the intention of the Treaty to nettle the Houiularies both peremptorily and definitively, that the argument advanced by Tlie United State« with relerence to what those Honndarics were, as between the several Brilisii Colonies before the War of Independence, must he considered as ti-ndinj?, however undesignedly, to counteract tliat wi.^e and salutary intention. The Treaty itself, as ainpiy shewn before, is silent on this subject. It introdufes the definition of the JSoundaries by stating it to be " a in support of their pretensions. It does not indeed accord with the situation of the Parties at that time to suppose that The United States could ever have thought seriously of insistiny on the acknowledgment, by Great Britain, of a wider extent of territory than they Tvero understood to have possessed, in virtue of some princijde or other, as British Colonies. But these admissions are perfectly consistent with what has been already asserted oo clear specific evidence, namely, that the two Parties, in jirocceding to a final adjustment of their claims, did not agree to decide those claims on any fixed principle of right, but ulti- mately determined to adjust them by a peremptory declaration founded on mutual conwnt and mutual convenience, and the interest, common to both, of preventing future dispute* and (collision. The American Statement itself, in asserting that it was the intention of the Parties to the Treaty of Peace "to confirm the boundaries of the States and of Massaditu " setts j)articularly, as they had been established w!ien British provinces," has .fcU the necessity of qualifying that assertion by the saving clause *^ as far as practicable.'* A brief review of the principal documents which arc more particularly descriWtl ixj the second Section of the American Statement will, indeed, be sufiicient to shew that tbe negotiations nuTht have been protracted to an indefinite jieriod, if those who conducted thmi ha i I'.iit taken tht; determination of adjusting their difiercnces on the only princip'n ailaptoi to their real interests, and to the new position m which the parties were placed towanLi eadt other. •,•►-. 3 :> -'•Ji'; I. J ■ ■ ~.1f^ m 3 ,:j , ,.». . -iVHK; -iil< inii ortf llj.t« rt, «* to be Kitrr ' ivSxrt* a. ami SMond ifewnco htenn- lipn» to thfir iP«rtic« lUsrfft o4 (Duf li>9 ikktitt m\iae>ch 29 (tbt [Any vni ISfcond Ifsrfneo literm- iti(vn»K> ■ncx. loa their itioo iPtrtici |i!ii»*io$ itnnSoo • i e River St. Lawrence by u Hue extending towards the north, and joining the nearMl spring or head strram euiptyina; into that River. According to the same Grant, the northern boundary of Nova Scotia was to pais along the southern coast of the River St. Lawrence to Cajie- Rosiers. The terms of the Grant would not bear us out in supjiosiug that the western Bouii- dai y of Nova Scotia was to be formed by a due north lino. Tlie only positive circum.stanccs to be collected from them as guides for our opinion, arc, that the Line between the two sources specified therein shall be a straight one ; and that the source communicating with the St. Lawrence shall be the nearest. On looking to the map we instantly perceive that these guides might lead us to head waters of the River Chaudiere as being the nearest to the point of departure of all the sources north of it falling into the St. Lawrence. Rut, with* out presuming to intimate that such was the real intention of the Grant, dating, as it does, from a period when the face of the country was wholly imknown, wc feel ourselves justified in pointing out the vagueness of its terms, as fairly acknowledged in the American State- ment, and inferring how extremely difficult, or rather impossible, it would have been for the Negotiators of the Treaty to have fixed the Uoundaries between two Independent States, in conformity with definitions so loosly worded as to involve the most unexpected contin- gencies. A line extending from the source of the St. Croix " towards the north" to the near- " " ' eit part of the St. Lawrence would, at all events, strike that river, owing to the obliquity of its course, far to the west of that point where a due north line would intersect it. A reference to the map will make this clear. It must not be forgotten that the Commissioners ' under the 5th Article of the Treaty of 1794, in deciding which was the tnie St. Croi.v, adopted the northern stream, to the exclusion of the icc,«t«m. Thus the variations of this one Grant alone ofl'er four several north-west angles of Novo Scotia. The western stream being the one named in Sir William Alexander's Grant, the preference of the northern stream nmst surely invalidate the authority of the Grant as a binding designation of the boundary of Novi Scotia ; and at any period subsequent to the Proclamation of 1763, Sir William Alexander's Grant is altogether irrelevant as to the northern boundary of that province. The Charter of Massachusetts, dated in 1C9I, does not mention the terrjVory of • Bagadahock, which according to the Duke of York's Giant extended by its eastern and western limits to the River St. Lawrence. It annexes to the Province of .Vassachusetts only " those lands and hereditaments lying and extending between the said courtry or tcr- " ritory of Nova Scotia and the said Rivtr of Sagadahock.''* Agreeably to thesi' words, \ the northern limit of Sagadahock, as annexed to Massachusetts, would be aline drawn obliquely from the source of the Sagadahock or Kennebec River to the point of intersec- tion between the western boundary of Nova Scotia and the south bank of the River St. . Lawrence. Besides the considerations arising out of this circumstance, it is to be remem- bered that the right of Massachusetts to retain any part of Sagadahock, at least that part y.i it which lies t-ast of the Penobscot River, has been continually questioned and denied by the British Government. The Uoyal Proclamation of 1763, of which the Act of Parliament called the Qtiebec Act is a mtsre paraphrase as to that part of the boundary still ia dispute, extended the limits I ' i 3 9 • •' ■ ■ * ;-■'. ■' ■' ' "'J a^^^ I ^ ?«^^^f^' i . *'■' ■ ' V,. ■.■ . ■«' 5 i'l i ol' (Jitiiiiil.i coiHlJcrably to llic sOiith of the ^t. L!iwirin;c, Ai'^^onlinjif to (hat rrorhindtioii tlir norih'tni houiuliiry of Nova Scoiia, !c;;tiliitcil liy tliu lOiuhcrti boundary of Cuiiu'la^ . , woulij agree with the followin;^ di-scriptroii : "the line fiotniiisf thtt Uive^£^t. Liivvrenci; iiiiii ,^ " thfi I.uki! Ohamplnin iti ■15'* Nortli (iOtitiiiln jmssi-s iiloni? the liij^hhiiul* whicli ihvidtj the " livers tb;it empty theinsijlvcH into ihc sulil Hivor St. Luwrfiict; Ironi those, which fill into " till! Ken, (M(i «fio along the north eoiist of.th« Hay dun tyhhlcurs," To thi; lino llm» (IftseribtHi (he American Statemt^nt Iiaj (ittrihutcil a degree of lirerision and unbroken con- tinuity, wliith its application to tlic known ciiT«in>i, l)efore it reaches that bay, not between rivers falling on one side into the St. Lawrence and on the other into the Sea, but between the streams which fall into the l»ay of Ciialeur* only, and in a direction nearly at right angles with the direction of the line ))rolongcd to ,^ Cape Rosiers. The truth is that the line described in the Proclamation was never put to the tej>t of a practical application ; nor did the circumstances of the country rerpiirc that it should receive a more fixed and positive character throughout that central portion whicli intervenes from the Bay des Chaleurs to the dividing liighlands situated immediately between the sources of the Kennebec and Chaudi»;re Rivers. On the Hay des Chaleurs there were .settlements connected with the fisheries ; at the other extremity of the line settlements were al.so to be found ; and it was therefore desirable to provide for an actual delimitation relative to the rights of provincial jurlsdlrtion in both those parts of the country. Uut the iutcrmc- diate space v/as a wilderness destitute of all inhabitants «!xcept tlie Indians ; and the British Government had therefore no adequate motive for regulating the Boundaries of provincial Ap^ No. 8. p. 9. authority throughout a region so little known at that time, and of which the interests were not as yet even partially developed. Moreover, The United States cannot, with any pretence of right or reason, appeal cither to the Proclamation or to the Quebec Act. 1'he American Congress, when engaged in weiglilng the conditions of peace, reprobated both the one and the other, as acts of oppression trenching on their rights, and to be reckoned amongst the causes of their Revolution. Such are the vague and conflicting documents, by means of which The Unllotl States have endeavoured to establish that two-fold proposition which forms the ba.sls of tliclr • whole argument, namely, that the boundary defined in the Treaty was intended by the Ne- gotiators to be identical with that which they conjecture to have existed previously oi - between the British Provinces, and that the line traced on their transcript of the Map A, . and now claltn.d by them, is indentical with those Urn lines. In other words they h«re . attempted an impossibility by means of a discussion which they acknowledge to have l>f en definitively closed by the Treaty of 1783, and of which the records of the negotiation aad • the Treaty itself offer no traces to warrant their conclusion, that the confirmation of a . pre-existing boundary line was the object and intention of the Article respecting boundaries. • The attempt to establish this projiosltlon is termed an impossibility, because it has been proved in the course of this inquiry, that no such line did, in fact, exist before the Treaty of 1783, in the sense presumed by their Statement ; that the identical line now claimed by them cfuU not possibly coincide with that line, if it liad really existed; and that the documents, which Vagucncdi onJ coniratlictton or ttis doeumenti coniid«reJ tboT9< i'l r- -: J Si. r- - -=« - ■ ; ♦ .) ' '•= y.if !■ * ■ Ml I ■! >';*'. .{i ' ii^ , ■ ;^ ■ -jt:^ ^,1* ;?!■;' ■ • (:.j..>r,'-.' ^OtJ .".!« .1 '. ., >!;■ iljdM 1^ M*4 ImA • ««»* 4 A"9 MM*/* a | »i'w n »ii lbs v^MtJii c Ltiida ,1^ i4 !•«<• i;rf,A«« SI thuy hove proilurcil in support of tlieir jirett/asiDnii, arfl unfit, eitlier singly or collectively, to furiiUh the bniiH nccessitry for its establlshtnctit. AVith rr.s|)ect to that part of the American Statement whii'h rfMon* "I""' tlie{>^';f JfJ,^. renewal of the iJiikc of Vork's Grant in 1G74, iho opinion of the «rifi-»h l,aw Ollicm in ;|;i;p^',",;!;*.;^;. 1731, and th« c»iiiiiuinic:itions alledgcd to have taken plare betwcpii the (iencral Court *!!{ Mr/>'cTs*7 of MatiachiiJiutt) il,i< slightest prospect of utility, it would be indispensable to comprize the pr -ions discussions, w' » h had taken place during the greater part of a century betwee . I lilt' French and British Governments under the often contested opera- tion of the Treaties of Breda and Ryswick. This, doubtless, was one cf the consider- atlons which justly operated on the minds of the negotiators in 178.1, to restrain them from grounding their adjustment of the disputed part of the boundaries on any declared Am. Put. r w principle of right ; and the American Statement has itself recognized the wisdom of that determination, by abstaining with equal prudence from going into the question of right i cither i»3 between France and England, in times anterior to the final cession of Novu < Scotia to the British Crown, or as between Great Britain and the chartered British colo- Inies exclusively, however essential the discussion of those questions must necessarily be deemed to the complete establishment or complete refutation of their main proposition /^ On the subject of ancient boundaries. i ■ There are two points which still remain to be briefly noticed. .'}. It is alleged in the American Statement that all maps, comprehending the disputed Fuiui(rortii« 4 ;c>r-tory, which arc known (o have been published between the periods of 1763 and ?,^''i^;!J1. ''^ '''" -( 1783, and of which copies arc now to be procured, concur In carrying the boundary *^ *"'• ■'• ""• i Ene, as described in the Royal Proclamation, along those Highlands to which the chim > of the United States particularly applies. In answer to the inference, which the United j States have drawn from this supposed coincidence, it is to be observed : ° i ■ " ' "' X • Itmay b«Wfll,hon'PVPr,to observe in this forni,thal Mr. Mamluit's LeUershows.iatisfacloril/howlilUelhu 1 iurth«m limits of Mnnnrhu'ctts v/ero at lliat time knowu, and how little weight is to be nttarlieil to the reaioniii; I inthi^ American Statemoiit respcutin*; the narrow tract alludeil to in that letter. The northern boundary of Mni- A<"' ^**> P- '''■ I ochmetts eait of the River K?^nn(;bec i^, by the moat favourable interpretation of tbu Chiirter, a line from the i wirce of the Rirer Kennebec to thn point where the Nova Srotia boundary strikei thn St. Lawrence. The j )li.«!achuietts Rivers which were to I e fccured to that Colony can be no other than the Fenobicot and Kennebec XilDTf. •1 V\ ^ Zh a ,i 1-.: .-• -i. ■ :if MB'"-* I K-?^'''|. k§' f1^-''-'/y^:A VI ^'1 ml 32 1 °. Thai in the maps rofevre J to, the highlantl-j in question are reprcssnteil bj a line of vii^ible elevation contrary to the true chai'ac.tur of the country, U3 since ascer- tained. 3°. 1'liat in some of these maps the linn of visible elevation, so represented, is made to iatcisect the waters, either of the St. John, or of the St. Lawrence, and in some, even of both, disproving thereby any intention of its having been traced upon the princi- ple of si'piii ating those waters. 3". That no maps arc to be received as aulhnritij but those, vi/.., MitcheU's Map and the Map A, which have been expressly agreed upon between the respective parties. 4°. That, notwithstanding some dill'ercnccs of little consequence, when taken with reference to general purposes, the Maps l)rought for\vard by The United States are so evidently copied, the one from the other, that no additional evidence can be safely derived from their coincidence. 5*. That the selection, on the part of the Negotiators, of Mitchell's map, which was published before the Proclamation of 1763, in preference to those maps which pretend to give the line described in the Proclamation, contributes materially to show, that the line in question was not that on which the boundary, as dcfuied in the Treaty, was meant to be established. Mwwion'wHuM '^'^^ °'^^'" P°'"* remaining to be noticed is the state of actual posesslon, which, ih.''idrai!!Iii^'of however, has been so amply discussed in the former Statement, and so lightly touched upon JiTimMd"™. in the American argument, that little more than a mere reference to it is deemed sufficient iiwBrii&h.* on this occasion. It will rest with the Arbiter to determine \vhethRr the facts and cvi- An. St4L P. fiO. deuces, adduced on that subject by the British Government, partake more largely of the obscurity and insignificance attributed to them in the American argument, than much of ' 4 the testimony brought forward by The United States themselves, for the support and rin- dicatlon of their claim, may fairly be presumed to do. Among the considerations essential to a just and satisfactory decision of this complicatcil question, it never can be deemed immaterial that, whereas the establlshntent of The United States' claim would have the effect of dispossessing the British provinces of a 'territory proved to have been in part* ' • always under the jurisdiction of Great Britain, and in partf actually occupied by British ' settlers, the confirmation of the British right, as claimed in this and the preceding State- ments, would be unattended with the separation from American jurisdictiau of a single citizen of The United States settled in that country before the period of the Treaty of Ghent. It is on this ground as well as on those of a yet more important discription, which have been urged and developed on behalf of Great Britain, in both, the Statements to be now submitted to the Arbiter, that the British Government look forward with confidence to a favourable adjudication of their claim. In an earlier part of this Statement it was observed, that, by carrying the l?oundary line to the north of the River St. John, the prejudice thereby occasioned to the British Provinces would not be confined to a mere loss of territory. What has been just statrd respecting the point of actual possession confirms the truth of that observation. The ex- tensive Fief of Madawaska, which was granted several years before the Charter of M&v eachusetts, and which has been held uninterruptedly under Canadian jurisdiction to the present day, would be thereby transferred to The United States, whose claims to territory, during the negotiations of nfiS, could never for a moment have been supposed to extend ♦ TheFWof MidawMka— 1st Brit. Stat. p. 20. t The MiOawaska SetUemtnt— lit. Brit. Stat. p. 23. BMt^ilulalioHi eihthhinf ih» furtural r..ftetu> •iunf rA«tt*iint from ths whet* atgumesU '1 ■m ■if rt ■M-' Kf 6 — ff» r- , f?^ H IT* "7. =i ;; 33 ' * beyond their rights when clearV established as British Provinces. The British Authorities would also be thereby called upon to surrender a jurisdictiou which they have continually exercised as far as the Great Falls of the River St. John frotn tiie earliest period at which any settlements have been formed in that jart of the country. Britisli subjects holding property within tlie «ame territory, and who have held it in uniuttrruptcd succcs.sion from the period of 1763, would be compelled either to resign thfe possessions of their fumily, or to retain them under a Government to which they owe no natural allpgiauce. Nor would these be the only prejudicial consequences resulting to Great Britain froirt the proposed transfer of territory to The United States. It is well known to what degriic tlie direct communication between Quebec and New Brunswick would be thereby impeded. I low far the communication between one part of Canada and another, — between Quebec, for instance, and the settlements at Gaspfe, — would be rendered more didicult by the same award, may be collected from Bouchette's Topography of Canada, a work produced in evidence on this occasiou by the United States.* It may be doubted whether the anticipation of so much detriment to British interests, though unattended with any corresponding advantages to The United Staics, and evidently calculated to defeat the most enlightened intentions of the Treaty, as explained before, would alone justify a departure from the strict rule of right, supposing it to be made clear in favour of the United States. But in proportion as the above-mentioned consequences are evident, it is difficult to conceive that the British Government could ever have lent itself to an arrangement from which those consequences must naturally liave been expected to flow ; and the stronger, therefore, is the presumption that the acknowledgment by Great Britain of the independence of the United States was felt to impose upon her the duty of carrying her claims, whatc»er they may have been, to the utmost extent %varranted by principles of equity and considerations of mutual convenience, in order to protect the interests and to secure the rights of her remaining Provinces. Presumptions, however probable, are not the sole foundations of the British claim. The conclusions of the First Statement have been confirmed in the foregoing pages, by ar- gument and evidence of the, clearest description. It has been proved, thai the rivers desig- nated in the Treaty arc not those which the United States insist upon, in virtue of an inter- pretation necessary indeed to the prosecution of their argument, but wholly unwarranted by the letter, context, and spirit of the Treaty. It has also been proved, that the Highlands, which they Inaintaiti to he the Highlands intended by the Treaty, exclusive of all- others, agree neither with the .specific terms of the treaty nor with the intention of those who framed it, as manifested by the general tenour of that instrument, and by the circumstances which accompanied its negotiation. It lias been shewn to demonstration, that the north* ^ west angle of Nova Scotia was totally unknown in 1783, that no provmcial boundary iiae had been ackuo^vlcdged, ascertained, or even existed for any practical purpose, at that time, between the western extremity of Chaleurs Bay, and the Higlilands situated at the heads of tiic Kennebec and Chaudiere Rivers, and consequently that the supposed identity between (hat line and the line now claimed by The United States is a mere illusion, resting on no ■losi- tive foundation whatever. It is essential to bear in mind, that these last mentioned fact.s are de- ducible from thu leading evidence and documents exhibited by the United States themselves, , in u part of their argument, which opens a discussion foreclosed by the Treaty, and into which the BritLsli Government feel that they cannot enter at this late period, without com- promising the very objects and principles which it was the main purpose of that Treaty to settle conclusively, and without committing the extreme inconsistency of doing, fifty years Boilvliette's Tojiugrnphj of Caaada, p. fiQ7. K 1 p 1« i 34 :r^->^, i ilter the signature of the Treaty, that veVy tbinp, which, during iu neijoiiatlon, was perc;ii|). torily refused cm the part of Great Britain, namely, reserving for subsequent atljuituient «• the bonndunj beltcem that pari of ike State of Masi(ichnseU$ Ilaij, formerly r.Med llie " Province of J\Iaine, and the Cdontj of jYooa Scolia, tt^mealihi i.o iheir retpecEve rights." On the other hand, it has been cstablisheil by prools, sudicient to satisfy auy i-cason- able and inipajliiil mind, that the rivei-s, dcsciibed in the Treaty, !i3 falling hito the Atlantic Ocean, are entirely distinct from those which fall' into the J'.ay of Fundy or the lJ:iy of Chalcuis ; That the Highlands designated in the Treaty, are those which Ipnij to the sonth of the River St. John, trend wcitward from the due north line drawn from the aource of the St. Croix; and, finally, that the line claimed by Great Britain, as paisinij .-.Ioiil; those Highlands from the point called Mars Hill, is not only more consistent with the precise terms of the Treaty, than any other lii."? hitherto proposed, but \s calculated to fulfil in every important respect the declared as well as the presumed intentions of the Treaty, leonng within the territories of either power the whole of those rivers, of which the n mths are situated respectively therein, and in this manner providin,^ most efiectually for that gtrat principle of the Treaty which has been already pointed out, that is to say, the advautn^e and convenience of both parties. ■ * • SECOND BRANCH OF DIFFERENCE. ;<•;. ¥ »- Briliih Claim. lit Brit. dut. p. 99. Secona Quel- Thc second point of difterence referred to arbitration under the Convention coa- ternraMi hMd rf cludcd between Great Britain and the United States, on the 2Dth of September, 1827, comes Riwf. next to be considered. The second article of the Treaty of Peace concluded between those Powers in the • - year 1 783, after describing the Highlands, along which the northern ')oundary of The United States was to be carried, adds, that the boundary line was to extend " to the north-v:estem>- "most head of Connecticut River," and "thence dotm along the middle of that River to the -,„ *'4Sth degree of north latitude.^* In the first British Statement it has been claimed, on the part of Great Britain, that the boundary line in question should be carried to the sotirce of the north-westemmost stream, which flows into the uppermost of the Lakes above Connecticut Lake, up to whicl* ' the Connecticut River is known by that distinctive appellation ; and that from thence the ' line should be tmced down along the middle of that River to the 45tb degree of nortli ' latitude, such as it is exhibited on the oflicial Map A. ' The grounds on which that claim has been rested, are, first, that the river, which ' issues from Connecticut Lake, row beai's, and has always been known by the sole appella- tion of Connecticut River ; and, secondly, that, as no stream, rthich joins the Connecticut River below where it is known by that name, can with propriety, or according to geograph- icel practice, be taken for thc Connecticut River ; so, it is certain that no head-waier of such stream can be taken for a head of.tlie river itself. In opposition to thc British claim it is contended, on thc part of The United States, thai the north-westernmost head of Connecticut River intended by the Treaty, is cither o " certain head of a stream called Hall's Stream, or one of another stream, called Indiau Stream, both which streams fall into the Connecticut or niaine Connecticut River, from the AncricaaOltio. ■k'^ ^i -!.£■: ■•WKt. /ji .Bt ■•.^ - w ,.A^H'C 91* I -f [ifi'. ■.^! \'U •../^ -k •}■■■-. i " ' 1 4 \i »••■'■■ MM* .^ v; ■ Itk • ^■f^ Ui*A'^' *«." --,■.' I.4»^- ^•-v'^' 5 f ■■ .Wk ' i»lW vA ! An MA"': y MAM f^ ■'-*' ^„ m^ - ^ Sifc^ iWf * !»«»• mim ' 35 \: WAf:-^ i»'. lull. But. > 3a Aim liijitn SUaua. AIM P tjtntm tni OtIlMI' ' V UM'» tliaam underntr; con- iide.-ation incmv ■isttnt with th* TM»tf. 36 Oi) aJmilted by both Aifents, that the cai« here supposed wnnUl actually occur wUh respect to Kail's Strcum. In the former Statement, it la inentiaiieJ, that the surveyors cinjtiuyej ia 1772 by the provincial governments of New York anJ Quehuc to trace the parallel of the 45th *legri;e of north latitutlo from Lako Clmmplain lo tlio River Connecticut, r.rossed Kail's Sti-eani at some distance above its mouth, and marked the termination of their line at a |>oiul on the western bank of the Connecticut, where a post still exista to ma>k the Hpot. This circnmstancc is the more impoitant, as those doubts which have since ariswn respecting the accuracy of that line, and wliich have occasioned n»j'.v operationa for survey n^ iiuil marking it, n'ere not then iu existence. The Treaty having stipulated thi-.t the ubovn-niun- tioncd parallel »hould be drawn from the middle of Connecticut River, and the jVamers of the Treaty beinj; well aware that the parallel in rjuejtion intersects that river nlov'-. HiiU'a Stream, il is clear that no head whatever of Kail's Streaiu could have been in their con* teniplation as the north-westernmost head of Connecticut River. Kail's Stream being thus excluded from the purview of the Treaty by the known situation of its mouth, it remains to be considered whether Indian Stream, which The United States have put fonvanl to take the place of Hall's Stream, in the event of this latter being set aside, has any better claim to preference under the terms of the Treaty. Indian Stream can only be entitled to preference upon one of these two principles, namely, that it cither is absolutely the most north-western tributary to the Connecticut, or that it is the Connecti- cut itself. Now, it cannot be taken for the River Connecticut, because it is not known by that name, but is, ou the contrary, known by another appellation, besides being of interior breadth to the main river ; and that it is not the north-westernmost tributary to the Connec- ticut is clear, because Hall's Stream has been asccrtaind to have its sources further to the north-west, in an absolute sense, than those of any'other branch communicating therewith. It follows, therefore, that no head of Indian Strt^am has any title whatever to being adopted as the north-westernmost head of Connecticut River intended by the Treaty. And it is further evident, that what is true of Indian Stream, is true with respect to Perry** Stream, and to every other stream, except Hall's Stream, fallin,? into the Connecticut. Tiic result of this reasoning, which is too manifest to admit of any doubt, is, that the whole question lies between the heads of Hall's Stream, and the 'leadg of that river which is claimed by Great Britain, to the north of Connecticut Lake. But it has already been shewn that Kail's Stream is excluded from the intention of the Treaty by the knov>rn situa- tion of its mouth, and consequently it can be only necessary to consider its heads upon the supposition of the new parallel of latitude, as claimed by Great Britain, being adopted, and the adoption of this new parallel being allowed to have a retro-active effect upon the provi- sions of the Treaty. To the admission of any such consequence of the rectification of the parallel it must, however, be objected that Hall's Stream and Connecticut River having been known to the negotiators as two separate objects, the wording of the Treaty is decisive as to their In- tention of excluding the former, and since the execution of that intention must necetta- sarily be the end and aim of the present discussion, there is no reason whatever for any change on the above-mentioned ground. Supposing, nevertheless, for the mere sake of argument, that Hall's Stream had not been excluded by the manifest intention of the Treaty, the reasons for giving: « preference to the river claimed by Great Britain, are still of the most convincing kind. The terms of the Treaty are, that the boundary line shall be carried " to the «« north-westernmost head of Connecticut River, and thence down along the miildli- cf <' that river to the 45th degree of north latitude." The question is, therefore, which of ft'st, that if Hall's Stream hiul IxM-.n considered its tlie iiutin Cniinr.clicut Kiver, the iiiiK would not biive been rairled acrons it to the western bank of that River, which is claimed by Crreat Britain as the true one. The very circum*tance, indeed, if Hall's Stream Ita^'iti;^ bcttn then known by thai name, while the principle channel had no name at all, if not .'liat of Counectlrut, or main Connecticut, would be suflicient, in the absence of the po:«itive proof above-mentioned, to indicate the real state of the case. The repoitn of the surveyors concur in representing the brunch claimed by Great Uritain a« the prin- cipal f^ne ; and it is thcvfore not to be conceived, that it would have been left without a diitinctive appellation, while ils several tribntnriss were known by their respective names. No other name has been ever assii^ned to it but that of Connecticut, or main Connecticut Uiver. The former of thcjn, however, was expressly given to it in 1772, by the survey-'*' "'•«■•''•'* ora employed in tracing the. boundary Hue ; and it is proved in the Grant to Dartmouth College, mentioned in the former statement, that in 17b9 the same appellation extended to that part of the channel which lies above the mouth of Indian Stream. The name, ■which is thus shewn to have applied at very early periods to parts of the river above its confluence with the only streams claimed by The United States, is now universally admitted to belong to it, at least as high as the great Connecticut Lake. The following facts go to establish a still more complete accordance between the "'";■'• '^""' " ' fitAbliilifil bf British claim and the terms of the Treaty. Small brooks (not entitled, on account of ""''■'"'''• their smallness, to the name of rivers, but very appropriately designated by the name of heads of n river,) unite and form a stream, which is the very stream that would be reached by ascending Connecticut River, and constantly following the largest branch, and which, therefore, would with the greatest strictness throughout, tin to the very heads *pp '•• ^"''' above-mentioned, be entitled to the appellation of Connecticut River. The line of boundary claimed by Great Rritain does con-scqucntly comprize in its descent from the pavticul.ar head claimed as the north-westernmost head intended by the Treaty down to latitude 43', the whole of the river that has been or ever can be called Connecticut River. On the other hand, the line claimed by The United States, if it be Hall's Stream which, us known to the negotiators, constitutes that claim, descends down along the branch and channel of a stream which has every ap|)€arance of having been named in contradis- tinction with the River expressly designated in the Treaty, to the 45th degree of latitude, without ever rcac'vnj; fie (Connecticut River at all. Supposing that the claim of The United States be transferred 'a Indian Stream, the line will in like manner descend along th6 channel of a stream "v-di-ntly not contemplated by the Treaty, and pass aloni^ Connecticut River in a part of ita course, bearing so small a proportion to the part already traversed in a channel differently named, as to exhibit a marked want of conformity with the terms of the 'I'reaty. The American argument relative to this question closes with an a.«sprtion that the head water claimed by Great Uritain, as the north-westernmost head of Connecticut River, is, in fact, not one of its north-western heads at all, but the north-easternmost of those heads which, taking their rise in the highlands, come within the meaning of the Treaty. J,";^'""'"^ L '! ■■ i: •"t'l >• 1^ ■( . .1' •I !• I ■i':;i; HI 1. 1 ■ ; iL :S' ■ r M <— '5 l^irf''* V lzx~ -a- •■ I (( -I •n 1, .■■.. J'.' .,-i ITT' ■*_ V* , ■ J. I ,"^ ■ ' ■ *' ' » * . .'v- '..*'■■■ i ,: ^1 i n. I 38 'J'liero ii really no force whutevftr in th'm obJBcJion. The hoad of Connert'uMit Iliver claliTifil by Great Britnin may or m») not bO the nortli-ciiHteritiiHt»t of lltu«ci MHirccs of the river Hi(U(ii»'d in the hi){hlanil4. The term *• north 'WHitterninojl" npplitf* in the Trenty to (he liradi of Conuucticut River, itn.l not to tiioi« heuili which tire iii|)po<«(l to spring Iroin hit{hlnn(l8. The head cinimed by Gn^at Britain wpringing from the hi^hlnndu aclcuowleilgtd by both partial, all conditions which The United Stalfs .nay have dt:iivi;d fr*im ihfir own vietvH of the highlnndi, and from thi: CQunectiou of (lie hij{hl»nd4 with CuuuQcticut Kiver, ore oomplelely fulfilled. TiuT pt.alWI af UUlBl* U". CJtIm of OtMt Bfiulo. PblMliuMorThk UpMSiiM* THIRD BRANCH OF DIFFERENCE. The principal circumstances rtlating to the third point of difference may be con)> prized in feiv wordj. By the 5th Art'ick of thi» Treaty of Ghent it wa» agreed that Commisgioners to be appointed for the purpose, should cause th^- boundary " from the source of the River Sl " Croix to the River Iroquois or Catinu^y (St Lawrence) to be surveyed and marked" A preceding clause of the same article contains the following words : •' whereas that p«irt " of the boundary line between the dominions of the two Powers, which extends from the " source of the River St. Croix, to the north-westernmost head of Connecticut River, " (hence down along the middle of that river, to the 45th degree of north latitude, thence " by a line due west on said latitude, luitil it strikes the River Iroquois or Cataraguy, has •* not yet been surveyed," &c. Then comes the agreement, as above. The particular part of the boundary line here in question is that which extendi /ron Xht middle q/" thu Connecticut Aivir aXmg iht 45th degree oj north lalitud$ to the Rivtr St. Lawrence. The survey agreed by the Treaty to be made of this poilion of the boundary line was commenced and executed, with respect to a considerable part of it, by Astmnomeni duly appointed for the service in the year 1818. The British Commissioner and Agent were uniformly ready and desirous to proceed in this work ; the difficulties which prevented it arose altogether on the part of The United States. In the First Britisli Statement tbecon/iplete execution of the sun'cy thus agreed to be made, is claimed on the simple ground of the clear and binding terms of the Treaty. The United States now object to the execution of the Treaty in that particular, on the ground of its having been ascertained, that the part of the boundary line in question had been previously surveyed and marked, and, therefore, on the supposition that the Treaty of Ghent did not intend to institute a fresh survey of those parts of the boundary line, which were already surveyed and marked by competent authority, but only to cause a suncy to be made of those parts of it, which had not been before surveyed and marked in that official manner. What loss of territory would result to Great Britain from the want of a p^ope^ rectification of the boundary between Connecticut River and the River St. Lawrence, may be easily collected from the First British Statement. It remains to be decided, whether v^ «--_ 2^5 ■■^^ ♦ - 1 HiTCT liwf SC A/" • If, «W^ se ■■. 'W Sc • m try «iw« «/*• an <*xpress stipulation of Treaty is to be set aside in order to justify The United States in retaining a portion of Uritish Territory, which bad pasaed into their possession in conse- (|uence of a ilelinutation at variance with thts express terms of the Treaty, and which they continue to hold only by deferring the execution of a positive provision of the Treaty of Ghent. Great Britain claims, as the line dne west on latitude 15" from Connecticut River 8p'ri'i«>»i'>»j course of thi.-t erroneous line. The report of Dr. Williams was received and apjiroved by the Legi** lature of Vermont ; and it appears, ll,.'!it, in the opinion of the people of that State, the inaccuracy of their northern boundaryi and their loss by it, was from Uiat time placed beyond the reach of doubt. It appears that the Government of Vermont only waited for a favora'tle moment in order to obtain through the medltatiou of the general Goverment of The United Slate-s the territory of which they thor lit themselves unjustly deprived. Thia opportunity presented itself at the conclusion if fiea .^^ in lSl4 ; and the Treaty of Ghent contains, accortliugly, the provisiotw cited ab 'V« ■ »• It '8 not contende. " ■ 'it:- side, that the negotiators of the Treaty of Gh«nt were MtJret'iiMof ""acquainted with the existence of the old line, and the .American negotiators must certuinljr ow™"''^" ""have been as fully aware of it as the British, 'nth parlies must have been desirou.s of sub- etituting a new correct line of boundary for t' old onf, the errors of which were generally known, when sUch a good opportunity presented itsell', especially as other circumstances rendered it advisable to establish the other parts of the bonodary which had never yet \>eea established at all. The clear words of the Treaty, by wliicli the surveying and marking of this part of the boundary, is made one of the "several purposes" for which the Comini,?- sioners were to be appointed, manifestly prove, that ouch was the intention of both Govern- ments, parties to the Treaty. That this was really the intention of the framers of the Treaty, and that the words of the Treaty were at first likewise tmderstood agreeably lo this ioterpre- tJition by the Government of the United States, clearly appears from what has taken place during several years subsequent to the date of the Tieaty. The American Negotiators of the Treaty of Ghent are alive, and no deposition of any one of them, as In the case of tint ^ River St. Croix, has been brought forward to prove that they were unacquainted with (ho existeiice of the old line or that it was not their intenti(m that this provision of the Treaty should have the effect, that a new line of boundary along the parallel of latitude 45° from the Connecticut River to the River St. Lawrence, should be established by accuraU astton-^ omical observations. No reluctance was shewn, on the ] irt of The United States, to carry on the opera* tionp necessary for the deteriViinution of the parallel of l.'-titude, till some time after it was known that the changes which would be produced by the establishment of the new parallel of liUitude as the boundary line, would be mainly against the interest of the United Stale*, App. Ill Brit. p> incipally by tiie loss oi the fortifications at Rouse's point on the western bauk of Laka Sl»". p. S07. /-ii . . • , Champlam. . . ^^. ♦ It is to be observw! tliat ttip Trci\ty uses the words ".ijrnrUin and detfrmino" with ffjurjlo pointj wJ^l Ihe ojiPtntion of tr»cin» or runninj « line is in the Iftji'iiaRe of tlie Treaty (te»i«fn»t«l by tb« « >rdi " taryy ••! "n>»rk." Theic worJs are in the 5th Article of the Treaty ai^pli'J »o (\ line consi'tin^ of iotir it !tr«iil p«rt% viz, 9 meriilijn, — a line aloag highlan 1), — .i line through a, rirer and a parallel of latitu'li. U ii well Vjicvw that the meridian ha'', never been establirhrd, auJ that, tlierefttre, the wonls "s'irvey and mark" w»r» ia tV» Treaty intended to imply all the operations requireU for asccttaininj; it, and amca; thra* aatrnnnwioJ ■'bscrvalien". 'S5 I. J far lis. ii* 1:^ '4-^ 11 r.itiivt ah ont^ of The American Staiement refers to n irvMii of land inaili' Ity tlic flovernincnt of tliet^omi.i Stale of New Voi k bouuileU to the north liy tlie old line near Conni-olicut River, apporeiitly i.imi.n"i i'»i with a view lo shew that it was not ilic intention of the Atneiioan Government to subject the ii,'.";!,^' f:,.,^ lands so bounil<'il to she contingencies consc'iii'nt on a rc-suive}' of tlie line. It has bee a ''"''■ proved in the fust place, that no continj^ency adveree to the interests of The United States was ever apprehciided. In the second ])laie, it is to be observed, that wheficver the words of a Treaty are not dear and where the intention of the frauiers of it are not otherwise knowi', grants, mid lawful possession and oecuji.ttion may form presumptive proofs of the intentions of the parties; but where the words ore so clear, and wliere the views and inteu- tims of all piirti :s are so satisfactorily demonstrated by other circumstances as in this case, such proofs ;ire of little avaii. It liavln;^ l)eei\ thus clearly proved that there was sulliclent reason forniaUiug the conciu.ion ii •' provision that tlu' parallel of latitude 45° from Connecticut river to the River St. Lawrence ii'nii,h im- should be esi.ilili-hed anew ; that the provision that such a new jiaraliel should be surveyed and marked niuler the authority of the Commissioners appointed by hotii Governments is clearly expressed in the Treaty ; that there is no reason to believe, that it was not the ■ intention of the Netjotiators who framed the Treaty, as well as of tlie Goveriiments who ratified it, that this new line should be established, and be considered as finally and con- clusively tixinfj the boundary between the two Countries; and that both Governments sanctioned for several years the measures which ware taken for carrying into eflect this particular provision, Great Britain must believe that she has fully proved the justice of the claim which slie has preferred, and submits, accordinglj', that the provision, as cited abure, of the 5lh Article of the Treaty of Ghent, shall be carried into complete effect. fjmmt ■ M .■V ■'^'^ ■."»•', hr,Ui, ';".Hi [■:jj:a,i\< , I.; ,"..,»..> J c-'TKusUf ii^.'C ykv iivl" '/i -, ' |.-s4 iJ4V ■'»'£ " i.-ji'jj:--- 'if- i't-v.i '^ ,- ^ •j^x^r^if- ■ ■■";■■./! W'' *-■',*■ •• ■ . ..■>.'■ •feta - .■«':*l/'-.-i. w fr«'.; «^-- '^<. ;•*?•; i -w;'!* •;.■ 1 ■1 fs^ ■■;» ->^ It J/' APPENDIX TO THE SECOND BRITISH .STATEMENT, N'). 1.— full acl from Jackson and Flint's Contract . . . . . • 2. — Uemarka upon the uoith-west angle of Nova Scotia, and Sir William Alaxiinder's Chitrter, made by Mv. Sullivan, tlie Agent of The United States liofore the Cora- mission under the lifth Article of the Treaty of 1794, for determining the true ^ Uivcr St. Croix —Remarks of the Agent of The United States ufider the fourth article of the Treaty of Ghent, upon Sir William Alexander's Charter —Depositions of flir. Adjtns and Mr. Jay — and Dr. Franklin's Letter -Extract from " Secret Journals" of (he Old Congress —Extract from the British Agent's " lleply" before the Commissioners under the 5th Aarticle of the Treaty of Ghent, relating to tlie old Survey of the parallel of 45" north latitude ............ -Extract from the Aaiericaa Agent's " Claim and opening Argument" biid before the Commissioners under the Cth Article of the Treaty of Ghent, relating to the old Survey of the parallel of 45" north -Extract From an Act of Assembly of Uw Province of New York -Remarks ui)on Captsiin Partridge's Barometrical Ohservalions .... -Remarks upon "Appendix to the First American Statement," containing " Observa- " tions on and Objections to the Topographical Evidence" . . , . -Remarks upon certain Documents communicated by The United States, or of which Copies have been furnished by Great Britain upon the nppliration of The United States, and xchich have not been cited in the First American Statement 1 3.- 4,- 6.- 7.— f 3.- 0.- 10.- 11.— F 13 II 14 18 » I -■*♦•.. ■■%■: ,'»t^' y^^^^ms* 3 Vt'V ^ l>C.< T S-"- It : ti: APPENDIX. >•(* >■* I ' '' '' No. 1. ■ Extract from Jnckson and Flint's Contract. — [From a document communicated hj the Apptmiii. Government of Tlie United States, to the British Minister at Washinifton, on the SOlh T~T T December, lOaS.J . _. , .,, , , . ■; _ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. rimi't Con- ttac?. Articles of agreement made and entered into this 18th day of April, 1792, between Samuel Phillips, Leonard Jan-is, and John Read, a major part of the Committee for th(} sale of unapproprinited I^nnds in llie eastern part of this Commonwealth of the first part ; and Henry Jackson, and lloyal Flint for themselves and Associates of the second part, witness as follows, viz: — . ARTICLE I. It b hernhy mutually covenanted and agreed by, and between the said Committee, and the said Jnrkson and Flint, that they, the said Committee sliali sell, and they do hereby, in behalf of the said Commonwealth, contract to sell to the said Jackson and Flint, all the lands belonging to this Cnmrnonwealth within the following bounds ; south, by lands which were sold to fhi; said Jackson and Flint by contract, dated the first day of July last; w«l- crly, by a line on the east side of the great eastern branch of Penobscot river, at the dis- tance of six miles therefrom ; easferbj, by the river Scoodick, and a line extending northerly from the source thereof to the highlands ; &w\ northerly, by the Highlands, or by the lin", described in the Treaty of Peace between The United States and His Britannic Majesty, excepting and reserving therefrom four lots of three hundred and twenty acres each to every to^vnship or tract of land of six miles square, to be appropriated to the following purposes, viz :— one for the first settled Minister, 6ne for the use of the Ministry, one for the use of schools, and one for the future appropriation of the General Court. The saiil lots to average in goodness and situation mlh the other lots in the respec- tive townships, and also excepting and reserving a tract or tracts (not exceeding five,) equal in the whole to one tract of six miles by thirty, to be reserved for the use of the Common- wealth, in such part or parts as the said Committee shall Judge best adapted for furnishing masts, in case such tract or tracts shall be found, as in the opinion of the said Committee shall be suitable for this purpose, and not othenvise. The said tract or tracts not to be laid out within six niili-s of the eastern or western boundary lines, and to be located within two vears from this date. B 4 .1. ^3 1 ^ ii .. •■ T ' • ',"1 ■^.■> |.:' "•',. I < III I Hi Apponilix. DTf. ^iilliv«n on 11,11 N.»V. niPiio No. 2. )nrt(/« fci/ I'Vr. iS'iiJ/i'uan, th Jlriklr. of tht Trtntif of iTJi, for ihimnininK thf. truti llivnr ,S'< > ,oix, in iht count ff hi) rtr,';iimtn/t, before lltnl Commissi ix, In f thi:) Berondline w;is necessary, and it w:u therefore added, " to the noW/j-n !«'»>.''" ' Uadnf Connfdimt River."* Then the 'I'reaty contemfdates a line running on the HigMa.ids so as to diviile the rivers whirh run into the St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Orcrni, Imt whuther this \* to lie n direct or crooked line is not ascertained in the Treaty. If it divide those rivers us above expressed there can be no pretence of its being a straight line, ft »"» either in itt general incUnnlion or in its direct course to mm to the north-tcesternmost head of Connecticut River. There can be no angle existing, as known to any man, until those lines arc formed, for the point of their inclination is but a vutlhematical deduction f ran), a perfect recognition of the lines thevisulves. It was found at a very early period that the rivers Howed from the .sonthwanl into the River St. Lawrence and from the northward into the Atlantic Ocean. . This raised a reni^nahle conjecture thnt there was a ridge of IlighlamU which divided those ricers from each other; but the savage state of the Country, the continued wars of the Nation.?, and of the Indians, and the immense labour of travei-sing such an extensive wilderness raised obstacles too great to be overcome by the prospect of any advantages which could po.^siblj be the result. Indeed we are as entire strangers to these Highland.?, and the sources of the rivers on cither side of them, us we are to the sources of the Nile. In the Grant of King James to Sir William Alexander the Highlands do not ajipear to be mentioned; the wortL* are, " unde per imaginariam directam lineain, tjuw pcrgere per tcrrnm leu currere venus Stp- "tentriouem concipietur, ad proximam navium stulioncui, JJuxium vel scaluriginminpiagnofu- " vio de Canada sese exoneranlem." The Highlands are here made no part of the boundary, but the line, as an imaginary line, was to be drown towards the north or northerly to the source or spring of a river which emptied its waters into the River Canada. The last men- tioned river ihenis described us the boundary on the north-east of the Pate>il. The line of the Treaty is a line due north, in its course, and in its extent, reaching from the Rource of the St. Croix to the highlands; the line in Sir William Alexander'* patent is an indefinite uncertain line, which is to leave, not the source, but the most western spring of the St. Croi.x, and wander to the unexplored .spring or source of a river, which empties its waters into the St. Lawrence, and of the existence of which source or xprlnj there was no evidence or knowledge, but what was conjectured from the existence of rivers, the mouths of which only liad been seen. From the year 1621 there was no ort of Government, no exercise of jurisdiction, or claim of property, from whicli this line could receive a station, but all was abandoned and lost in Treaties, cessions, conquests, rccon- quests, by and from the French Crown, from Oliver Cromwell and from the Kings of F'Hgland. n IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 1.1 u l&i 122 £? tiS, 12.0 HI' ik r-2^ 1 '-i y^ ■^ - -\ ', ^ 6" ► ^ ^ w HiotDgraphic Sciences Corporation -5^^ 23 WIST MAIN STMIT WIBSTER.N.Y. MSM (716) •72-4503 ^ :^; iW ^ Out Ab sa- lt so jprf* ltd if VM ileVr » KM r»M*A turn Bif* i W ■>!■»?« irtr* ^\Mh IMCRWM • •I i:l IHvM |ilifrw» !£««••' I* ■i I: i.. 3 I .1 '<( I The country of Canada was conquered in rtSO; on the ?th October, 1763, the AvtutU: King of England issued His Royal Proclamation for improving and regulating the »'ai«'*][J7^3iwir! and country whicl» had been ceded by the late Treaty of Peace. In this Proclamation we JJ*w«Vi*jrt1 find this provision; first, "The Government of Quebec bounded on the Labrador coast by " the River St. John, and thence by a line drawn from the head of that river throiij!;h the " Lake St. John to the south end of the Lake Nepissim, from whence the said line crossing •' the River St. Lawrence, and the Lake Chatnplain in forty-five degrees of north latitude, " passes along U»e highlands, which divide the rivere that empty tliemselves into the River ■ " St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the sea." Theie is no such angle described in the Proclamation or in the Act of Parliament as . is mentioned in the Treaty of 1783. The line by the Proclamation is to cross the St. .Lawrence on the 45th degree of north latitude, which is on a degree nearly equal with the mouth of the Scoudic and Magaguadavic Rivers, and very far soutli of the angle now sought for, and far below every part of the highlands referred to. No course or courses are given to the line which is drawn on the highlands, but all is left to imagination. This line could have no influence on the minds of the Commissioners in 1783. In the Treaty of that date it is provided, that the line between the two nations shall run on the highlands to the north-westernmost head of Connecticut River, and then down the middle of that river to the 45th degree of north latitude ; whereas the line of the Pro- clamation was in the 45th degree at the St. Lawrence, and so to run on the highlands to Lake Champlain, without saying at what point it should cross the Connecticut. Thus we find no place for thit angle prior to t!u Trenly of 1 783, and are now left to form it bij raming the lines in that Treaty agreed upon. That in order to determine that place as nearly as could be done, it was agreed that a certain river, which had theretofore been known and called by the name of the River St. Crotx, and which had been deemed and received as the eastern boundary of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, should be taken as a part of the boundary, and that to fix a line from the source of that river to the highlands, both as a line for the Government of Massa- chusetts and Nova Scotia, it should run due north, and that thelimUation of that line shoidd be in what should uUimalely be found, when the country should be explored, to be the highlands. This is not a singular instance in that Treaty of leaving that as uncertain which tnight afterwards be ascertainfd : the important boundary of the north-westernmost head of Connecticut river is unknown and unexplored. There are several other instances very similar to this which appear on reading the second article of the Treaty of P^ace. We hare come then clearly to this point, that the northwest angle of Nova Scotia is to be found by running a line due north from the source of the Sr Croix river to the high- lands to a point or a place, where that line shall intersect a line ulong the highlands, which divide the rivers as before-mentioned, and run to the north-westermnosi head of Connecticut river. » »## , # ## » * * * * *« « «i * • » # ♦ » * * «»«» * * * * The Highlands had, in the year 1763, been made the boundary of Quebec, or the Lower Canada boundary, but where the boundaries or highland$ are, is yet resting on the wing of imagination, * • * • • • * »- ♦ » •♦ * *»« We are as entire strangers to the Highlands, and the sources of the Rivers on either side of them, ns we are to the sources of the Nile. T/i«re can be no doubt that the north' wat angle qf J^ova Scotia is yet to be formed, and that thit is to be done by forming the north' east angle of thn Slate of Massachusetts. To do this it has become necessary to find thn ^ :§ f: !i f' 4 Appendix, rivcv wlilch was truly meant and intended by the Coinmiasioners who described the bounds, ""to find the source of that river, and to draw a line due north from thence. ti» N. vvTloXta But even this cannot decide where the north- weit angle is, because thij Board has no of Nova Sc*liA« . , authority to fix the line, which is to be intersected in order to form the angle, or flie pomt of iiicliualion of the two. The question resulting from the Treaty in regard to the line upon tlie Highlands is reserved to a future period. This Board has no concern in it as to its principles or consequences, and the point oflocalily of the wn-th-west angle is to be the imesUgalion of the next century. No. 3. Remarks of the Jigent of The United Stales under the Fourth Article of the Treaty of Ghent upon Sir fVilliam JlUxander's Charter. — [Extracted from th., British Agent's " Reply," laid before the Commbsion under the 6th Article of the Treaty of Ghent] True it is that King James the Ist did issue certain letters patent, in i:^ J by which he described a certain extent of tenitory, and called the same Nova Scotia, but these letters patent were void in their creation, and have been abandoned, treated as obsolete, and wholly without effect, by general consent, and especially by their Britannic Majesties from the time they were issued to the present day, and are therefore not descriptive of the country called ^ova Scolia in the Treaty of 1783. The Grant to Sir William Alexander was void ab initio, a-.id cannot now be adduced as evidence of the limits of a country, to which it never gave a character, and which by the terms of the grant never vested in the grantee, more especially as the Charter has never been introduced into similar discussions, but to be treated with derision and contempt. It was made at a time when an adverse posses- sion was held by the subjects of France under grant from that Crown of the country it described. * * * If before the granting of these Letters Patent the English were not in such possession as to authorise the grant, either by the law of nations or the prac* tice of the times ; if according to the tenor of the grant it be doubtful if it ever took effect ; if, after it was made, it seems to have been abandoned, virtually rescinded and lost, it is now preposterous to pretend that it rose again from the dead to settle the boun- daries of the American Republic. * * It is certain that Alexander's whole interest and the title to the whole country became vested in La Tour. The quit claim, from Alexander to De La Tour, whether in terns or not coiDpiising the whole country describ- ed in his Patent from King James, has always been considered as equivalent to his own title. Again, these remarks shew that long before the Treaty of 1783, this ancient con- veyance to Sir William Alexander, if it ever had any operative character, was void, derelict, abandoned and lost ; and the province of Nova Scotia, of which His Britan- nic Majesty was then in possession, and which was recognised by the negotiators, wat not the particular spot of territory marked out by this obsolete Charter. A present attempt to revive this charter thus etfectually rendered void is, indeed, to call spirits from the vasty deep. To settle the boundaries of a new empire by squaring its borders and trimming its skirts, to match the proportions of this decayed and mould- ering relic, is to tie the hale and living subject to a lifeless inanimate corse. » * • Lest some operative force might be given to the inurned relics of Sir William Alexander** deed, the Company of New France granted by deed to La Tour, a portion of the Mud Country, which before had been included in the deed to him from Sir William Alexander. I — Km :ri' ,- iBfilMk* |«fwr«h| I* ' '' '1 i itr w«^ k'**» ~1 l|Wrwt • * * It cannot fail to strike the .Commissioners with surprise, tl»:a as the boundaries con- ^f'*"''" taincd in this graitt were so little attended to nearly two hundred years ago, it should nov/ v. a. Aiom. " ' ' 4ih Art 1 ruAtf Start Up With a pretended vigour, which is competent to limit the extent of the American ^^5nr* nr «h» uebec, then lo Peuobscot, ontl at length to St. Croix, as marked on Mitchell's map. Ona Tw^JSlrMw. "' ** Aiiiericun Minlstera at first proposed the Uit'cr St. John's, a* marked on Mitcbell'* map, but his Colleagues observing, that, as St. Croix was the Uivcr mentioned in the. charter of Mnssachusetts Bay, they could not justify insisting on St. Jolm's as an ultimatum—' he agreed with them to adhere lo the chnrler of Ma-ssachusettb liny. 4//i. — Whether a copy of the patent to Sir William AlexaiiJer, or any Act of Par- liament of Great Britain were before the suid Commissioners at (hnt time, or spokeu of, or relied upon, by the Commissioners on the part of His Britannic! Majesty 1 JSnsioer. — It was veiy probable that the patent of King James to Sir William Alrx' ander, and that an act or acts of Parliament might be producrd and argued on, but I do not recollect, at this time, any particular use that was made of tliem. Nothing wa« ultimately. relied on, which interfered with the Charter of Massachusetts Kay. * 5(A.— Generally what plans, documents, and papers were before the said Conim'is* sionera when the said Article of the same Treaty was formed 1 ■"' Jlntver. — No other plan than Mitchell's map, that I recollect. Documents from the public oflices in England were brought over and laid before us ; in answer to which we pro- duced the memorials of Governor Shirley and Mr. , and the counter memorials of the French Commis" at Paris, in a printed quarto volume, a report of Mr. Huchinsoii to the General Court printed in a Journal of the House of Representatives, not many years from 1760, though I cannot now recollect the precise year, and certain proceedings t>f Go- vernors Pownall and Bernard, recorded also in the Journals of the House of Representa- tives, and the charter of Massachusetts Bay. 6(^. — What were the lines claimed on each side and how was the matter ultimately settled 1 Jlnsver. — Answered m part under the 3rd question. The ultimate agreement was to adhere to the Charter of Massachusetts Bay and St Croix River mentioned in it, which was supposed to be delineated on Mitchell's map. 7(/i. — Whether it was agreed to let the matter of boundary between the State of Massachusetts and the Province of Nova Scotia remain as the same had been conceived tobe? Jlnsvser. — Answered under the 3rd and 6tli questions. , Inlnrogatory by the Conmiaiioncrt. In explanation of your answer to the third Interrogator i:>'oposed by the Agent on '' the part of The United States ;— do you know whether it vms understood, intended or ' agreed, between the British and American Commissioner.-), that tue River St. Croix, as marked on Mitchell's Map, should so be the boundary as (o preclude all inquiry respecting any error or mistake in the said Map in designating the River St. Croix 1 Or was there any, if so, what understanding, intent, or agreement, between the Commissioners relative to the case of error or mistake in the said Map ) '' Answer. — ^The case of such supposed error or mistake was not suggested/ conse- quently there was no understanduig, intent, or agreement expres.sed respecting it Mr. J«|>i d»y»- •Itlon. The answer Of John Jay, who was one of the American Commissioners, by wlion the Treaty of Peace between Great Britahi and The United States was negotiated, to the interrogatories put to him, at the uistance of the Agent on the ])art of The United States, by the Board of Commissioners for ascertaining the River St. Croix, intended in and by the said Treaty. The said John Jay, having been duly sworn, answers and says, — that, in course of the said negotiations, difficulties arose respecting the eastern extent of The United States ; I 4» i. §3 ^f-H ukiti«C«r but lib* Mi May j«Mn if lli wi t i l ] d«A<*M«i ■ r;»,.'jNli>. A|iP*(hlll. ifiwO* ml If »v«* to d* s tbat Mitchell'!) Mnp was bftfbr'* them, and w.ti rrtr|(ien(1y consulted for geographical in* foriimtion; thiit in settling Ihe eaUern boundary lino (dcscribtd in the Treaty),nn.l of-7; •— which the River St. Croix forms a part, it became a question which of the rivers Ara»'«n Vf in those parts wns che true River St. Croi.x, it being Haul that several of them bad thnt ''°"^'/ "' i'"'^- name; that they did fmallj agree, that the Hivrr St. Croix, laid down ia Mitchell's Map, was the Iliver St. Croix which ought to form a part of the said boundary liim. Hut whether that River was then so decidedly and permanently ndopted and agreed upon by thu partitas ns concluHively to bind the two nations to that limit, cvi'u in casr. it Hhould ut- terwardi appear that Mitchell had been mistaken, and that the true River St. Croix was a different one from that which is drlineated by that name on Iuh Mn[), was a question or case which he does not recollect nor believe waii then put or talked of. Hy whom in pa^-ticular that Map was then produced, nnd what otiier Maps, Charts and Documents of State were then before the Commis-sioners at Paris, and whether the British Commissioners then produced or mentioned an Act of Parliament respecting the Boundaries of Massachusetts, are circumstances which his recollection does uot enable him to ascertain. It seems to him that certain lines were marked on the copy of Mitch- ell's Map, which was before them at Paris, but whether the Map mentioned in the Inter- rogatory as now produced, is that copy, or whether the lines said to appear in it are the •ame lines, he cannot without inspecting and examining it, undertake to judge. To the last interrogatory he answers, that for bis own part he wasi of opinion, tbat the easterly boundaries of the United Btates ought, on principles of right and justice to be the same with the easterly boundaries of the late Colony or Province of Massachu- setU. Mhovgh mtic/i tea* taid and remoned on the subject, yr.t he does not at this distance of time remen\ber any particular and explicit dfclaratiom of the Parties to each other which vould authorise him to saif that the part of the said line (described in the TVeaty) vhtch ii formed 6y lAe Jtiver St. Croix, was mulually and clearly conceived and admitted to be also apart qf the eaitem boundary line of Matsachueetls, He doubts there having then been very clear conrtpfions relitlive to thejtat andprecisr. easterly extent of JMaseachusetts ; for he has reason to believe, that respectable opinions in ^tnerica at that time considered Ihe River St. John as the proper eastern limit of The United, States. JOHN JAY. Sworn this 21st of May 1798 before me, Eobert Benson. SIR, Philadelphia, JlprH bth, 1790. Dr.Finkimv I received your letter of the Slst past, relating to the encroachments made on the eastern limits of The United States by Settlers under the British Government, pre- tending, that it is the western, and not the eastern River of the Bay of Passamaquoddy, . which was designated by the name of St. Croix in the Treaty of Peace with that Nation ; and requesting of me to communicate any facts, which my memory or papers may enable me to recollect, and which may indicate a true river the Commissioners on both ■ sides had in their view to estoblish as the boundary between the two Nations. Your letter found me under a severe fit of my malady, which prevented my answering it sooner, or attending indeed to any kind of business. I now can assure you, that I am perfectly clear in the remembrance, that the Map we used in tracing the boundary was bi-ought to , the Treaty by the Commissioners from England, and that it waa the same that was pub. . lished by Mitchell about twenty years before. Having a copy of that Map by me in loose sheets, I send you that sheet which contains the Bay of Paasamaquoddy, where yoii will see that part of the boundary traced. ^ r! Api»i.jii. I remember too, thiit in that part of the boundary tve relied much on the opinion (.„,,„ ^ of Mr. Adaini, who had been concerned in tome fuiiner diaputct coocemiog tho!ii> iuu..rfiii. lerritoiien. tn»tt/»rion, Etq. • B. FRANKLIN. Secretary of Slatt. t No. 3. Eilraetfrom " Stcrtt /ounutli" vhose own geographer, in a n)ap describing and distinguishing the British, Spani»h, aad f i \ \^ ■ ■ ' ' \ • 1 ■ >, \ )• ! :• \ ■■' V I ■■■.-■.^.":' ) i ■ • , ••",." ■ ^ ■! - : • ■ I'''"*'.' f 1--.! r A ■' : !'" " ^;- < vrr:] „ •■ I * ■. -- ■ > 'f NT l '. ;' ^:r J •' '-\ ko -. iij^^f. Xi:-> . U :■ ■ J , -■ •■"'•. i i , ' 1 * ' 1 r'~ JJ', ;:?:"• .- h -J v»f i-'^t--' .. •<■. 1 ■' • J -ffl ■ ibi ^•1 ;../:.;■-,-■- ■ w M J • 0*f ','.' ,.. -.--.t-: ;. r ' . . ^ ■^ ,i . ■.-,- , .'.i * 5 ■ rt» ■H ;A. »». »■ Wrm Ml. yi '■ 9 I'VencJi Dominions in America, according to the aforesaid Treaty of Paris, carries the ^>**''*' States of Ueoma, Noith Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, as far as tlie Mississippi. Kiii»eir.»i« ■ In a word, tliis j)ai-t of ihe Proclamation seems to have heen intended merely to shut •' °'* coniiM.. up the laud otlices, not to cintail limits ; to keep the Indlams in peace, not to relinquish the pghls accruing under the Chaiteiu, and particularly that of pre-emption. 3. The Treaty of Ftii-t Stanwix is susceptible of a similar answer, by viewing it as on instrument of pea*;*;, not the conveyance of a title. For there is reason to believe| that tho British King has never ratified it; and yet it is notorious, that bis Governors have granted lands within the cession tlicn made. If it be said tiiat tiie authority to grant those lands was derived from the Treaty of Lancaster, in 1744, here then is a forcible illustration of our doctrine. For on what priu- cipie, but on account of peace, could the British King have attempted to procure a new cession of the same Country? On the other hand, if the authority to gra?it those lands was not derived from the Treaty of Lancaster, it can rest on no other foundation than that of his Charters. 3. The Quebec Act is one of tlie multiplied causes of our opposition, and finally, of the Revolution. JW stress, Ihtrcfore, ought to be laid on it, even if in its opemlioin it abridged the boundary of the Stales. But the provision, that nothing therein contained relative to the boundary of the Province of Quebec, should in any wise affect the boundaries of any other Colony, excludes such an operation, and confirms chartered rights. ■M ibi ^} ■;.*■ \ \»^ '.' No. 6. Extract from the liritish Jl /rent's "Reply* before the Commissioners, under the Fifth ^r licit of the Treaty of Ghent, relating to the old survey of the parallel of 45° north latitude. The learned Dr. Samuel Williams, whose name stands so justly and so eminently high in the annals of American literature, in his natural and civil History of Vermont informs us that the State of Vermont was admitted into the Federal Union on the 18th February, 1791, and he describes the boundaries of the State as follows, viz. : " The eastern boundary of Vermont is formed by the west bank of Coimecticut " River. This line following the course of the River, is about 200 miles ; and is derived " from the decree of George the Third. On the 20th of July, 1764, His Majesty ordered " and declared the western bank of the River Connecticut, from where it enters the Pro- " vince of Massachusetts Bay, as far north as the forty-fifth degree of northern latitude, to '• be the boundary line between the two Provinces of New Hampsliirc and New York." '* The north line of the State begins at the latitude of 45 degrees north, and nms " upon that parallel from Lake Champlain to Connecticut River. This line is ninety mile<; " and one quarter of a mile long, and divides this part of The United States from the Pro- " vince of Canada. Much pains was taken by the Provinces of New York and Canada, to " ascertain the latitude of 45" by astronomical observations. This was done by Commis- " sioners from both Provinces in the month of September, 1767. At the place where the " line crosses Lake Champlain, they erected a monument of stone, which is yet standing. " The line was afterwards run in the year 1772, by J. Garden ami ,). Collins, of Quebec, " but with great error. By order of Governor Tichenor, in 1806, i examined the situation " of this line in the eastern part of the State. By astronomical observations, I found thv- D nr. Williaim'p hiitory nt V»r- niont, V«1, i. p. S3. S5 i; 1^! n 10 ,-ii^ i* (fWi Apptnilii. OMIinsoridi- ttnl* 4$''. . IliiJ. Vol. u. Ibid.; m • *■ luonuuiciit they had creeled on the eastern bank of Lake Mempliremagog wad in ibc lat^ . " itiide of 44 degrees, 63 minutes, 46 seconiU, and at Connecticut River, their monument " wcs in the latitude of 44 degrees, 47 minutes, 59 seconds ; admitting their line to have " been run in straight course, this would imply an error of 8 degrees, 52 minutes, 19 "second!}, '■ ie direction, and occasions the loss to Vermont of 40 1,973 J acres of *• land, e(|iii''i ■> 17 yVf townships. The direction of Connecticut River is from the north- " east, and on that account, if tiic divisional line was continued on the parallel of 45 de- " grcci<, till it intersected the river, one or two more townships of land would accrue to ** Vermont. T liis line ariseth from the Proclamation of George the Third, of October 7th, " 1763, determining the southern boundary of the Province of Quebec, and from the Treaty " of Peace between Britain and the States of America in 1783." Dr. Williams, in a subsequent part of his history, proceeds as follows : " The Annual Session of the Legislature, in October, 1804, was at llutland. " Among the subjects proposed by the Governor, for the eon.sideration of the Assembly, one " related to the situation of the northern line of the Stale. It was not known by whom " this line was run, at what time, or with what accuracy, but it was universally believed " that it was run in a direction deviating from the parallel of latitude, and much to the " injury of Vermont. The inhabitants near the reputed northern lioundar)-, were pRnniical line could have " beet! attended with any such risk, or have produced any such disfMrbance. In th« Laws of the State of Vermont, published by order of tli*; Legislature, and printed at Uaudoiph, 1S08, vol. ii. p. 74, title, "Boundaries of th« Slate," we find at large the Law rcfcned to by Dr. Williams, in one of tiie above extracts, which Law is as follows, viz. : "An Act inipowering the Governor of this Stale (Vermont) to ascertain the noTth- "ern boundary of this State, passed 8th November, 1S05. Section I. — " It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ver- " mont, that the Governor of this state for the time being be, and he is hereby authorized "and empowered to employ some person of competent knowledge, together with such " Assistants as he may deem necessary, to ascertain, by celestial observnlions, where the " 'ioth degree of north lalttude crosses Lake Meraphreinagog, and where the same intersects " Connecticut River, and how far a parallel of latitude extended east ami west from said " points, will deviate from the present boundary line. Section 2. — " That for the purposes aforesaid, there be, and there is hereby apprcl- " priated a sum not exceeding three hundred dollars, and the Treasurer is hereby directed " to pay the same." From the "New York Commercial Advertiser" of fhc 30th October, 1806, is taken the following extract from Governor Tichenor's speech delivered before the Legisia* ture of Vermont on the lllh of that month, referred to by Dr. Williams : " I have the satisfaction to announce, that the measures taken by the Legislature at " their last Session, to ascertain the northern boundary of this State, promise a very valua« " hie acquisition. Conformably with the power vested in me by the Act for that purpose, " I appointed Dr. Williams to ascertain the true divisional line between this State and thr " Province of Lower Canada, which by a course of astronomical obsen'ations made " near the ancient mommcnl of Comuclicrtl River, he found to be nearly 14 miles south of " the latitude of 45 degrees. " At the Lake Memiihrcmagog the present division line was fourul to be more than " seven miles south of what it ought to be. " From these observations the rcsidt is, that this State has been out of possession (owing to the error in establishing the divisional line) of a tract of land equal to thirteen townships. " The acknowledged experience and profound science of the person employed for " that purpose, warrant the belief that his obsci-vations are without mnfeiial error. The " report which has been made to me on this subject, together with the map that accompa* " iiicd it, shall be laid before you. So large a tract of land which on the settlement of the " line, would probably fall within the jurisdiction of this state, appears to be an object worthy " of your attention. The object can only be effected by an application to the executive' of " our National Government." Thus much for the satisfaction with this old line on the part of the State of Vermont, that had acquired a great proportion of the interest of the Stale of Now York in this question. . ,/ Let us now turn our attention to Canada— On the 22d Januarj*, 1807, the following leport was made by the Surveyor-General of the Province of Lower Canada, to the then Administrator of thn Government of that Province, viz. " In obedience to your Honor's orders by Mr. Secretary Byland's letter of the 1st 6idiini>»r uti- tuJa ii'. §2 {1\>,- ■.?i> :">■' ■•fl*Vi' l*'l- ». ■ r;.i ,«, H ■!'•.■.•, ■),- ■(i.l u,.i,.r-1? ■r.i.l- MS f .; .: (_. :.■;.( iV'l -»'i \ .1 < ■ ii: li-^,' :\'^' '.'»,' ■. .»► Mm m^ \- il ■, i AppMilix. OMUMoTbti- 12 " December last, onlering a co]>y of the Plan of the division line lieretotbre establisheU be* " twecn the then Provinces of Quebec and New York, together with any other documenti *' relative thereto that are of record in this office ; " I have the honor to report that this line was established by actual measurement in " thu field, and its position ascertained by astronomical observations in the y^ars 1771, •• 1772, 1773, and 1774, by order of the Governments of (h« then Provinces of Quebec and " New York, as will more fully appear by the Plan and Division Line accompanying this " Ueitort, taken from the original record in this oifice, togetlier with a copy of lyiuutcnftnt- , " Governor Cramahe's instructions lo John Collins, £s(]., the then Deputy Survuyor-Oeir " cral, relative thereto. " Humbly conceiving it my duty to state every particidar thit may tend to throw " light on this subject, and in order to be more explanatory, I have accompanied this Re- " port, with a plan of part of the Province on a reduced scale, on which is delineated the " boundary line between this Province and the States of New York and Vermont, agrcrable " to the actual surreys of the several townships set off on that line, by which its due course " and position is accurately ascertained. • , . ' " This line is evidently crooked in the field, and inclines in some placea south, and " others north ; but after having carefully calculated its exact distance from this city, (the *' latitude and longitude of whicli has been pcrfe«!tly w«'ll established from repeated astro- " nomical obsen'ations) and considering it as a fixed point of departure, it would appear " that this boimdary line encroaches on this Province, above three geographical miles ot the «' Connecticut, and about one mile on the meridian of Montreal, which nearly agrees with " the actual surveys that have been made between the River St. Lawrence and the Province " Lino ; this also corresponds with a Letter written to me in August, 1805, by Mr. Jesse *' Pcnoycr, Deputy Provincial Sun'cyor, a copy of which I beg leave to subjoin to this Re- " port, conceiving the information therein contained of importance to Government, particu- •• larly after the steps which have been taken by the Government of Vermont State to prove " and ascertain the exact position of the Province Line, and also in consequence of the " encroachments be mentions, have, or are likely to take place by the Government of New " Hampshire and Province of Maine, in granting of lands which they mistakenly conceive .** to be within their limits, which are within the frontiers of this province, which clrcuro- " stance arises from the height of laud, (which is the boundary) not being as yet ascertained *< and fixed by both Governments, agreeable to the definition of Treaty between Great " Britain and The United States of America." •' Mr. Penoyer must have been well infomu-d, if I mny judge from part of the Go- " vpruor of Vermont's speech announcing the considerable error, which Dr. Williams found " in the position of the province line. " That gentleman was employed by that state to take astronomical obserralions on " the line, and found it to be on the Connecticut River nearly 14 miles south of the latitude " 45°; and at Lake Memphrcmagog Ibund the said line to be more than seven miles south " of what it ought to be, and therefore considered it as a very great encroachment om " that state ; which I conceive to be highly impiobable, but without calling in question (hat " Gentleman's scientific abilities, I can only attribute his error, (so I must call it) from lh« " want of correct and suitable instruments, which i was informed was the case. " But admitting, for a moment, that the line was fourteen miles'too far south at Utt " Connecticut, and seven miles at Lake Memphrcmagog, in that case, by a line running in " the direction of those two fixed points, establishing the parallel 45°, till intersected by the *' River Bt. Lawrence, would cut ofl' a much greater portion of the State of New York, thaa <* of thb province, and comprehend within our limits several townships on tho Muth ud« oT ■i'r **. ■•.:t iiib«- luicuU tetit in »I77I. , eeanJ 1«»W« Irtitnt- *^ir • iibftr* &IU- w4ii* |«r«^'« . leoune" iik»»J «J. (tti' IUir». Iipprmr I ttflwith 1 lonpcc Ir. JrM« • iImB«. , ..'■■' •. .' ■'■ '5 pirtini- IA|ifm« ofNew loncm* . '*■-- tire«w»- trUin«4 ' k Qsx*t : '^Of MioMwi '■■ uioMOa . ''\ ;. "-^ ■ ■ tUtituik bMNMk A,!f otaloa (ma the •t Uw naiatcw idbjiha (fk,Ukui Ulbc- LuiCuU Ineiit in 1 ami lun«nt. Rc- ike r«V»« ieoune I iktthr • with lr.i''M« eofiHe ]ofK«w Itonccrrc I OB U'tQICM ' . iHk«r «* said River St. Lawrence, now williia the Slate of New York, wliich I am infornietl are iu " part setllKil. ' . Apiwiiilii wonis ; OM lira o( l(li- Tlic letter from ftlr. Penoyer, nlludcQ to In the forcgoiiii; report, U in the following «•'• **'• «' finebec, 0th Jluguft, 180a. " Joseph Bouchette, Estj. Surveyor Central, I'ic. iic. "SIR, "On u tour which I lately made throu^^h a part of Vermont and New Hampshire,.! . *" was iufijrmed by the Surveyor-General of Vermont that the Lnjislalnre of that Si:il« liad " requested that Congiess should take measures to have tl.e line, betxveen Vermont aild this " province traced and examined, conceiving that it was ciooked, and not on the ground or " place where it oug'it to be ; that in fact it was too far south. Mr. AVhitiaw (the Gentle- " man above alluded to) asked my opinion on the subject, which I freely gave hiin as " follows : •' That some time about ten years ago, I had occasion to niake some observations " on the line near Luke Chaniplain, and from the best observatioiB I could make, I judged " the line, at that place was too far to the northwaitl about one and a half gOQgrn|e Legislature of " that State, and saw a number of gentlemen who were making application for the Lands " which they conceived to be in the frontiers of that State, but by a Plan which they then •' shewed me the most of the land they were apjilying for is evidently within our province. ■ " I was also then informed, that the same gentlemen had, or were about to make " application for a quantity of Land in wiiat they mistakenly took to be the Frontiers " of the Province of Maine." Now it cannot be doubted that this ituilual dissotisfaclion with re- gard to the line of 45 degree^ north latitude, as formcily run, both on the part o^'Vi-rmmit and of Canada, was well known to the two National Governments at the time of the Treaty of Ghent, and consequently to tlie negotiators of that Treaty, and was one of the causes that led to the framing of the Fifth Article of that Treaty, under which the present com- mission was instituted. ... ■ ■';"; - No. 7. ■. " . __; :'^ :■ Extract from the Jlmerican AgenCs " Claim and Opening Arirument" laid htfo.'.'; the Cmn- viissioners under the 5th Article of the Treaty of Ghent, relating to the old Survey of the parallel of 45° Xorth. * * * * * ♦' »,# * *.» # «p w « ^ ^ " At a Council held at Fort George, in the City of New York, on Wednesday, the let day of December, 1773. '■ "Present, " His Excellency WILLIAM TRYON, Esq. Captain-General, &e. Mr. Watts, Mr. White, Mr. Delancey, Mr. Cruger. Mr. Smith, " His Excellency laid before the Board a journal of the proceeding.? of John Col- " lins, Esq. Surveyor on the part of the Province of Qnebec, nnil Claude .J j^eph Sauthier, " Esq. Surveyor appointed on the part of this Province for running the line between the E ?3 "Nr S5 =^= VI AffttuU*. 14 " Government of New York and Quebec, westward from Lake Champlain in tlio latituilo 01.1 iirii or mu< " of 'i^^ n(M ill to the River St. Lawrence with a chart or map of tho said liuu a> far ai the . " lame is run. As also a letter from Mr. Coilint, dated ut Montreal, tho 22d Octubvr " last, aci|iiainting his Excellency that the wet season, which continued many days, pre- *' vented their completing the survey ; that they had advanced fiAy miles west of Luko " Champlain, when they found thennulves in want of provi.ortion remain' ing mswvtyed in the vicinity of fit. Regii. No. 8. Extract from an act of Assembly of the Province of J^eio York, passed \st of^ipril, 177.5. — [From n document communicated by the Government of The United States to the British Minister at Washington, on the 30th December, 1828.] , An Act for the payment of the Salaries of the Several Officers of thia Colony, and other purposes therein mentioned. Be it enacted by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of the Council and the Gen- eral Assembly, and it is hereby Enacted by the authority of the same, that the Treasurer of this Colony shall, and hereby is directed and required to pay •♦♦*•♦•••••• Unto John Collins for completing the extension of the linwiitanj Line betueen thii Colony and the Province of Quebec, to Lake Saint Framjois, agreeable to a resolution of tliis House, the 10th of March last, the sum of eighty-five Poimds. No. 9. Remarks upon Captain Partridge's Barometrical Observations. As it is possible that The United States may, in their Second Statement, refer to the barometrical observations carried on by Captain Partridge, it is deemed advisable on the part of Great Britain to annex to her Second Statement the following extract Irom the " Reply" of the British Agent laid before the Commission under the 5th Article of the Treaty of Ghent. >' ; »v.,^i f' - --l-^f-,. ... , Vj, .•.*.fc:V I /A i'iiu>!e 11 lilt ;wb«r litcJ in iiioa of rra ^« i/WfTii. tttotbe my, »i»4 • • • • (MM l&i* mUUm* f?r tt) the V on th« from the le of tbe i;tu>!e tjilit prr* IN kit miVi itioa o' rtt4kr to the joy, »a4 ihen«rn. • • • • Utbi* kf r to the on the I from the lie of the >i 13 III th- yi-iir I.SI!>, tl jprooeeJingii of the Suneyorson thu part of Tl>c Uia(o«] Statci ^..^.j... OMiumcd aiiotht-r u^iifcf, the princifial feature ol iheiii being acouis.; of Iiaioiii«trical opera- ■; — ~ ' "~* tiuniby Captuiii I'artiulifu. With rc|{aiil to llie»f barometrical u/iciaiiun* of Coptaiii Par* k*>M««iii .1 «i> triiljf*', it may, without any pretensions to mure than a v«ry superficial atquaintkiicf with (hiJ brant'li of pneiimatici, ha ob^t vkJ, that the reikuilf of o|N)riitioni of this nuture will b« more or leH4 iicuurate rinnonlini; to th'* mtiuro uf thu oljocli tci which tht;y arc applied; t!iuy may be re.^orteil to with r^i-niiiilcrublc ..i riimcj Cor lieturinJiiiii^ allitiidfi, when a iiuiii^ ber of obierviitioiw arc made at the »n finie al :iK ^f;»lioiw, \vli(W(! (iiir.ircnco of allitiidu is to be iLsceitained, with liaroniKters vuiy ucrui vtely coiutructud ; and hIso, in pluccH wKero ail acc'ira'e journal '\- re.dily percciv>:d. The change of the hei^'ht of the baromctir, or of tht, length of tho L' nil jf mercury, will determine the dilferencc of level between Iwf unions ; but the latter ■'« more than l(),5U0 times as much us the former, that is to suy, il rin.'rc aliould be an error of one-*^ighth of an inch in the height of the barometer, it would produce a correspond- ing error of I09 feet in the diflercnce of the height uf the two placei>, and so in proiiortiun fur any error of greater magnitude in the height of the barometer. There ^nat not only bu a careful obscrviir, but it is requisite, also, that the instruments should be \ ''vy accurate ; and, although the mountain barometers devised by Sir II. Engleficid are undoubtedly v«ry useful, on account of the facility of their transportation, yet it must be rcmai d, that they are found to be by no means very accurate, even when made by the best artist , but when mntlc by ine.xperienccd artists, and furnished with {>cales imperfectly divided, as w is the case with those which were, upon the present occasion, used by Captain Partridge, it .:> obnous that they are in a proportionable degree the less to be depended upon. Some of the results of his observations, on the present occasion, it was evident, from * the very face of them, to those who had any knowledge of the Country, were so erroneous, that it has led to these inquiries; by which it was fuilher ascertained, that the .nethod pur> , sued by Captain Partridge in making his barometrical observations could, by no inicans, be depended upon for correct results. Instead of making observations at both slauons at the same time,* he makes them in succession, removing his barometer from one pla e to ano- ther, and remaining at each place so long only, as, in hi$ opinion, would enable lilrh to dc- tei mine the law of the atmospherical change of the barometer. Now, it must be seen, by any attention to the subject, that where such small quantities are concerned this determina- tion must be exceedingly difliciilt even if the changes of the atinospiiere were wi-oight by the same causes, in tlie same manner, for a considerable space of time. It is trur that in such cases howrver uncertain and complicated the law which the pressure of the atmos- phere follows might be, the changes for a short space of time might be considered as uni- form. But it is well known that the changes of the pressure of the atmosphere are sudden variable, and soinetinies very considerable, ond seldom uniform for any length of time; and the deterniiutitlon of the ditreicnce of level between two places, situated at a distance from each other, -.vhere an allowance is made for a change of the atmosphere upon a suppoaltion ♦ For the inolo in practice of ascertiinin^ heights by tho barometer, vije : a Paper Nd. XLIII, CDtilleJ, •' Ei-timati- of th» height of llie White Ililli io New Hampshire, by Halh^nirl llowhlrh," r'iWi«h<'a in Ihf m«- Djoirj of tae Amer ii'..->n Acsilpin/nf .\rtt and Scipoccj nt Oo'toi. — ^ ■.*.iff A« to . mil, i„ 1. ' ""Parali.,!, «i|| „.„„ j^, ',7' ,«" " "«% lo«p feci .„J f^^ i.^ feet abov,, the surface of ^ St I " " "' '^' ""'"''' "^ '^e R^ve nl' r. ' " quarter. "'^ St. Lawrence at Quebec, or the Ir. r . ^''"'" ** The Des Chutes Fs 100 •, , ''«' o^^he sea Ja that 'he River SI. Laurence „o!V "" '" "" "V "f P-ndy VhZ'"^*" "^"Xiom '- Quebec J, ,„ e„™ :"„ at'':' f "" "="" in fe Ri cS T ' ""' "' «™""W ."■em. L,, i, be „p, J, .h"' , ' *' '■"'« "" "•« '"« «» .he I 0,™, L ''"■* «. i« only cuall, |,i.i ....^ ™ ™' *» ^e"'" Stream, »,her. ihe ,1„ ! " "P'^ta - ,— -~ _ ^ __^^^ St. John ,vouId stand thus : I aup ;„)e,l i|o,.._, •_ I *♦■• • •^^ Jl'- ■'"'•n be!ow tho tJes Chufc". J foot 2 feet of Fund;-. ^ 190 feet 285 . . 380 . , Comparative de.r,„t ;„ PO'«l Hirer Meti,. "^ I » • • I Prom this tt Is ei„,r .},,. ., . ■ ■ — — — I t'lfi fle.'^cent of tho S* r , ^ '''"' supposition that mn "^ ^ ''^%/.^.^..MW:;i;;:''" ^^'-'' ^^« ^« Chutes" ^Ve^nir""''' ^-d.i.ted. of p "^"^^Chutes.witluhatofCoii. ?:3 11 1: I; ■■3 I! '; t ',, ; i I' ^mo ii''- ncclicut Ilivor, lb- the last 150 miles, iiamt-ly, a descent of^ tijet in a milu, a biippositton by Co|.i. I'.iifiiij.. no moans imuiohable, and most likely rather below than alwjve what is actually the fact, se.vmion*. even allowing for the flowing of the tide in the St, John some distance from \ts mouth, gives 9j feet descent of the River iVIetis in a mile. Now tliat the lliver Metis has great falls in it, or is viiiy rapid in its course, is not at all known to be the case ; the Surveyors, as far as they have seen wliat they supposed to be this Uiver, describe it as a smooth stream, with Beaver meadows, and having no where a strong current; and if this be the true River Metis, it probably continues of the same description all the way to the St. Lawrence. That even the smallest descent in the ahove table, namely, a descent of 4J feet in u nilN-, is far greater than the fact, must appear clear to any one at all ncrjuuinteil with the current^ of rivers, and especially when we attend to the current of Onion Uiver, in which, ra;iid und . *' filled with cataracts as it is, Mr. Winthrop finds the descent for the last 43 miles to be oidy 4 feet in a mile. Thus it seems reduced to an absunlity to suppose that th'? vlev-iiifin of Beaver Stream where the north line intersects it is greater or as great as that of the K'lver St. John at the mouth of the Des Chutes. The above observations are made not from any dissnti-ifaction with thf i^rneral re- sult of Captain Partridge's barometrical surveys, whicli i'* favoiriMn f() Hin M;.jcsly's claim,* but to chew how little dependence can be placed upon snrveys conducted nn>'<^r pnch clr- ciunstatices, especially where the gradual rise or descent of so extensive a tract of country is the object of inquiry. No. 9. [10.] ' ..i Remarks ttpon the ♦' Appendix to the First ^imerican Slnimiejit," containing *' Observations on, and objections to, the Topogrnphicul Evidtnce." Maps, &c. tiled with the Commissioners under the Fifth Article of the Treaty of Ghent. 1 .— (JV*o. 7 in Mas D.—Jlppendix to First xQmencan Statement, page 42.) Mr. Odell's Survey of the Reslook, with a Sketch nfihf Country as vieioed Jrom JMars Ilill, and the vicinity o/Houllon Plantation. The sketch of the country extending westwardly from Mars Hill delineated on Mr. Odell's map of the Restook is objected to by The United States; the whole sketch is called a fanciful representation, and the Highlands represented on it are declared to be fictitious. In answer to these very strong expressions it is to be observed that Mr. Odell when 'he correctness of his delineations was first called in question by the Agent of The United States, in obedience to a direction from the British Commissioner, proceeded to the place where the Board of Commissioners was then in sessioTi, that he might be examined on oath respecting the accuracy of the various reports and plans presented by him to that Board. The satisfaction of thus attesting by a solemn oath the correctness of his reports and plans * By Captaia Paitridgfe's resulti, the north peak of Man Hill a mailc to be 1378 fert, and the south pttk to be 1&I9 ffct above tide water ia the St. Lawrence, and both to be conaideratily higher than the high»)t land «■ the grand portage, tiy the same results it appear!, that tlie jrownd gradually risp> from the River St. Jolin lo tb* top of Man HUl, ni tUftt whue tlie exjploripg lint tUikea tbii Ilill, tlio l.-iuU ii 53& feet above tid« waUr in lb* St- Lawreage. V J ■3i ■w •■■; i4i 19 iMr. Inlifd fUre loatb Urd. |pl%Ai lotto :i ■3 ■■e. ■P WM deniefl him solely on account of the unwillingness rS the American Commissioner to Appcmiit. accede to the piayer in that reirard made by the Briiiih Agent. The imiticular sketch ■^ ' " ^ ' Ruplf to Arii.'l- now objected to by The United States was a considenl'le leiisrth of time on tlu; files of the '■"• ■ i""*"'""* IJoiiid of ConHnissioneis without any remarks hiiviiii; hn>:\\ made ajjainst it, whWn the llrit-*xp^i"j!;, r..,i. ish Agent had, a year liel'oic Mr. Odell's map of the Ilestook was admitted on the Ciki of the "" '' Board, strongly protested against a map of Mr. Johnson, immediately after It was presented *,J^; ''J Jl'"' to the Board. It is therefore not easily understouil with what rijiht The United .States can ohject to his evidence except it could be proved that the observations upon which Ills sketch V'lis founded were physically impossible. The followinj remarks will, liowever, it is hoped, sulliclently show, that (he proof of this latter fact, though attempted by The United States, is not borne out by the circumstances of the case. Mr. Odell had seen the very prominent points, the gmU landmarks, which are numerous in that country (all contained in the list of U3 terrestrial objects observed from Mars Hill by Mr. Johnson), not oidy at I'arks's place si!!?; J-'V'!'" and at the station on the Restook, one of these places being south, the other northwest of ' ' "^ JMiirs Hill, but he had likewise seen those objects t^vo successive yeats from Mars Hill, v/hich was visible both at I'arks's and at the station on the Restook. It will be seen by Mr. Juhnson's list that some of these heights arc of such an elevation, that thtiy must have been easily identified at those stations. The relative situations of two of these stations to each other, i. e. Parks's Place and Mars Hill, was very accurately known, and that of the third, on the Restook, to these two very nearly so, and, considering their distance, it is clear, that a good common compass, with which Mr. Odell was always jjrovided, was quite suffi- '^ cient to ascertain, 'vith a tolerable degree of accniacy, the position of various conspicuous licis^hts, by which the minor elevations visible to the eye could be afterwards laid down. At. Mars Hili Mr. OdcII had besides two dillerent stations on two jwaks whose distance served ' a? a base Hue, and the use of a Theodolite. How convenient tliese stations were, in the opinion of Mr. Johnson the Surveyor of The United States, for ascertaining the heights and distances of various peaks, may be judged from his having ascertained, by these two stations only, the elevatiim and distance of no less than 112 such objects, some of which were be- tween fifty and sixty miles distant from them. Several of these objects thus observed at Mars Hill had been beli)re observed by him at Parks's Place, and he expressly remarks, that the observations made there confirmed those subsetiuently made at Mars Hill. Manv^pp. iit Hrii. ^ But. p. »a. of the high objects were again seen by him, even from Green River Mountain, which is much lurther distant than the station on the Restook, and perfectly identified. It is, there- fore, quite clear that Mr. Odell had ample means, both by his stations and the particular"''''' ""'"^ nature of the ground, to ascertain the position of a sufrlcient number of distinct points, by which he could be guided in the delineation of the smaller objects lying in various relative positions to some of those more prominent land-marks. It must, however, cause some surprise, that the k ma-ks in the American statement, after the flat denial, that the high- lands delineated by Mr. Odell could not have been seen for want of proper surveys, should 'mention the " upper branches of the Restook, and the various tributary streams of the Pc- " ni il'sen), by which the country is intersected iu every direction," as these could have been far I'.'is the objects of distant observations of the surveyors. 2. — (JVo. in Atlas D. Appendix to First American Statement, ]>. 4.';.) JMr. CampbeWs Sketch of the Iliight of Larui The British Agent made for Mr. Campbell the same applicatioti to the Roai-d of Commisiioiieis, which ho made on behalf of Mr. Odell, viz. : that he might be examined on . t I t S3 s i , :10 App'n.tif. - Ro;iI/ to Ariiwrl" II>iJ.p.T3,M. oath icH|)t!ctiii'j; t'le accuracy of his delineations ; this a|i|)lication wnj), In like manner, re. 'i''ii"ii!«r«'iiiiI.Vi«t:tfil hy thu American Comtnisaiorii.T. Mr. Cainjihi;!! was on Ciilhadin mountain in th« tifid*uM.- A month of October 1S19, during a cl«ar day, and in Maich *8J0, he explored ajjain the vicinity. Caihadiii affords, on account of its great height, a most ext«!nsive prospect, and A,,.. lit uiii. from Ihe top of it, Mars Hill is ecisily recognized. No time of th». r is more r.ivorable ■"' ''■ ■ for exploriu)? ;i wnoily country than the season chosfii hy .Mr. Campbell for his e^ploi-d- tions, the month of March, the ulmosphcre being thtii <^vA\>:-u\\y clear, and Ihe trrcn .vlthont leaves ; Mr. Caniphell had li.'tewis.j repeatedly been at M.irs ilitl in uompuny v/iih the other Surveyors, He, therefoie, had more and hclter opportunities of observing the nature of the country than any other Sinveyor, and he has evinced his readiness to give th'j sanc- tion of an oath to the results of his did'erent explorations. The.se results arc, b>rsldei, in a remarkable degree, confirmed by the testimony of Tlie t'nited States' Surveyor, Mr. Lo- ring, who subsequently ascended Cathadin mnnmtain, although under circuinstanceH, !)y bis own confession, little favourable. xMr. Loring e.xpressly mentions the several mnunlaitu and clumps of monntaina between Cathadin and Mars Ilill, and says, that this mountainous . character belongs to the whole country seen from Cathadin in the direction from 15^ K. to S. E. Under such circumstances, it is evident that nothing could have induced The United .States to object to the evidence of Mr. Campbell except the inconvenience of adroittiog what was so strongly in support of the British Claim. IMd. p. M7. 3._-(Nos. 13, J4. 15i 23, 21, 25, 26, m Mas D. •American Statement, p. 44.) Jlppendix to Fir$t Messrs. Uurnham's Tiarks* and CarliU's Surveys of cerlahi portages btlxeten the respective Soitrces of some of the tributary streams of the Rher St. John and the River St. Laurence. In the remarks of The United States on these surveys it is asserted, that the valleys, in which the heads of the rivers running in opposite directions approximate most to each other, are mere gaps and notches in the continuous chain of highlands, which, according to these lemarks, actually do divide all along their course the waters so situated. Great Brit- ain altogether denies this ; The United States have not adduced any evidence from the Surveys in support of this quite gratuitous assertion, nor can a tittld of such evidence be found in any one of the Surveys except perhaps in that part of Mr, Johnson's report, where be pretends to describe the appearance of these dividing Highlands at the distance of an 100 miles from him. The correctness of this description is not less conclusively disproved by the physical impossibility of the observation than hy the subsequent explorations on the ground. Great Britain contends that no chain of continuous highlands dividing waters has been observed on the American line for the whole distance from the sources of the River Metis to the spot where the waters of the St. John, Chanrliere and Penobscot head toge- ther, and that when a chain of any extent has been observed, it has invariably been found to run at right angles to the general direction of the line connecting the points of division qC those waters. ^ 4, — (No. 31 in Atlas D. Appendix to First American Statement, p. 44.) Greenleafs Map of McUne. It is a most singular circumstance, that The Unitetl States, after having given in evi- dence fifiy-sevca Maps, mostly of an old date, aud almost all cooatructed by European^ ia I 53 le. lit* ihc • ^ 1 hj ■' iiU • '■ itu* -■ to J ted H 5 'i g «. » -1 r .'i u IriU llbA jbe If re llOO (ihe hai liter :iic ihc nJ ble r*- ,ut ill? irc ic- lA hr '\ni to in; jicb \\n Int. I be liuo jibe |bu iref Jto |(n- I I; I I 21 proof of th« position of " fhe Highlands, on which they found lht;ir rlnim. -• iiMohjfCtto \f„»t,t. liie Inti'Ht anil best partloular Map of the now Htnte of Maine, onstrn'tnl cilir.en ot —• • — — ' Tli« United Stutt-s, n native and inhabitant of tliat part of thi; country (M.11111!) 01. occoutii -«i ^- •» '•-* of the absence on it of tliose ridges and mountains, tind that they hhoiilil found their «il>jec- ••i'»««««- tinnon the declavution, that in 1815, the date uf its firsL puhlicntion, that part of the conn, try ill which they are preti;nded to exist, had been but partially cxpluied. The fact, liow- CV(;r, is, that Un'ut Itiitain, not wishing; to rest her claim on th*; vnf,'ue opinions of n)ap* inxkttrs, graphicaI maps ; by which delineation it is not intended to attach the " character of mountains properly so called to such dividing ridges." If it is meant by this observation to have it implied that it is the common usage of compilers of maps, by such a delineation of Highlands, not to intend " mountains properly 60 called," or lands distinguished by absolute elevation, but only lands dividing waters flow- ing in opposite directions, whatever may be their positive height, Great Britain altogether denies the correctness of the observation, and in support of this denial appeals to the mass of maps given in evidence on this occasion by The United States, especially those of Ame- rican compilation. It is evident throughout all these maps that the intention of such marks is to designate hills and njountains, //j^/i Lhh rfs properly so called, which in very many instances are made to cross rivers and streams far below their sources Firf cf MatlavMska. — Jlppendix to First ^Qmetican SlaltmenI, p. 43. , Tho United Slates object that this fief covers in the Bntish transcript at least three times as nuich territory as is contained in the grant. The first ground of this objection is, that the grant does not contain any land on the banks of the Temistpiata Lake. The fol- lowing are the words of the grant : — " Une ilendue de trois lieucs de terre le. long de chacun " des deux b'>tif.i de la Ilivivre nommtie Madoneaka proche la R'lvi^e St. Jean arec h lac ap. eiiR. p'.'iva'' " pelli CccemUcountu el rfeiix /ients de profnndeur dans Its terres." It is evident that the two G . /- • - I ^ i ., V It ■ •' ■ ' ''■ > ■■-■■■ I ! ■^^ r a:4 • ♦* ' • • • , • '^'^"" '' l('if?ue» Inland in depth nppK m >veU to Ow whol-i Lnk** (.Vcemiv-oiiAta, uh to Iho extent of tt.vixi» A.i-.i •'>''•'•• l<:;\si'i''' '" I'MiHth aloiij^ tiuli liniiW of lii.; Iilv»!i- M uhnviiskiv, which am I'oth iin;iitiori- m i.!,«.jnphio.i ri\ I], (i 'P thO'lepth of tho urnut idlaiiil i;* siHTifi'-rl. Tiii* \i the only ro(uliiir;tii)ti t\w yi.im "f"i^T'"'''' *^'" "'"' "'■ **' **'•'■*' '"*« would *)e the grnnt oftnt* wnler oontaiue" in ih>; l«k« wiHiout (I Miij^lfi inch fif thti land on ita (lordcrH? Th*? AintriiMn tinnsiii()t ii to 'hia fief (ill around the lake, tiie H.HnB in (le|Uli im dii thf Www M.ul'» vn.Ua, ulllion(;h th'! (Ii| ih belii^ only two m\\v>*, U nito^ythiT ini;i»rn;(t. Mr. Utnntj'n ile|)>">ilii)n* (»mvcj Ih.tt Colonel Fraser, the present owner, ii by virtue of thin fief in poH^ention of Icrritoiy un til" (irr\nd Portnge on the Luke Tcmisciinita, nnd claims nndiT it ** six mi!.-,* all nronnd ihts lake," The United States next object that tht; lonjjuns uve ortivcnly-live to the dt ;e terms of " the grant. That Dansville, a French officer, whether the original grantee, or not, he " could not say, but the owner of it at the time of the conquest, sold this, with all his " Seigniories in Canada, to Governor Murray, the first English Governor of Quebec. Go« " vernor Murray sold them to Caldwell, and Caldwell bai-gained them to his father, and " he, the present occupant, finally became the purchaser of this, ond some Seigniorins on " the River Du Loup." Now, this description of the Fief on the American transcript, and the facts ascertained by Mr. Deanc, necessarily imply that this Fief continues, since the conquest, to be held of Canada in the same manner as The United States are compelled expressly to admit it was before that period. Thin description, and these facts, tally with the documentary evidence adduced by Great Britain, and annexed to her first statement ; and as The United States lay a stress on this point. Great Britain will, in this place, give na abstract of the whole of that evidence. It consists of I .'i documents— \. The original concession dated 25th November, 1683, of the Ficfof Madawaska, lirom the Government of Canada to the Children of the Sienr Charles Aubert de la Cheriaye, subject to the Foi et hommage, which the Grantee.?, their heirs and assigns shall be holden to render at the Castle of St. Louis of Quebec of which they are to hold, and subject to the customary rights and dues in conformity with the Contitme de Paris. 2. An adjudication of the Prevotal Court of Quebec, dated 20th October, 170!>, by which it appears that the Seigniories of Riviere du Loup (situated on the south banlc of the River St. Lawrence) and Madawaska were .seized by virtue of a sentence of the said Pre- votal Court as a part of the real property {Liens ini»ieiib{es) belonging to the succession of the said Sieur de ia Chenaye, and were sold to Joseph Blondeau dit la Franchise as the App. 1(1 Rtit. tittt. p, m. Ibid. p. 174. ^ No. 57 in lilt of American written evidence communicated on tlie 30tl) Dec. liiH, t Ibid. «J. ■ k of liiunl Ihout lerri- dusU IrrtVi'j r *"* ti 'he If llioof If of lleace ;of onoC rh« Irtnch that Ye, in of W |vere kCo- 31. of ])l, he lillhif Go. arid les on ,aud !the [with sifnt ; an Inltli'a Ito •.h« i'/the iPre- tm of iihe 23 [lit of Ition- Ihout lerrl- bvfj ly on k '.he If Ititish iiioof imye, lolili'D [to Um 9. by I'/ the IPrc- ton of ii the ^*s iiighest biildnr at n public judicial sale for the sum of 1300 livres, and were accortliiigly ad- '''"'""'"'• judged to the saiu<-Jo.s«(ih Blondeau. >'>■»<; <• Amni- 3. Act of Foi el Iwmmage, I3th "cbruary 1723, rendered by the said Joseph Blor.- »njj'j>>'«i«i'bic»> tleau dit la Franchise for the said Fiefs of Riviere du Loup and Madawaska, wherein hw ^ff- |_",»j;'- rjnuiin.eats of title to both these Fiefs are set forth at large, those for the Fief of Madawasku beiiig the aforesaid oiiijinal concession of 2oth JNovember 1683. — and the aforesaid adjudi-? cation of the 20tb October, 1709, ' 4. Act of itvtu et denombrtment of the said Fiefs of Riviere du Loup and Mada- •'■'i'' p- '" waska by the said Joseph Blondeau dit la Franchise, dated 15th February 1723, whereby it appears that on the Fief of Madawaska there was a domain, on wliich the buildinj^s had . > br-en burnt down by tlie Indians, that there were about six " arpens" of land cleared, but at » > -"^ that time no settled inhabitant. 5. An adjudication by the Prevotal Court of Quebec, dated 29tli July 1755, founded "''^ v- '«'• on what is called in the next succeeding^ document, a voluntary judicial sale (decrel volonlaire) of the said tiefs of lliviere du Loup and Madawaska to Pierre Claverie. .l '■' 6. Act of Fni ct hmimage, 19th March, 1756, rendered by the said Picire Claverie JbWi p- >w for the said fiefs of Riviere du Loup and Madawaska, wherein iiis muniments of title to both fiefs are also set forth at large, those for the Fief of Madawaska bein^^ as follows:— The ■ - original concession of the 25lh November 1G83, to the children of the Sieur de la Chenaye ; the adjudication of the 29th October 1709, to .Joseph Blondeau dit la Franchise ; the act of fealty and homage of the 13th February 1723, and the act of aveu et denombrement of the 15fh February ir23, by the said Joseph Blondeau; an act of cession, dated 28th April, 1754, by the widow of the said Joseph Blondeau to her children by liim ; an act of sale, dated 21st October, 1754, by the said children and heirs of Joseph Blondeau to the said Pierre Claverie ; and the voluntary judicial sale to thesaid Pierre Claverie of the 29th July, 1755. This act of Foi el homtnage also states that the sale of the two fiefs had been made jyj „ j87, in one lot and for one price, and in order to ascertain the droit du quint, payable to the King's domain, according to the coutume de Paris, for thefief of Madatvnska, the particular price of that fief is by an amicable valuation estimated at 2316 livres 13 sola and 4 deniei-s, being one-fourth part of the whole price of the two, upon which particular price only the ' dn.it du tjuint was to be payable, the domanial dues upon the fief of Riviere du Loup being of a different character, namely, a fine on every mutation of three golden ecus at the rate of six livres each. * 7. Receipt for the domanial dues on the said Fiefs of Riviere du Loup, and Mada- "■''*> p- "*• waska, dated 8th May, 1756. The dues on the Fief of Riviere du Loup, being as above inuutioned, three golden ecus; a. ,d the droit r/u ^uint on the sum of 23161. 13s. 4(i. the ■ particular price agreed upon for the Fief of .Madawaska being 463/. Gs. 6fJ. 8. Deed of Sale, dated the 28th July, 1763, from J, A. N. Dandanne Dansevllle n-w. p 'm and Marie Anne Duperc his wife, she being the late widow and commune en biens of the said Pierre Claverie, and also guardian of Marie Julie Claverie, with the consent of Marie Anne Monny, grand-niother and co-guardian of the said Julie Claverie, and of Jaqucs Perault, deputy guardian {SubrogC Tuteur) of the said minor, to His Excellency James Murray, Governor of Quebec, of the said Fiefs of Riviere du Loup and Madawaska, such as the whole belonged to the said Pierre Claverie, by the Deed of Sale of the 2lst October, 1754, and the adjudication of the 29th July, 1755, which deed of sale and adjudication with the ancient title deeds were handed over to the purchaser, the price being 40,000 livres lournois. 9. A deed of assignment, by Richard Murray, to Malcolm Fi-aser, dated 2d Au- ny, p, m gust, 1763, of an indenture of lease made by the above-mentioned General James Murray, to the said Richard Murray and Malcolm Fraser. This assignment recites the above-men- tioned indenture of lease as bearing date on the lOth May 1766, and as comprising the seigniory of the River du Loup, situated on the south side of the Kiver St. Lawreuce, iti € § So s 5i> HPf r?;;4; JS% * ( , 1 wi, pp. m. 2d Api!«ndii. tj„, I'roviiicc of Quobe , anil also *• all that Fief of Mailawaska on Madawaska Uiver, in K.pi,i.. AtMri. "the isnid /Vm;in/;e." 'I'hb deed of assignment is duly registered in the registry ray, authorizing his trustees and executors to sell his estates in Canada for the benefit of his son, and a power of attorney from the trustees and executors to the person who executes the deed on their behalf, to appear before any notary or notaries in the Pronince of Lower Canada, and to execute any conveyance that may lie necessary according to the laus, sta- ttttes, nsafres, and customs qf the said Province of Lower Canada. It then conveys the seig- niory of Riviere du Loup, and Fief of Madawaska, together with the other particular parcels of property vvhich arc mentioned in the above lease of the 7th April, 1774, (No. 1 1, ante), and all " other thi estates and possessions late of him the said James Murray, deceased, inllifi '* Proviiwe of Quebec {ww Prmnces of Upper and Lower Canada,) inJforth America." r, m 7th ,.,'.)- th« •aid !ii,t n iiicd and from need iitte yose ilb« !»J4- )Xht Ukt nb«r, riled rhich rdia MM iftHe bilrn iimt, lUhe jMww lofllH hnvW 25 1 7th [the kiiifd I mid Ifrom liced itbt; |»h- Uh€ lUkt rthe rolm liUhe iThk Itflib IhUU 'I'liig (leefl is according to the form,i of Canaillaii Law, duly piu^seil liefoic a notary /\m»i<>- at Quebec. — — , , R'lplv tA Amcii- 14. An .'iRieenieiit between Henry CMfiwell, nnJ Alexander j'rasrr, difod Sth Oc-"» ''"-•""•i""; tober, 1801.- This ugreemeul »tates tliat Mr. Caldwell had made »» agreement with the ^^,5''™J', „,,,, tiustees and executors of General Murray, for the [lurchase of all Iiis property in Canada, ''"'■''■''"*■ and contains a covenant on his part, in considiiration of the sum of I7'J6/., sterliiijj money of Great Bntaiii, received by him from Alexander Frnsev by t'.e hands of M;dcolm Fraser, (as soon as his pvnclia.-;!! from the trustees and executors of General Murray is completed) t» convey among otiier things " t/»e Seigniory of P,ieii)re dn Loup, ami Fief of J\fnditi(iuska, " together with the hakn Temisqtialn, atvl the lands adjoining thtrelo, .... as particu- " larly described in the original title deeds of the said Sei^'niory of the said lliviere du Loup, " Fief of Madawaska and Lake Tcmisrjuata .... as the same was purchased by the said " General James Murray of Mr. Dansville, which naid lands and fkiiiniovies arc situated in " the said Province oj Loiter Canada, .... subject to certain intlentures of lease made " by and between the said Henry Calflwell, and the said Malcolm Fraser, hearing date the " 24th day of September, 1782." This deed is also passed according to the ibrms of Cana- dian law before a notary at Quebec. 1.5. Deed of sale from Henry Caldwell to Alexander Fraser, dated 2nd of August ™''' «■• ""■ 1802, of the Seigniory of lliviere du Loup, and Fief of Madawaska, in pursuance of tlie agreement last above cited (No. 14). If this be not a regular and complete deduction of title to the Fief of Madawaska under the original concession in 1C83, and a continued and uninterrupted holding under the province of Canada both before and since the conquest cjuitc down to the present day, when the last purchaser, Alexander Fraser, is proved, even by American testimony, to be in the actual possession and enjoyment of the property under this claim of title, and subject to the conditions of the original grant. Great Britain is at a loss to conceive what evidence can be required for that purpose. But, say The United Stat3s, no acts of fealty and homage have been done since the conquest. These feudal services, it is true, may, since the conquest by Great Britain, liavc been suffered to fall into disuse with respect to all the lands in Canada held en fief ; but the objection would equally apply to the Seigniory of the lliviere duLoup, or any other Canadian Seigniory on the banks of the St. Lawrence, as to the Fief of Mada- waska. River St. John, — Jlppendix to First American Statement, p. 4C. The United States contend that tlie boundary along the Kiver St. John, from its source to its mouth, first proposed by the old Congress as the most favourable line which they could obtain, was not intended to follow that river from its mouth to the spot now ac- knowledged as its source, but was to run along the river now and always known by the name of Madawaska River, and to its source beyond Temisquata Lake. This asi^ertion is not supported by any j)roof, niul a reference to any map of any authority at that time will shew, that the extent of the River St. John westward, and the comparative smallness of its northern branches, was so well known that the expression, " from its source to its mouth," without any further description, could mean nothing but the whole extent of the Ril^er St. John, nearly as at present known. Whether 'he source was actually ai the spot now con- sidered as such, or at the head of the western branch, is of such trilling moment in the pre- sent argument, that it would be quite useless to discuss this particular point. The only qncstion of importance is, whether the uld Congress, in speaking of the River St. John from its Bource to its mouth considered that source to be on one of the western or one of the northern branches, and all the maps will shew that the words " source of the St. John" must refer to one of the western sources of the Trunk, or mam River, coatradistin^-uished H S5 :v(^v! ^^ 1 M! ;•'■'. ■:'! f V 2U ^'''""" "'- iVom any of lis lateral branches, rspeciaily such a branch a» the Madawaska River, which, iirpi, to Ainiri it is ill cviilciice, 1ms been kiiuwn, at kait since the year lGb.5, the ilate of the original coii- llj". j^^^i'»«"'i''>i««i cession of tli« fief of Madawaska, by this distinct name, 'riiiu iiiterprutution is likeu-ijc the one adopted by the American Comiiiissioners, who concluded the Treaty of 1783. Ac- '. cording to Mr. Adams's testimony, they understood, wlien udinncin,!^ this claim jnoposed by Congress, by the words whicii they used, the whole 'if the Hiver St. John, a.* laid down on Mitchell's map, and that map cniitains the name " River Rt. John," laid down near the western sources. When the words made use of are so clear in indicating the whule of f/i*! yik«»- St. John from its mouth 10 its .source as the boundary, the shigle clicumstiiiwe that this river was only described as forming the eastern boundary, while it actually likewise forms a part of the northern boundary, can evidently not have the ellect which The United States would seem to attribute to it. And it is to be further remarked that, although in the original instruction of the Congress the St. John is described as the eastern boundary, yet in the Report of the IGth August 17S-2, when the same instruction is under consideration, the wish is stated that the norlh-easlem boundary of Massachu^ietts may be left to future dis- cussion, and this north-eastern boundary can be no other than the River St. John, which is thus recognized as a northern as well as eastern boiuidary arising from its bend to the westward. Madawaska Settlement. — Jlppendix to First Jlmerican Statement, p. 46. The United States appear to throw out a doubt, whether it has bean proved that the Madawaska Settlement has been subject to the jinisdiction of Great Britain, from its estab- lishment in 1783 to the present day. Now, wherever the right to the Territory and Sove- reignty of this tract of country may dwell, it Ls indisputable, and all evidence adduced on either side on the present occasion concui'S to establish, that the actual possession of it, and the exercise cf jurisdiction over it, commencing before the Treaty of 1783, has continued in Great Britain quite down to tlie present day. The inhabitants, almost without exception natural born British subjects, were, for the firet time, included in the census of The United States in the year 1830, and then amounted to upwards of 1 100 souls.* It cannot be de- nied that this must be considered as an assertion of right on the part of The United Statesf to this 'ract of coimtry, whatever exceptions may lie to such a mode of asserting a right to an actual British Settlement. But the actual British jurisdiction, first Canadian, then conflicting between Canada and New Brunswick, and, since 1792, uninterruptedly New Bmnswick, but, nevertheless, all the while the jurisdiction of the King of Great jtritain, in whosej name it is uniformly exercised, has never been changed. The United States, undr-r the provi- sions of the present Convention of Reference, applied to Great Britain§ for authentic copies '*' See extract from census for The Uoitrd States fortlie year 1R20. App. to Ist British Statement, p. 287. In tlie colur- } of the census in vliich the Matawoska Settlement is include J, tliere are but two settlements of equal amount. t It appears also, Uiat in 1825, the land a°;cut3 of the Statej of Maine and Massachusetts undertook to prr deedj of land to two American citizens in this Settlement, one of whom was on the point of being naturalised a* n British subject, and had actually receired a bounty from the Province of New Brunswick for grain raised on Ih* land which he occupied, and of which these agents gave a deed ; at this very time also, as well as before and since, the British laws, both in civil and criminal matters, being in force among the few American settler*, a* wrll as the natural born British subjects. Seo tho history of this transaction in Mr. BarreU'a Report. AppcD( tlie I'roviiico of New HruiiH.vick, aud have obtained llwiii; and Great' ^2 L. II ' " » . itriiain, on her p'li t, hi'.s l)iuu;^ht forward, and laj's bf lore the Arbiter, donuments which dis- canoti.i.i>atinna ' . . on t^'|Hi;'liipliici^ close the wliolf. state ol the facts and the conlhcting Provincial pretension* relating to it. t'M,M». Communkntion bftioten th- Jiritinh Provinets.-—*1ppendix to Jhst .Imeiicun Slalfmn)!, j). 10. The Unit»:d States sujfgest that, when they have i;ot possession of their own territory, (ireat Hritain will nevertheless be enaWed to njaimain the connnunication I)etwecn her I'rovinccs, hy opening a road from the Great Falls of the Uiver St. .lohu towards the St. Lawrence, throiij^h iter acknowledged dominions ; without any allu.siun to a cirennL^tanco vliich appears by evidence they themselves have adiUiced,'* tluit the least didieult comnni- ?iication even between the district of Uaspe, part of the Province of Lower Canada, and Quebec its Capital, is by following up the Ilestigouche near to its somce, then crossing to the St. John, and thence by going by way of Tcmkriuaia i'(«7(«.q« to the St. Lawrence, woidd thus be placed »vlthin the territory of a foreign Power. 'J'he road proposed by The United States to remedy the inconvenicncies tliat would be experienced by Great Britain, from a decision ii\ favour of the American cluiut would And none of (he facilities derived from following the vnllcy.s of rivers, at least until reaching the head waters of the River Metis, (lowing into the St. Lawrence. The road would be upwards of one 'hundred miles in a direct line from the (ireat Fells of the St. John to the St. Lawrence, and it would have to traverse a country densely covered with forests, interspersed with numerous morasses, and totally destitute of any other inhabitants than a few straggling Indian*' ; it must also cross the high bnnks of numerous rivers and deep ravines, ami would necessarily present obstacles to its formation, perfectly insurmountable by the ]>. esnni resources of the British Colonies in that quarter. UL— Hale's ilap of New England. Jippcnd'ix to First jlmerican Slalemenl, p. 4t>. .1- te^'r, M Some of tlic remarks made on the objections of The United States to GrecnleaP.« map apply with equal force to those made against Hale's map of New England. This map strongly confirms the two following po.sitionsi viz. 1st. That no settled opinion resi)cct'.n<' the northern boundary of the present State of Maine has ever cxisfcrl in The United ' States ; and, 2dly, That map makers having all facilities, and apparently honest intentions, ^ are not to be relied on in the delineation of lines of boundary. It was published in tiie l capital of a State greatly interested in this question, in the year 182G, ten years after thn l;:^iscusslons under the Treaty of Ghent had directed the attention of the American public I to the subject of the northern boundary of The United States and the delineation of vari- I ous rivers indisputably shews that the compiler had access to the maps constructed under the authority of the late Commission, and yet the map presents a northern boundary of the State of Maine, neither agreeing with the claim of The United States, nor with that of Great Britain, and, consequently, if not altogether founded in error, expressive of the au- thor's private opinion only. It is worthy of remark, that among the .specific objections adduced against this map no allusion is made to the location there given to the tract granted ■^ Bnuchelt's Topography of CanaiU, p. GB". i So 53 * i \/^:r'-- :i.:^0??^ '*'''""'■*■ in (lit! year 1780 by the Stntf. of New Ilnmpslilip to tic Tiuslcp^of Dartmouth Colli'!;.;, ii.»i»i«A..."ri. wliieli, iu the absuiine of any tu|iovrapliic.tl cvitlfiici! aniriiiK (lie clocumeiits rdaiive to this Ml i»i»|MyLi/iic/i Aava not been cited in the first American Statement. The United States in conformity with the provisions of the Convention of the 20th of Pcptember, 1827, having communicated toOrcal Uritain, and having also been furnislied by rircnt Britain upon their application with CopieH of various Documents intended to bo laid before the Arbiter as fresh Evidence, which have not been cited in the first American Statement, but which may nevertheless be brought forward in the second Statement of (hat Power, Great Britain deems it expedient in this place to take notice of some of these Docu. ments, and to submit the following remarks thereon, iu case they shall be so made use of by The United States. lit Am. 8UI. p. 3D. Extracts Jrom the Argument of His Britannic Majestifs Jtgetd before the Commisulontrs, i/»i. der the fifth Jlrticle of the Treaty of 1794. [No. 42 in List of American Written Evi- dence communicated on the SUth Decemberi 1828. J After the express declaration of The United States In their first Statement, that, " The Acts of the two Powers or of the Local Governments, and the opinions which may " have been expressed by any of their Officers in lelution to the contested Territory, since "the Treaty of 1783, can at best be adduced but by way of illustration: they can throw «'no light on the intentions of the Frainers of the Treaty of 1783; they cannot impair " the lights of either party, that are derived from the c.xptcss and explicit provisions of the " Treaty," it is scarcely to be supposed that any stress will be laid on these Arguments of a British Agent under the Treaty of 1794. These Arguments were directed to shew that tlic source of the llivcr St. Croix mxist be plr-ced at the head of its western branch, in conformity with the description of that River, a3 a Boundary of Nova Scotia, in Sir Williuni Alexander*."* Charter. The decision of the Commissioners, to whom they were addressed, has placed the source of the St. Croix intended in the Treaty of 1783 at the head of its northern Branch ;• and this very circumstance shews that the north-west atigle of Nova Scotia has never, either before or since the Treaty of 1783, been a known and determinate point. Indeed nothing can more strongly evince the uncertainty of these old Pronncial * See American Statement, p. 2, and Written Evidence annexed thereto. No. 2. I I i So i.> tliLi pi fnr 1. (irv%\. xr wit!i of Ckiif S 80 [(>> tliui fcr.ri fur lot (^n> liotindnildi, Ihnn iln; viivioin nnd cnnniclinif viov»s which liavc b« r n nilvauccil In nlatlon to *'" '**•'" (iioin, whtiitevur iliey li:kve Lecn u topic of lUociuiiuit. 4m « |runti*))««l to b« Dor»> ttCB L«w nt, iK»t. IfJ, M^r. taa iWvw Ml i«if*if iumbu of St. Crou Prannrai /> Ihlrnch from lh« I'totocoh and CorreiponJcna of the Ghmt Cominhs'umfri in \dl-\.— |.Ni>. 71 ill l!;it nl Anicricuu WriltCD Evidence, comiiiuuiculutl on iht: .'iOdi Dcci-iiibtr, JHW.J The wliuiu of these documeut^ shew the uuccrtainty of llio qiiriitiou of bouu< tluiy. The Hrilish l'lrni|iotenttaries at Ghent, in their note to the Auipricuti PlenipotentiLf ricd, of S^-ptt.'iii'jiT Jth, 1814, [)rocced m follows : — " The Jlmerkm l'lnvj)oUnliarif$ muit " be aieare th it Ihr buundanj tf the dielritt of JMnine hm ntvtr bteit correctlij nnctrtu'med ; that " the OM asaerlfd nt prfienf bij the JlmerUan Government, by which lh<; direct conmamica* ** tion hetw«*«>t) llnlifiix .-^nd Quebec bccomen 'mt,erm[tlr.i\, ^en» not in conteinplatioii of the *' Uritiih Plenipotenlhiriee uAo concluded the Treaty of 1703, and that the greater part of the " territory in qitteslion in Actually unoccupied. In tht^ Notf! No. C, dated November 10th, 1314, the Aiueiicau rieiiipoteutiaricB ex- presi themselves as follows :— " In rcspnct to the intended review of the other Boundariea ))etween the BritiBh and " American Ti.Tritoriea with the view lu prevent /uture uncertainly nnd dispute, the Under- *' fii{(ned propose the reference o/(/ie whole subject to Coinmissioneni, nnd they present ao« " cordingly five Article.') drawn on the principles formerly adopted by the two Powers for *' settlinj; the ()iie8ti(in respecting the River St. Croix." Then followed the Treaty, referring, according to the proposition of the American Plenipotentiaries, the vihole subject of disputed Boundary to Coininiiisionei-d, including the points of diflerence now in controversy, and substituting for the mode adopted in the ca^e of the St. Croi^, of choosing a third Commissioner by lot, if the original Commissioners should not ag expr^iss declaration, that "neither that point of the Highlands •' lying due north from tlu source of the River St. Croix designated in the former Treaty of " Peace between Ihc I' » Powers as the north-west angle of ^ova Scotia, nor the north-west- *' eriiniost head of (t^nnecucut River, have yet been ascertained." rtl I. iii lui '•! provincial Laws nnil Grants of Land in JVeic Jirunsioick. — [Nos. 18 to 39 in Mr. Barbour's List, Nos. 50 to 51 in List of American Evidence communicated on the 30th December, 1828.] The leiiiai ks before cited from the first American Statement, relating to Acts subse- (pient to the Treaty of 1783, will also aj)ply to these Documents, which arc all of a later date than that instiiiment. The object of producing them, ns evidence on this occasion, would seem to be to shew an actual jurisdiction by the British Province of New Brunswick, as against her sister Province of Canada, on theui)pcr part of the River St. John, and us far north as the River Restigouche.* Whatever might be the elTect of this evidence in a controversy as to limits between the above named British Provinces, which can only be decided by a British Tribu- * A liue aloDj^ the cbaaavl or a River con never be a line eloDg ** Ilighlaxub." • i ' if Mi' rfvi€c 30 ApirMdii. naJ, it csliiWishes, in the present national controversy n,';nin3t The United States a chsx it.ni..ki onR.i-'^'''ti^l' possession and juiisdiction in the places in fjucstioii. When taken iu connexion fiTo'in" h. i7t"" with tliR claim of Canada to jurisdiction and terrltciry iw fur HoWn as the Great Fails of the ""'"hi s 1^'ver St. John, it also clearly proves, in opposition to the American argument in this dis- p- 3i- cussion, the.uucertain and unsettled condition of the provincial limits. la BrlU Sitt. p. SM, I)f.posHhm of certain Inhabitants of CMmlnxoaska, and of John (i. Denne, touching the Boun- dary of Canada. [Nos. 50 and 58 in List of Ameiicau Written Evidenco, communicated on the 30th December, 1823.] Mr. Deane, who describes himself as actinij " under the authority of The United " States," has undertaken to receive, in tiis capacity of Notary Public of the State of Maine, till! depositions of a few Peasant", only one of whom wns able to wrile his name, for the os- tensible purpose of establishing a reputed Provincial Boundary, without any notice of .such transaction being given to any British autboiiiy. Uc also makes his own deposition of what was told to him. Evidence such as this can have no weight. Mr. Deane* has made a furlhftr depo- sition detailing a conversation with Colonel Frasrr, the Seignior of Madawaska, relating to his title to that Fief. Colonel Fraser was the most, if not the only, competent person to give him information as to any reputed Provincial Boundary in that quarter; and yet from Colonel Fraser he seeks no information on this point. The stories of the Madawnska Pens- ants, as detailed by Mr. Deane, are altogether at variance with other evidence in the cause, by which it is distinctly proved that the whole of the road on the Temisquafa portage from the River St. Lawrence to the Lake Temisfjuata was originally laid out, and has been kept in repair and maintained by the Government of Canada alone.f by authority of which Go- vernment also settlers were placed on that road in the year 1814 : and it appears from the census of The United States taken in 1820 that the inhabitants of the Madawaska Pi-ttle- ninnt on the River St. John, more tlian forty miles below the place, where the Tcmisquata road meets the lake, then " sxi^postd they were in Canada." ♦ Sco No, 57, ia list of American Written Eviilence. commiinirnted on the 20th December, IC28. t See Appendix to First British Stntemeat, No. 30, ami Bo«chett«'ii Topography of Cunvla, p. 538, et jsi.