IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 1.1 Ul 12.5 no Ui lU ■it 2.2 L£ 12.0 i M ||l.25 |||.4 |||||L6 ^ 6" ► ^' ^J. y ^ Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14S80 (716) 872-4503 // ^ A ^>' ^ V. CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian da microraproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notot/Notas tack.niques at bibiiographiquas Tha inatituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat original copy availabia 'or filming. Faaturaa of thia copy which may ba bibilographically unlqua, which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha raproduction, or which may significantly changa tha usual mathod of filming, ara chackad balow. Colourad covars/ Couvartura da coulaur r~~| Covers damaged/ D D D D D Couverture endommagda Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6a et/ou peliiculte I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de ouverture manque v71 Coloured maps/ J-^ Cartes gtographiques en couieur Coloured inic (i.e. other than blue or biacic)/ Encra de couieur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou iliustrationa en couieur Bound with other material/ Raii4 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrde peut causer de i'ombre ou da la distortion le long de la marge int6rieure Bianic leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutias lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans la texte, mais, lorsqua cela Atait poasibie. ces pages n'ont pas 6X6 film6es. Additional comments:/ Commentairas suppi6mentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meiileur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6tA possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point 4e vue bibiiographique, qui pauvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithoda normale de filmage sont indiquto ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est fiimi au taux de rMuction indiquA ci-deasous. Pages de couieur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag6es Pages restored and/oi Pages restaur^as et/ou peilicuides Pages discoloured, stained or foxet Pages ddcolordes, tachet^es ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages ditach^es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality inigaia de I'impression Includes supplementary materia Comprend du material suppi^mantaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible r~~| Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ ro Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ rTTI Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I — I Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiaiiement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6x6 fiim^es 6 nouveau de fapon 6 obtenir la meilleure image possible. The CO to the Theinr possib of the fiimint Origin) beginr the laa sion, other 4 first pi sion, a or iilua The lai shall c TINUE which) Maps, diffare entlrel beginr right a raquir< metho 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X • y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X laire details ques du It modifier [iger une e filmage d/ |u6es taire by errata fned to fient une pelure, fapon A 32X Tlie copy filmed liere has been reproduced thanlcs to the generosity of: Nationai Library of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol ▼ (meaning "END"), whichever applies. IVIaps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, lef i to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: 1 2 3 L'exemplaire fiimA f ut reproduit grAce A la gAnArositA de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada Les images suivantes ont 6tA reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetA de l'exemplaire fiimi, et en conformity avec ies conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont ia couverture en papier est imprimte sont fiimte en commen^ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'iliustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmte en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impreosion ou d'iliustration et en teri.unant par la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboies suivants apparaftra sur la derni6re image de cheque microfiche, seion le cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", ie symbols ▼ signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmAs jk des taux de reduction diffArents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clichA, il est filmA d partir de Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent ia mAthode. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mt«tM. 8M.UTW AMI WEBtlER OM ttm fJQRTH.EAStEBN BOUN0AEY, ',, ;^}?fc'v'j wisr WITS A COPT OP "THE JAY MAP." ##; ^: ,>^-^- h J >-,««(!. ;.?-'5^**W, *,'*fiiS "t,4 -« N /, A MEMOIR ON TIIK NORTH-EASTERN BOUNDARY, IN CONNEXION WITH MR. JAY S MAP, BV THK HON. ALBERT GALLATIN, LL. D., PRBSIDBMT OF THE S. Y. HISTORICAL SOCIETY, PORMBRLY ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS UNDER THE TREATY Ot GHENT, MINISTER TO OREAT BRITAIN, &C. ftC. ; TOGETIIER WITH A SPEECH ON THE SAME SUBJECT, BY THE HON. DANIEL WEBSTER, LL. D., SECRETARY OF STATE, &C. &C. ; DELIVERED AT A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE NEW.YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY, April 15th, 1843. DILIttSUa'u'BA'U'SE) SV ^ ©®PY ©P fMa "mV BSOJ^PqW / NEW- YORK: PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY. 1843. a 'I ""' — "' ""1 II'II'JIIH IBXaS- EZEa (Extract from a Map M of the nwtisn 'hrnimn DDmmom it, NOHTH AMKHICA .ln?Mltrlu-ll DRAWN FOR THE NEW YORK HISTORICAL SOtlET" MA' IHi.l T7ii.iJ/i//) ii/ iiiul iil l/ir _Jiftiut\rti>f't/tr/40tr/s thnttnujiorn-r.f tor Triithittii/ /'/ii/t/ii- /ii'iutint/ is ijiii'/1f I iiin/icfffi Ih'iii Urriii/flKt ('lliirl.'iiiii/ .Irliiiil .t'un'trs o/'t/i/i<-n lit /mri.r ,'l' //ij Mii/ij/lt;rf'<rj;,rfH.\ v,..*' [*/,. 'v„, fe^--V- vi?^/> ^ I A T L A NT' ;^ ^uimmi ■ 1. um-Amini.: ^^^^^^^^^^y'.i^ Tmmv.m / V. I ?.^. . j:hs s-» rM V # J. p. WwoMT, Printer, 122 Fulton Street PRELIMINARY NOTICE. I A SPECIAL MEETING of the Ncw-YofrTc Historical Society took place at the Society's Rooms in the University of the City of New- York, on the 15th ultimo, for the purpose of receiving a communication from the Hon. Albert Gallatin, President of the Society, on the subject of the North-Eastern Boundary of the United States, in connexion with a Map found amongst the papers of the late John Jav, one of the American Commissioners for negotiating the treaty with Great Britain in 1783. The meeting was honored by the attendance of the Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, who had been invited to be present on this occasion. In consequence of the unusual interest excited in the community by the agitation of the subject to be brought before the Society, and the ex- alted reputation of the venerable President, arrangements were made for an early adjournment of the meeting to the large Chapel of the Uni- versity, in order to accommodate persons introduced by the mem- bers. At eight o'clock p. m., Mr. Vice-President Lawrence, (formerly Secretary of Legation under Mr. Gallatin, and subsequently Charg6 d' Affaires of the United States to Great Britain,) being in *he chair, the Society adjourned to the Chapel, when the following memoir was read by Mr. Gallatin, assisted by John Jay, Esq., one of the Secretaries. Mr. Gallatin was followed by Mr. Lawrence, in a few remarks, designed to call up Mr. Webster, who responded to the call in a speech that derived the highest interest from the unrivalled ability of the ii speaker, as well as from his elevated position in the Government, and as the negotiator, on the part of the United States, of the recent Treaty of Washington. In the course of his remarks, Mr. Webster was repeatedly interrupted by the applause of the audience ; and after he had concluded, the following Resolution was adopted with acclamation by the Society : -ji^.f ,^ •' Resolved, That the thanks of this Society are presented to the Honorable the President, for the able and important paper that has now been read, in relation to the North-Eastern Boundary question ; and to the Honorable Daniel Webster, for his interesting and eloquent re- marl'TS in connexion therewith ; and that copies of the same be respect- fully requested for publication." th H It re m The following correspondence subsequently passed, after the return of Mr. Webster to the City of Washington ; " New-York, April 17th, 1843. ♦' iSir,— I have the honor of communicating to you the thanks of the New- York Historical Society, for the eloquent and instructive remarks on the subject of the Norlh-Eastem Boundary, which you did the Socie- ty the favor to offer in answer to a call from one of the Vice-Presi- dents, at its meeting on the 15th instant. I have also to request of you the favor of a written report of your re- marks on that occasion, with a view to their publication under the auspices of the Society. I have the honor to be. Sir, With the highest respect, Your most obedient servant, &c. GEORGE FOLSOM, Domestic Corresponding Secretary of the N. Y. Historical Society. The Hon. Daniel Webster, LL. D., Secretary of State, &c. ice, Washington, D. C." ai A isl di ir fo iii and reaty was :er he [ation the now nd to It re- pect- iturn " Washington, April 22d, 1843. ** George Folsom, Esq. Domestic Corresponding Secretary of the New- York Historical Society : • " Sir, — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 17th instant, communicating to me the thanks of the New- York Historical Society for my remarks, delivered in its presence, on the 15th, on the subject of the North-Eastern Boundary, and requesting a report of them for publication under the auspices of the Society. I feel greatly honored by this notice of the Society, and an account of my remarks, corrected from the Newspaper Press, will be forwarded. I have the the honor to be. Sir, Your very obedient servant, DANIEL WEBSTER." 13. fthe larks ocie- resi- r re- the In pursuance of the vote of the Society, Mr. Gallatin's Memoir, and the Speech of Mr. Webster, are published in the following pages. A Note has been also added, in reference to a recent debate in the Brit- ish Parliament on the subject of the Treaty of Washingtoi , in conse- quence of some extraordinary coincidences, chiefly growing out of the discovery of another map in England, corresponding to Mr. Jay's map, mentioned in the speech of Sir Kobert Feel. This Note will bo found immediately succeeding the report of Mr. Webster's speech. New-York, May lOth, 1843. MR. GALLATIN'S MEMOIR ON THE NORTH-EASTERN BOUNDARY. Gentlemen, The final adjustment of the differences, which had so long existed between Great Britain and the United States, respecting our North-Eastern Boundary, as effected by the late Treaty of Washington, has been received with general satisfaction by the American people, and I may be permitted to add, by no one more than by myself For although it had been my duty to defend what we believed to be the legitimate rights of the United States, yet the question had appeared to me to be one of abstract right, which the Gen- eral Government was not authorized voluntarily to yield without the consent of the State of Maine : and I felt per- fectly satisfied whenever that was obtained, inasmuch as the portion of territory relinquished by the treaty was, in my opinion, of no real importance in a national point of view. It is much to be lamented that, after a conciliatory com- promise, convenient and honorable to both countries, and apparently almost universally approved, had been thus hap- pily concluded, an incident of so little real importance as the discovery of a certain Map, on which is traced a line as- cribed to Dr. Franklin, should have served as a pretence for A 6 renewing the discussion on the merits of the case. And it was hardly to be tolerated, that, in some quarters, innuen- does should on that account have been made, tending to affect the sincerity and good faith of our Government. Under those circumstances, a map which had been used by the Hon. John Jay, during the negotiation of 1782, and which I had never seen before, was communicated to me ; and I have obtained the permission of his son, Mr. William Jay, to whom it now belongs, to lay it before this Society. It is proper for me to add, that this map, which, since the death of his father, had always remained in the possession of our late President, Mr. Peter A. Jay, had never till now been seen by the present owner, Mr. William Jay, to whom it descended with his other papers by the will of his father. My object is less to show the bearing which the map has on the points heretofore at issue between the two Govern- ments, than to remove the impressions made by the line of demarcation ascribed to Dr. Franklin. In doing this, I would wish to avoid a renewed discussion on the former points of difference. Yet it is impossible to explain the in- ferences flowing from Mr. Jay's map, without stating what these points were ; and I shall endeavor to enter no far- ther into the discussion than is necessary to make myself intelligible. The boundaries of the United States of America were de- fined by the preliminaries of Peace, concluded the 30th day of November, 1782, and ratified verbatim by the definitive treaty of the 3d September, 1783, between the said States and his Britannic Majesty, in the following words, viz : " Article 2. And that all disputes which might arise in «* future on the subject of the boundaries of the said United ♦' States may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and de- " clared, that the following are and shall be their boundaries, " viz : from the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, viz : that " angle which is formed by a line drawn due north from " the source of the St. Croix River to the Highlands, along " the said Highlands which divide those rivers that empty " themselves into the River St. Lawrence, from those which " fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the northwesternmost head " of Connecticut River ; thence, down along the middle of " that river, to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude ; from " thence, by a line due west on said latitude, until it strikes " the River Iroquois or Cataraquy ; thence, " and thence, down along the middle " of St. Mary's River, to the Atlantic Ocean. East, by a " line to be drawn along the middle of the River St. Croix, " from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy, to its source ; and, " from its source, directly north, to the aforesaid High- " lands which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic " Ocean from those which fall into the River St. Lawrence : " comprehending all islands within twenty leagues of any ** part of the shores of the United States, and lying between " lines to be drawn due east from the points, where the " aforesaid boundaries between Nova Scotia, on the one " part, and East Florida, on the other, shall respectively " touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean." Which was the true northwesternmost head of the River Connecticut, became subsequently a minor subject of differ- ence, which did not affect the great question at issue. But there were not less than three rivers, emptying themselves into the Bay of Passamaquoddy (which is an inlet of the Bay of Fundy), known by distinct Indian names : and which of these was the true River St. Croix had, ever since the year 1764, been a subject of contention between the Governments of Massachusetts and Nova Scotia. This question was not decided by the terms of the treaty : and it ^ 8 was referred by the treaty of 1794 to the final decision of a joint conamission. The Commissioners did, on the 25th Oc- tober, 1798, decide the river called Schoodiac, and the northern branch of it (called Cheputnaticook), to be the true River St. Croix ; and that its source was at the northern- most head spring of the northern branch aforesaid. A mon- ument was erected at that spot under the direction of the Commissioners. However diversified or subdivided may have been the arguments adduced on both sides, there was in reality, after this decision, but one question at issue, viz : Which were the Highlands intended by the treaty ? For since the boundary line was, from the monument, to be run due north to the Highlands, the position of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, and of the boundary which thence extended along the Highlands, depended necessarily and exclusively on the position of those Highlands. iii- You know, that the point claimed by the United States* as being the northwest angle of Nova Scotia prescribed by the treaty, is that where the due north line intersects the highland which divides the source of the River Metis, a tributary stream of the River St. Lawrence, from the source of a branch of the River Ristigouche, which falls into the Gulf of St. Lawrence; and that the boundary claimed by them is along the Highlands which, from that point to the northwesternmost source of the Connecticut, divide rivers emptying themselves into the River St. Lawrence from the various branches of the Rivers Ristigouche, St. John, Pe- nobscot, and Kennebec. On the other hand, it was claimed on the part of Great Britain, that the northwest angle of Nova Scotia was to be found on a point of the due north line, about forty miles north of the monument, at or near Mars Hill, which divides no other rivers but some riv- I ulets which fall into the River St. John. The Highlands contended for by Great Britain extend from that point to- wards the source of the Connecticut River, dividing for three- fifths of that distance the sources of the various branches of the Penobscot from those of the various branches of the River St. John, and for the other two-fifths, the sources of the tributaries of the Kennebec from those of rivers that empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence. For the better understanding of the maps, to which I shall hereafter allude, it is necessary to state, that during the course of this long discussion, it was contended, on the part of the United States, that the negotiators of the treaty of 1782, after much contention about that North-Eastern Boundary, at last did actually adopt, in that quarter, the boundaries which the Government of Great Britain had, by her public acts, subsequent to the conquest of Canada, declared to be the boundaries of Canada and Nova Scotia respectively. In order to enable you to judge of the correctness of that position, I will quote the acts alluded to. His Britannic Majesty, by his proclamation, dated the 7th of October, 1763, established new Governments, and amongst others that of Quebec. The boundaries of that Government were, by the said proclamation, fixed as follows : " Bounded on the Labrador Coast by the River (a) St. " John ; and from thence, by a line drawn from the head of " that river, through the Lake St. John, to the south end of " the Lake Nipissing, from whence the said line, crossing {a) Not the River St. John which falls into the Bay of Fundy, but one of the Bame name, which, from the north, falls into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 10 •* the River St. Lawrence and the Lake Champlain, in forty- " five degrees of north latitude, passes along the Highlands " which divide the rivers that empty themselves into the said " River St. Lawrence from those which fall into the sea, and " also along the north coast of the Bay des Chaleurs and " the coast of the Gulf of St. Lawrenrc, to Cape Rosiers ; " and from thence, crossing the mouth of the River St. Law- " rence, by the west end of the Island of Anticosti, termi- " nates at the aforesaid River St. John." (1 *rhe boundaries of the Province of Quebec were en- larged in another quarter by the act of Parliament of 14th Geo. in. Chap. 83. (1774), commonly called the Quebec Act. But those adjacent to Nova Scotia and Massachusetts, were, by that act, defined in words nearly similar to those used in the proclamation of 1763, viz: *' That all the Territories, Islands, and Countries in North " America, belonging to the Crown of Great Britain, bounded, " on the south, by a line from the Bay of Chaleurs along the " Highlands which divide the rivers that empty themselves " into the River St. Lawrence from those which fall into the '• sea, to a point in forty-five degrees of northern latitude, " on the eastern bank of the River Connecticut, keeping the " same latitude directly west through the Lake Champlain, »* until, in the same latitude, it meets the River St. Lawrence, ** from thence, &c be, and they are hereby, " during His Majesty's pleasure, annexed to and made part *' and parcel of the Province of Quebec, as created and eS"- " tablished by the said Royal Proclamation, of the 7th of <' October, 1763." The only difference between the terms used respectively 1 11 in those acts and in the treaty, which has been alleged as affecting the boundaries intended by those instruments, con- sists in the substitution, in the treaty, of the term Atlantic Ocean, instead of the word Sea used in the Proclamation and in the Quebec Act. Those terms are considered by the United States as being in this case synonymous. It was as- serted on the part of Great Britain, that the term "Atlantic Ocean, in the treaty, excludes the River St. John from the class of rivers that fall into that ocean. 1 With respect to the boundary between the United States and Nova Scotia, the description of it in the treaty is bor- rowed almost verbatim, from that which, for the twenty pre- ceding years, had been assigned by the British Government to Nova Scotia. The limits prescribed for that Province are thus defined in the commission of Montagu Wilmot, dated 21st November, 1763, viz : " Our Province of Nova Scotia, and which we have thought proper to restrain and comprise within the following limits, viz : To the northward our said Province shall be bounded by the southern boundary of our Province of Q,uebec as far as the western extremity of the Bay des Chaleurs, , . . . and to the westward, although our said Pro- vince has anciently extended^ and does of right extend, as far as the River Pentagoet or Penobscot, it shall be bounded by a line drawn from Cape Sable across the entrance of the Bay of Fundy to the mouth of the River St. Croix, by the said River to its source, and by a line drawn due north from thence to the southern boundary of our Colony of duebec." In the commissions of the several Governors who sue* 12 ceeded Mr. Wilmot, viz: William Campbell in 1765, Francis Legge in 1773, and John Parr, whose commission is dated 29th July, 1782, and who was Governor at the time when the preliminary Articles of Peace were signed, the reserva- tions (in italics) are omitted ; and the boundaries are thus ex- pressed, viz : " Our Province of Nova Scotia, bounded on the westward " by a line drawn from Cape Sable across the Bay of Fundy •' to the mouth of the River St. Croix, by the said River to its " source, and by a line drawn due north from thence to the ♦* southern boundary of our Colony of Quebec, to the north- " ward," ^c. It is nevertheless true, that, notwithstanding the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown of 11th August, 1731, declar- ing that the charter of Massachusetts remained in force, the British Government still insisted upon the operation which certain treaties with France might have had upon the char- ter ; and that the wish and hope to extend the boundary of Nova Scotia, as far west as the Penobscot, had never been abandoned, prior to the final relinquishment of that preten- sion by the preliminary Articles of Peace of 1782. It is fo- reign to our present purpose to repeat the arguments drawn from the express terms of the treaty without reference to any other previous acts, or to advert at this lime to the proofs which established the identity of the boundaries established by the treaty, with those defined by the charter of Massa- chusetts. It is sufficient, with a view to the evidence de- rived from maps, to have shown the identity of the treaty boundaries, with those previously established by the commis- sions of the Governors of Nova Scotia, by the proclamation of 1763, and by the Quebec Act of 1774. The question then occurs : Which were the Highlands declared by the two last 1 2 ■jS 13 mentioned public Acts to be the southern boundary of the Province of Quebec ? Independent of arguments derived from other sources, the U. States produced, and laid before tiie King of the Nether- lands, all the maps published in Great Britain, between the years 17G3 and 1783, on which the southern boundary of the Province of Quebec is laid down, and which, after a diligent search, both in England and America, could be ob- tained. Not a single one was omitted that had come with- in the knowledge of the American Government: not a single one of an opposite character has ever been produced. The maps thus collected are the following, viz : 1. T. Kitchin's British Dominions in North America, &c. Engraved for Dodsley's Annual Register, of 1763 2. T. Kitchin's British Dominions in North America, &c. Engraved for Capt. John Knox's History of the War in America, London, 1769 3. British Empire in North America, &c. Annexed to Wynne's History of the British Empire, &c. Lon- don 1770 4. J. Palairet's North America, with improvements, &c. By L. Delarochette. London, 1765 5. Ridge's British Dominions in North America, &c. Annexed to a Complete History of the Late War, &c. Dublin, 1766 6. Palairet's North and South America, by the Ameri- can Traveller. Annexed to " The American Traveller," &c. London 1769 7. North America and West Indies, with the opposite coasts, &c. [Jeffreys' Atlas,] London, 1775 8. North America, improved from Danville, with divi- B 14 sions by P. Bell. Engraved by R. W. Scale, London 1771 0. P. Bell's British Dominions in North America, &c. 1772. Annexed to " History of British Dominions in North America, &c. in fourteen books." Lon- don 1772 10. S. Dunn's British Empire in North America. Lon- don, 1774 11. Danville's North America, improved with English Surveys, &c. London, 1775 12. E. Bovven and J. Gibson's North America, &c. London, 1775 13. Sayer and Bennett's Province of Quebec, &c. Lon- don 177G 14. Seat of War in the Northern Colonies, &.c. An- nexed to the American Military Pocket Atlas. London, 177G 15. North America, &;c. corrected from the materials of Gov. Pownall, M. P., London, 1777 16. Continent of America, &c. corrected from the ma- terials of Gov. Pownall, London, 1777 17. W. Faden's British Colonies in North America,. . 1777 18. W. Faden's North America, from the latest disco- veries, 1778. Engraved for " Carver's Travels," London 1778 & 1781 47. T. Jeffreys' Nova Scotia, &c. London, 1775 The identity' of the Highlands which form the southern boundary of the Province of Quebec, with those which are claimed by the United States as their boundary, will appear evident on the first inspection of those maps. I happen to have four of these in my possession, from which you may judge of the character common to all : these are Nos. 10, 12, 13, and 14, of the preceding list. 1 ' 15 1775 1770 ■m In every one of those maps, the course of llio line from the source of the River St. Croix is northward ; in every instance that line crosses the Ilivin- St. John and terminates at the llighhinds, in vvhicii the rivers that fall into the River St. Lawrence have their sources ; in every instance, the north- west angle of Nova Scotia is laid down on those IIighlands,and where the north line terminates ; in every instance, the High- lands, from that point to the ("onnecticut River, divide the rivers that fall into the river St. Lawrence, from the tribu- tary streams of the River St. John, and from the other ri- vers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean. The exhibition of such undeniable proofs of the universal understanding in England, from the date of the proclamation of 1703 to the time when the preliminary Articles of Peace were signed, of the position of the Highlands defined as the south- ern boundary of the Province of Quebec, by the proclama- tion and by the Quebec act, placed in a rather awkward di- lemma the British agents. They must either deny, in the face of the public acts of Great Britain, the iden- tity of the boundaries defined by those acts with those de- clared by the treaty : or they must, notwithstanding the conclusive evidence derived from the maps, affirm that the boundaries prescribed by the proclamation and the Quebec act were not correctly delineated 6n those maps. As it was equally difficult to maintain either position, the agents, em- ployed at different times by the British Government, have differed amongst themselves on that point. You may in that respect consult and compare the arguments used by the Bri- tish agent and commissioner under the joint commission, with those contained in the British statements laid before the King of the Netherlands, and with the reasons adduced on that particular subject in the report of Messrs. Featheks* TONHAUGH & MUDGE. 16 It was probably, at least partly, in order to avoid the in- ferences that might be drawn from more modern maps, that the British Commissioners who negotiated the preliminary Articles of Peace, brought Mitchell's map, for the purpose of its being used jointly by the Commissioners in the course of the negotiations, on which, as it was published in 1755, the boundaries prescribed by the Proclamation of 1703, and the Quebec Act of 1774, could not be delineated. It was in proof by the testimony of our own Commissioners that this was the map, which had been jointly used by the American and British negotiators of the preliminaries of Peace ; and it was accordingly recognised as such by the Convention of 29th September, 1827, as follows, viz : " The map, called Mitchell's Map, by which the framers "of the Treaty of 1783 are acknowledged to have regulated " their joint and official proceedings, and the map A, which " has been agreed on by the contracting parties, as a deline- " ation of the water courses, and of the boundary lines in " reference to the said water courses as contended for by " each party, respectively, and which has accordingly been " signed by the above named Plenipotentiaries, at the same " time with this Convention, shall be annexed to the state- " ments of the contracting parties, and be the only maps that " shall be considered as evidence, mutually acknowledged by " the contracting parties, of the topography of the country." Ih The proposal respecting Mitchell's map, came from British Commissioners, and I assented to it with the follow- ing addition : '* It shall, however, be lawful for either party to annex " to its respective first statements, for the purposes of gene- " ral illustration, any of the maps, surveys, or topographi- 17 id the in- aps, that liminary Jrpose of ourse of 755, the and the in proof his was can and and it ition of ramers gulated which deline- iines in for by y been ! same state- 3s that ^ed by ntrv." from ilJow- nnex ;ene- aphi- m '■1 ** cal delineations, which were filed with the Commissioners " under the fifth article of the Treaty of Ghent, any en- " graved map heretofore published, and also a transcript of '* the above mentioned map A, or of a section thereof, &c.'' The engraved dotted boundary lines on Mitchell's map may not be strictly considered as evidences of topography : but they are evidence at least of the manner in which those boundaries were understood in the year 1755, when the map was published. And this is of some importance, inasmuch as the map is certified to have been undertaken with the ap- probation of the Board of Trade, and to be chiefly com- posed from drafts, charts, &,c., transmitted by the Governors of the several colonies. According to that map. Nova Scotia and New England are made to extend as far north as the southern bank of the River St. Lawrence, which, according to the pretensions of Great Britain, was deemed to be the boundary between her possessions and Canada. The boundary between Nova Scotia and New England is delineated by an engraved dot- ted line, from the mouth of the River St. Croix lo its north- erly source, and thence, by a due north line which extends to the southern bank of the River St. Lawrence. The ter- ritory east of that boundary line is designated in large capi- tal letters, by the name of Nova Scotia or Acadia : and the territory west of the same line is, in a similar manner, de- signated as New England. In order, undoubtedly^ to preserve, against Massachusetts, the pretensions of the Crown to the territory east of the Pe- nobscot, a similar engraved dotted line extends along that river from its mouth to its northeasternmost source, whence it is, by a short eastwardly line, connected with the due w \ Hi. 18 north line above mentioned. It may be observed that it thereby appears, that the claim of the Crown to the territory east of the Penobscot extended no farther north than the source of that river, and that the whole country north of it, west of the due north line, embracing the whole basin of the upper branches of the River St. John, and extending as far north as the southern bank of the River St. Lawrence, was, according to the Board of Trade, part of New-England. The first mentioned dotted line is precisely the same as that declared by the treaty to be the boundary between the United States and Great Britain, with the single exception, that its northerly extremity, or north-west angle of i"^ ova Scotia, was by the treaty removed due south to the high- lands described in that instrument. I will hereafter advert more particularly to the topography of Mitchell's map. But some of its general features must be now stated in order to understand the copy of it which did belong to Mr. Jay. The latitudes, the general course of the main branch of the River St. John, and its relative position to the River St. Croix, to the Penobscot, and to the tributary streams of the River St. Lawrence, are laid down on Mitchell's map with sufficient correctness for all practical purposes. The point at whiclf the due north line (from the source of the River St. Croix) crosses the River St. John is placed on that map, 140 miles in a direct line (north by west) from the mouth of the River St. Croix ; which docs not differ ten miles from the fact. F.'om that poin*. the course of the main branch, which Mitchell expressly calls "R. St. John," up to its most western source is about west-south-west, and the distance 115 miles in a straight line. This agrees, with remarkable d that it territory tlian the H'th of it, sin of the ng as far ice, was, gland. same as s^cen the cception, )f i^ ova le high- )graphy 3S must which inch of ver St. of the p with J point 'er St. p, 140 jf the n the vhich most lance iable 19 correctness in both respects, with the actual situation of the source of the west branch of map A, (Mr. Featherston- haugh's Mittaywoquam). The south and south-west branches are not laid down by Mitchell, and were not known before the surveys executed under the joint com- mission of 1818. The north-easternmost branch of the River St. John unites, on Mitchell's map, with the main river at the same point where this is intersected by the due north line above stated ; which in point of fact is erroneous. This branch, to which he gives no name, issues in his map from his lake Medousa. This lake is that now known by the name of Temiscouata, and the river issuing from it is the Madawaska. For you will find that, on that map, the north-western source of the lake Medousa is opposite and close to the source of the Pistole river, which empties into the River St. Lawrence, a short distance north-cast from the source of the Wolves River (Riviere le Loup), and about thirty-five miles south-west from the mouth of the river Metis. All which, as will appear by recurrence to the map A, or to any other modern map, is the precise position of the northern extremity of the Temiscouata lake. Mr. Jay's map, which is now exhibited before you, is the map of Mitchell ; and a red line is delineated upon it, which is designated through its whole extent as being Mr. Oswald's liiie. These words are also written with red ink, and were at once recognised by Mr. William Jay, as being the handwriting of his father, the Hon. John Jay. This is the only line or coloring on the map which is known to have been laid down by Mr. Jay. The map itself is colored ; which must have been done subsequently to the year 1755, 20 the maps of Mitchell having had orighially no coloring whatever. In this map, Nova Scotia is designated by a red border, the ground not being colored. New England is colored yellow, New York blue, &c., and Canada green. This last circumstance at once shews for what purpose the map was colored. Canada is made to include all the country between the lakes and the Ohio. The Quebec act is the only public act which ever gave that extension to Canada. And accord- ingly, following that green boundary of demarcation, from the Gulf of St. Lawrence westward to the Mississippi, you will find that it does agree, in every respect, with the southern boundary of the province of Quebec, as prescribed by that act. There can be, therefore, no doubt that the map was thus colored during or subsequent to the year 1774, and very little that the whole of the map was colored at the same time. It is highly improbable that this should have been done by Mr. Jay ; and the whole appears to have been executed by an artist under the direction of the map vender. The colored line, red on the one side and vellow on the other, which, in conformity with the line claimed by the United States as their Eastern boundary, extends from the mouth of the River St. Croix to its source, and thence due north to the southern boundary of Canada, appears to me to be nothing more than the above mentioned dotted line of Mitchell, marked with the colors assigned respectively in this map to Nova Scotia and New England. It appears therefore to me that this map came in the possession of Mr. Jay colored as it is, with the single exception of the red line firist above mentioned, and designated as Mr. Oswald's line. There is no difficulty in discovering what are the bound- aries intended to be represented by this line. 0;| ^1 coloring d border, 3 colored This last map was between ly public I accord- ion, from ippi, you with the escribed that the ar 1774, d at the Id have ve been vender, on the by the om the ice due ) me to line of vely in ppears of Mr. 3d line 's line. lound- The American and British Commissioners met at Paris and commenced their negotiations in September, 1782, Mr. Adams and Mr. Laurens were not yet present, when, on the 8th October, 1782, Dr. Franklin and Mr. Jay entered in- to a provisional arrangement with Mr. Oswald, to be submitted however to his Britannic Majesty. The boundaries defined by that agreement are in the following words, and correspond precisely with the line designated on Mr. Jay's map, as Mr. Oswald's line, viz : " The said States are bounded north by a line to be drawn " from the north-west ande of Nova Scotia alonjj the hijjh- " lands, which divide those rivers that empty themselves into " the River St. Lawrence from those which fall into the At- *' lanlic, to the north-westernmost head of Connecticut Riv- " er ; thence down along the middle of that river to the forty- " fifth degree of north latitude, and thence due west in the " latitude forty-five degrees north from the Equator, to the " north- westernmost side of the River St. Lawrence, or Catar^ " aquy ; thence straight to the Lake Ni pissing, and thence " straight to the source of the River Mississippi ; west, *' by a line to be drawn along the middle of the River Mis^- " sissippi, to where the said line shall intersect the thirty-first ** degree of north latitude ; south, by a line to be drawn due " east from the termination of the line last mentioned, in the *' latitude of thirty-one degrees north of the Equator, to the *' middle of the River Apalachicola, or Catahouche ; thence " along the middle thereof to its junction with the Flint River ; " thence straight to the head of St. Mary's River ; thence " down along the middle of St. Mary's River to the Atlantic *' Ocean; and east, by a line drawn along the middle of St, " John's River from its source to its mouth in the Bay of Funr " dy ; comprehending all islands within twenty leagues of any " part of the shores of the United States, and lying between C \ : $ 22 lines to be drawn due east from the points where the aforesaid boundaries between Nova Scotia on the one part, and East Florida on the other, shall respectively touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean." "Paris, 8th October, 1782. " A true copy of which has been agreed on between the American (/ommissioners and me, to be submitted to His Majesty's consideration. " (Signed) R. OSWALD." "Alteration to be made in the treaty, respecting the boun- " daries of Nova Scotia, viz : " East, the true line between which and the United States " shall be settled by Commissioners, as soon as conveniently " may be after the war." On the 14th of October, Dr. Franklin writes to Robert R. LiviN(;.sT0N, the American Secretary of State : " We have now made several preliminary propositions, which the English Minister, Mr. Oswald, has approved and sent to his Court. He thinks they will be approved there ; but I have some doubts The Articles were drawn very fully by Mr. Jay, who I suppose sends you a copy ; if not, it will go by the next opportunity," The red line under consideration must therefore have been drawn by Mr. Jay, in October, 1782, and undoubtedly with the knowledge and assent of Mr. Oswald. A copy or full description of the line, thus proposed by the American Com- missioners, must have been transmitted by Mr. Oswald to his Government. For, unless he had done it, it would have been impossible for that Government to understand wh^t was meant by the words in the agreement, " Me soitrce of St. Johns River" which, without such copy or explanation. 1 it mi bJ fr w| where the on the one respectively 5ean." '«r, 1782. )etween the tted to His WALD." g the boun- •ited States >nveniently o Robert te : " We which the sent to his but I have iwn very ; if not, it lave been ^dly with •y or full :an Com- iVVALD to uld have i^hst was e of St. anation, 28 it would naturally have understood to be, the source of the main River St. John's as laid down in Mitchell's map. It is well known that this boundary was rejected by Great Britain. That this was in some degree anticipated, appears from a memorandum, annexed to the articles of agreement, which offered the alternative of " having the boundary of *' Nova Scotia settled by Commissioners as soon as conve- " niently may be after the war." The proposal, if acceded to, would have given nearly the whole of Upper Canada to the United States. It was made in compliance with the resolutions of Congress of the year 1779, repealed indeed by those of 1781 ; which last, how- ever, still referred to those of 1779 as expressive of the wishes of Congress. I will now proceed to state the strictly legitimate inferen- ces resulting from the map as it now lies before you, with the admission that Mr. Oswald's red line, as it is called, is the only delineation made upon it by Mr. Jay. It now clearly appears by this map, that the source of the River St. John, intended and proposed by the American Com- missioners, in the agreement of the 8th October, 1782, to be the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, was not the source of the main river, as it is now known to exist, or as laid down in Mitchell's map ; but the northern extremity of Mitchell's Medousa Lake, or the northern source of a then name- less branch, now known to be the River Madawaska ; and also that the Highlands, described in the said contingent agreement, extended from that point, or in other words, from the Temiscouata Portage to the source of the River Connecticut. Therefore : d4 Pirst . This is a complete refutation of the British argu- ment, founded on the erroneous supposition, that the boundary line claimed by the United States under the treaty was more disadvantageous to Great Britain, than that offered in the contingent agreement of the 8th of October ; and that it was therefore absurd to suppose that the British Government, hav- ing rejected this, could have assented to the line as claimed under the treaty by the United States. This argument rested on a misconception of the source of the River St. John, intended and proposed by the American Commissioners. A single glance at the map shows, that the line proposed on the 8th October, 1782, included, in addition to the territory claimed by the United States under the treaty, the whole of that which is bounded southwardly by the sea from the mouth of the River St. Croix to the mouth of the River St. John, west by the line claimed under the treaty by the United States, and east by the River St. John. Secondly. It was insisted, on the part of Great Britain) that the United States, having themselves, by their proposal, made the source of the river St. John the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, and having defined the dividing Highlands, as extending only from that point to the source of the Con- necticut River, this definition embraced only the Highlands which divided the tributaries of the River St. Lawrence, from those of the Penobscot and of the Kennebec, and ex- cluded highlands dividing the sources of the several branches of the River St. John, from those of rivers emptying them- selves into the River St. Lawrence. And it was suggested that it was, with that view of the subject and with that un- derstanding, that the term Atlantic Ocean had been used, in- stead of the word Sea, in the resolutions of Congress of 1779j and in the proposed agreement of 8tli October, 1782. 25 itish argu* 3 boundary was more red in the hat it was mentjhav- is claimed argument r St. John, oners. A ^posed on i territory whole of from the River St. le United t Britain* proposal j 3st angle ghlands, the Con- ighlands wrence, and ex- ranches ', them- ?gested hat un- sed, in- •fl779j If there was any plausibility in this argument, it was ex- clusively derived from the erroneous supposition, that the St. John, contemplated by the United States, was that of the longest branch of the River St. John, or of that which is laid down as such in Mitchell's map. Now you perceive that the dividing highlands proposed by the American Commissioners, distinctly delineated by Mr. Jay, and designated by him as Mr. Oswald's line, com mence at the northern extremity of Mitchell's Medousa Lake, and extend thence all the way to the northernmost source of the River Connecticut. That distance, according to Mitchell's map, is about two hundred and twenty miles in a straight line ; and, according to that map, one hundred and twenty-five miles of that distance divide the rivers emptying themselves into the River St. Lawrence, from the sources of the several branches of the River St. John ; and only the remaining ninety-five miles divide the tributaries of the River St. Lawrence from those of the Penobscot and of the Kennebec. It is therefore clearly established, as you see it on the map, that the Highlands described in the pro- posed agreement of the 8th October, 1782, as " Highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic," are and were clearly understood to be highlands dividing for more than one half of their length, the rivers that empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence from the branches of the River St. John ; and therefore, that the River St. John was, by Congress, and by the Commissioners, held and understood to be a river falling into the Atlantic. When it is considered that, with that fore-knowledge of the meaning at- tached to the term Highlands, (fee, in the first proposal of the American Commissioners, the identical words used in that proposal, as defining those intended highlands, were transferred to and used in the definition of the highlands PI II 96 described by the treaty, (along the said highlands which di- vide those rivers that empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean,) you may judge of the soundness of the British argument as applied to the terms of the treaty. From the place of be- ginning, viz : Irom the northern extremity of Mitchell's Medousa Lake to the northernmost source of the River Connecticut, the line delineated by Mr. Jay, in conformity with the agreement of October 8th, 1782, runs along the identical highlands claimed under the treaty by the United States : and the lines prescribed by the treaty are defined precisely in the same terms, as the highlands contemplated by the agreement of 8th October, 1782. Thirdly. It was urged, in connection with the lust above stated argument, that, inasmuch as the River St. Croix was declared to have its mouth in the Bay of Fundy, as contra- distinguished from the Atlantic Ocean, in which the River St. Mary's is declared to have its mouth, the River St. John must a fortiori be held to fall into the Bay of Fundy, and could not therefore be considered under the "•ms of the treaty, as one of the rivers falling into the Atlantic Ocean. Ana- logous expressions are used in the agreement of October, 1782, in reference to the St. John's river, the only difference consisting in the substitution, in the treaty, of the River St. Croix, and a due north line, for St. John's River, in the agree- ment of "October, 1782. This will appear evident by com- paring with the words used in the treaty those of the agree- ment of October, 1782, which are: " Thence down along the middle of St. Mary's River, to the " Atlantic Ocean ; and east, by a line to be drawn along the *' middle oiSt. John's River, from its source to its mouth in the *^Bay of Fundy : comprehending all islands within twenty I :m ;* 87 which di- River St. ; Ocean,) ument as :e of be- ^itcheJJ's le River formity ong the J United defined niplated t above >ix was contra- Kiver >t. John i could treaty, Ana- ;tober, 3rence 'er St. igree- com- igree- othe ? the ntJw enty "leagues of any part of the shores of the United States, and " lying between lines to be drawn due east from the points " where the aforesaid boundaries between Nova Scotia on " the one part, and East Florida on the other, shall respec- " tively touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean.'* The only difference between these words and those used in the treaty, consists in the substitution above stated. But all the sentences in the treaty in which the Bay of Fundy is mentioned, are found expressed in the same manner and for the same purpose, in the agreement of October, 1782. The River St. Croix in the treaty, the River St. John in the agreement, are respectively declared to have their mouth in the Bay of Fundy. In both instruments, the southern boundary is declared to terminate in the Atlantic Ocean. In both, the boundaries between (the United States and) Nova Scotia on the one part, and East Florida on the other, are said re- spectively to touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean. Since it is now fully demonstrated by Mr. Jav's map, that, notwithstanding that apparent distinction between the Atlan- tic Ocean and the Bay of Fundy, the River St. John was clearly intended and understood in the agreement of Oc- tober, 1782, to be a river falling into the Atlantic Ocean ; it is impossible that the same identical expressions should have been preserved in the treaty, for the special purpose of ex- cluding that river from the class of Atlantic rivers, and of making thereby the treaty a perfect non-sense. Such, how- ever, was the pretended inference, and such the frail foun- dation, now completely subverted, on which alone it rested. It is evident that, in both cases, the words Bay of Fundy were introduced, only for the purpose of defining, with pre- 88 cision what river was intended. It was inserted in the agreement of October, 1782, in order that the intended River St. John might not be confounded with another River St. John, mentioned in the Proclamation of 1763, which coming from the north falls into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It was inserted again in the Treaty of 1783, for the pur- pose of defining with precision the locality of the intended River St. Croix, and of excluding all the rivers having their mouth west of the Bay of Fundy, which might bear the same name. And this precaution was the more necessary, inasmuch as Governor Pownall had previously asserted, in a work published under his name, and often appealed to on the part of Great Britain, that there were several rivers, having their mouths west of the Bay of Fundy, which were, by the French, called also "River St. Croix." It is well known that subsequently, one of the British agents asserted that, if it had not been otherwise determined. Great Britain might under the treaty have claimed the River Penobscot, as being the true River St. Croix intended by that instrument. reui Sui line In all that which I hav^ now stated, I have admitted, that no other line was traced by Mr. Jay on his map, than the red Hne which he calls Mr. Oswald's line. This admission has been made, not only in order to avoid a discussion on debateable ground, but also because I believe the admission to be consistent with the fact. I believe so, not only on ac- count of the general character of the coloring of the map, and for other reasons already alleged, but also because Mr. Jay did not correct the map in another quarter, so as to make the boundary agree with the terms of the treaty. From the point where the forty-fifth parallel of latitude in- tersects the River St. Lawrence, the treaty substituted, for that which is called Mr. Oswald's line, the boundary line which, as you well know, runs through the River St, Law- M 29 1 in (ho intended cr River which wrence. 10 pur- ntended ig their ar the :essarv. rted, in to on having by the known that, if might being i, that n the ission •n on ssion n ac- map, Mr. IS to aty. in- fer line iw- rence and the middle of the Lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron, Superior, &c. This line prescribed by the treaty is not de- lineated on Mr. Jay's map. It is, however, proper to state that, in relation to our North- Eastern Boundary, it was not necessary for Mr. Jay, and indeed it was impossible for him, to have delineated it on the map. If you suppose, indeed, that the map came into his hands without being colored, and that the line, red on one side and yellow on the other, which, from the mouth of the River St. Croix to its source, and thence in a due north course ex- tends to the southern boundary of Canada, did not exist on the map when he received it, it follows, that it was delineated by himself: and this supposition would conclusively settle the question as to the understanding of the boundary line by our Commissioners. But if, as I believe, that line had been pre- viously delineated, Mr. Jay stood in relation to the map in the same situation as is now the case with ourselves. If we were asked to delineate on that map, as it now stands before you, the boundary line claimed by the United States, our answer would be : We cannot do it, for it is already done ; that red and yellow line is precisely that which we claim. This was the situation of Mr. Jay. The treaty line was then delineated with great precision, and ho had in that respect nothing to alter or io correct. As to the line claimed on the part of Great Britain, there is no trace of ii on the map, Exclusively of the question respecting the character of the highlands, on which the map throws no light, but which I believe now to . '^lefinitively settled, both as to principle and as to fact, the only British argument, which is not com- pletely demolished by Mr. Jay's map, is that which relates to the intersection of the River Ristigouche by the due i'd 30 north line, as claimed by the United States. And it is pro- per, when arguing upon that map, to point out the only mis- conception of the negotiators of the treaty of 1782, with re- gard to the topography of the country, which may in any way have a bearing on the questions respecting our North- Eastern Boundary. It is well known, that there are great errors in the longi- tude of the maps of that epoch, and particularly in that of Mitchell. Had that error been uniform throughout the map, its only effect would have been to place that part of Ameri- ca sixty or one hundred miles nearer to the observatory of Greenwich, and to Europe generally, than it is now known to be. But this would not have affected the relative posi- tion of the various places in America delineated on the map. The error, however, is not uniform. The geographical no- tions in England of the River St. Lawrence, from its mouth upwards, were in 1755 exclusively derived from French maps, whilst those of the Atlantic shores were chiefly de- rived from British observations. And it so happened that, although the errors were on the same side, the difference was greater, by nearly one degree of longitude, on the River St. Lawrence, than on the Atlantic shores. Hence it fol- lowed, that the position of the several short rivers that fall into the River St. Lawrence from the south, and of the places determined in reference to those rivers, was placed on the maps from forty to fifty miles east of their real posi- tion, relatively to the various places along the Atlantic shores, or whose position was determined in reference to those places. The position ascribed to the northern extremity of Mitch- ell's Medousa Lake was not derived from any survey of the River St. John and its branches ; but it was known and is 81 pro- mis- lh re- any lorth- designated on the map as a carriage to Canada. It was an ancient well known portage, by which the French inhabit- ants of the Bay des Chaleurs and the Miramichi communi- cated with the River St. Lawrence. Its position on Mitch- ell's map is taken from the French maps ; and, as has already been stated, that position is quite correct in refer- ence to the rivers that empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence. But, on the other hand, the position of the River St. Croix, on that map, was determined in relation to places along the shores of the Atlantic, including the Bay of Fundy. The due north line from the source of that river had never been run, and is delineated on the map in refer- ence to the position of that source. The consequence of that difference is, that the due north line which, when sur- veyed, was found to terminate at the source of the River Metis, is placed on Mitchell's map about forty miles west of that source ; and that the course of the Madawaska River from its junction with the St. John up to its source, is repre- sented as being north, instead of northwest, and almost to coincide with the due north line. So that, that source of the River St. John, (that is to say, of the Madawaska,) which, according to the agreement of October, 1782, was considered as the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, is on the map placed only five miles west of the termination of the due north line, whilst in fact those two points are about forty-five miles apart. The consequence of that topographical misconception, on the part of the negotiators of the treaty of 1783, was firsts that it made the line, agreed to according to our understand- ing of it, to appear much less disadvantageous to Great Britain, with respect to the communication between her provinces, than in real'ty it turned out to be ; secondly, that the negotiators entertained no suspicion, that the due north 8d line could possibly be intersected by the branches of any river emptying itself into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 1 am clearly of opinion that) in a general geographical sense, the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of St. Lawrence are bays or inlets of the Atlantic Ocean ; that, in the same general geographical view, the River St. Lawrence is itself an Atlantic river ; and that, unless excluded specially or by a necessary implication, they must under the treaty be con- sidered as such. The treaty c^nlomplates but two classes of rivers to be divided from each other ; those emptying into the River St. Lawrence, and those that fall into the Atlantic Ocean. Whence it appears to me conclusively to follow, that the rivers which do not fall into the River St. Lawrence, but into either the Bay of Fundy or the Gulf of St. Law* rence, both which are bays of the Atlantic Ocean, are, by the- terms of the treaty, clearly included within the class of rivers emptying into the Atlantic Ocean. The point, there- fore, where the due north line intersects the highland which divides a river, that empties itself into the River St. Law* rence from a branch of the River Ristigouche (which falls into the Gulf of St. Lawrence), is the true north-west angle of Nova Scotia described by the treaty. The supposition that the north-west angle is to be found on the highland which divides the waters of the Ristigouche from those of the River St. John, implies the supposition that the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the river of the same name were, by the negotiators, considered as identic. At the same time J am ready to admit, that the negotiators of the treaty of 1788 had no expectation that the boundary, as described by them, would throw into the United States some of the head branches of the Ristigouche* I think it any 33 extremely probable that had they been aware of that cir- cumstance, they would have modified the line, so far at least as to make the ridge which divides the Ristigouche from the St. John the boundary between the two countries, till it met the ridge which divides the waters of the St. John from those of the River St. Lawrence. Seeing, indeed, that according to Mitchell's map they must have believed the due north line and the River Madawaska to be almost identic ; it is not improbable, considering the conciliatory dispositions which animated the framers of the treaty, that they might, had they known the true topography of that part of the country, have secured the ordinary communication between the British Provinces by substituting the River Madawaska, instead of the continued north line, as an equitable boundary. These considerations, though not affecting the question of right, must have had their due weight on negotiations having for object an amicable compromise. Although the objections made against the boundary line claimed by the United States had, in my humble opinion, been already refuted, and although the most plausible of them are altogether disproved by the map of Mr. Jay, yet they may generally be considered to have been debateable questions. If any of them had proved conclusive, the only inference would have been that the treaty could not be literally executed, and that a compromise must be made. This is what actually took place in reference to another provision of the treaty, viz. the line from the lake of the woods to the Mississippi, which could not be executed ac- cording to the letter of the treaty. It is a matter of deep regret that instead of only raising objections against the line claimed by the United States, an attempt should have been made, in behalf of Great Britain, lii !i: 34 to advance a claim of a most extraordinary and startling nature. It is with great reluctance that I approach this branch of the subject, which I would have wished to be buried in oblivion, had it not been lately renewed by the discovery of a map with a line of demarcation ascribed to Dr. Franklin. The treaty declares the East Boundary of the United States to be, a line drawn from the source of the River St. Croix directly north to the highlands, which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from that which falls into the River St. Lawrence. And, from that point, which is de- clared to be the Northwest angle of nova Scotia, the boun- dary between the two countries is declared to be, " along the highlands which divide those rivers that empty them- selves into the River St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the north westernmost head of Con- necticut River." the |t! t ';w! It was asserted on the part of Great Britain, that the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, described by the treaty, was to be found at a certain point situate on the due north line, at or near Mars Hill, about forty miles north from the source of the river St. Croix, (or, according to Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, at another hill a few miles farther north.) Mars Hill is at least one hundred miles dis- tant in every direction, from any of the sources of any of the rivers that empty themselves into the River St. Law- rence ; and it divides no other rivers, but Goosequick River, from the River Presque Isle ; both which are tributary streams of the River St. John, into which they empty them- selves, a few miles east of the said due north line. It was therefore contended that a point, described by the 35 treaty as being on the highlands which divide the rivers whioh fall into the River St. Lawrence from those which fall • into the Atlantic Ocean, may be placed on a highland, which does not divide from each other the rivers thus described by the treaty, which is one hundred miles distant from the wa- ters of the River St. Lawrence, and which divides no other rivers but two small branches of one and the same river, viz : the River St. John, which falls into the Atlantic Ocean, and was considered by Great Britain as falling neither into the Atlantic Ocean or the River St. Lawrence. The boundary line claimed on the part of Great Britain, from that spot to the sources of the River Chaudiere, which falls into the River St. Lawrence, (a distance of about one hundred and fifteen miles in a straight line,) instead of di- viding, in conformity with the terms of the treaty, rivers falling into the River St. Lawrence from rivers falling into the Atlantic, divides no other rivers than the various branch- es of the Penobscot from the branches of the River St. John. For the whole of that distance, that line divides no other rivers than rivers falling, as the United States affirm, into the Atlantic Ocean, or, according to the suggestions of the British agents, no other rivers than rivers falling into the Bay of Fundy, from rivers falling into the Atlantic Ocean. It is only from the source of the River Chaudiere, at a spot called Metjarmette Portage, that the line claimed by Great Britain, coinciding there with the American line, divides the sources of rivers that fall into the River St. Lawrence, from the sources of several tributary streams of the Rivers Penobscot, Kennebec, and Connecticut. It is only for that portion of the boundary, or about eighty miles in a straight line, that the British line did fulfil the conditions of the treaty. 'I ii iii > J If'ii' 36 In order to sustain that claim it was insisted that, altiiough the highlands from Mars hill to the sources of the Chaudiere do not divide the rivers described and contemplated by the treaty, they are a continuation of, or connected with, the highlands which, from the source of the Chaudiere to that of the Connecticut, divide the rivers contemplated and pre- scribed by the treaty. And it was affirmed that it was not necessary, according to the terms of the treaty, that the boundary should, through its whole extent, be along high- lands which actually divide rivers emptying themselves into the River St. Lawrence from those that fall into the Atlantic Ocean. On that point it is sufficient to recur to the terms of the treaty. The northwest angle of Nova Scotia is there expressly declared to be on the highlands themselves, and not on the continuation of the highlands which actually divide the rivers mentioned in the treaty. And the boundary is de- clared to he from that northwest angle along the highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River. It would be difficult to devise words more clear and precise, than the words from, along, and to, for the purpose of de- claring that the boundary must, through its whole extent, from the place of beginning, or northwest angle of Nova Scotia, to the source of the Connecticut, be on the highlands described by the treaty. It was also broadly asserted, that the British line does di' vide, as directed by the treaty, the rivers which empty them- selves into the River St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean. The term to divide was made to mean to lie between. The line, that was claimed by Great Britain, 87 divides the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence, in the same manner as the Rhine divides France from Poland, and as the Hudson River divides New-York from Pennsylvania. As a subsidiary argument, whilst it was contended, in op- position to the American line, that the negotiators were en- tirely unacquainted with the topography of the country, it was asserted that they did, by the terms of the treaty, in- tend to describe the north-western angle of Nova Scotia and the boundary line claimed on the part of Great Britain. Now, vou see, that the course of the main River St. John from the due north line to its western source and the position of that river in relation to the sources of the River St. Croix, of the Penobscot, and of the tributary streams of the River St. Law- rence, between the Temiscouata Portage and heads of Con- necticut River, are laid down with remarkable correctness on Mitchell's map ; and, I may add, on all the subsequent English maps published before the year 1782. It is manifest by Mitchell's map and those of a subse- quent date, and it was therefore perfectly well known to the negotiators, that no point of the due north line, south of the River St. John, did or could divide, from each other, anv rivers whatever but some branches of the said River St. John ;— that the source of the River Chaudiere was about 120 miles distant, and in a westwardly course from any such point of the due north line ; that no line whatever, drawn from any such point of the said due north line south of the River St. John, and keeping south of that river, could, between that point and the source of the River Chaudiere, (or of any other tributary of the River St. Lawrence,) divide from any river whatever, any of the rivers emptying them- E 88 gelves into the River St. Lawrence ; — and that such line* through its whole length of 120 miles, could divide no other rivers whatever but the southern branches of the River St. John, from the branches of the Rivers St. Croix, Penobscot, and Kennebec. With those facts before them, if the negotiators of the treaty had intended that the north-west angle of Nova Scotia should be placed on highlands situated south of the River St. John, or on any point of the due north line lying between and dividing only tributary streams of the River St. John, it is impossible that they should have described that angle as being on highlands dividing the waters of the River St. Law- rence from rivers falling into the Atlantic Ocean. It is equally impossible that, if the negotiators intended that the boundary, from the due north line to the sources of the Chaudiere, should, for one hundred and twenty miles, either divide the sources of the Penobscot and of the Kennebec from those of the St. John, or should, without dividing any rivers, only intersect branches of the St. John, they should have described such a boundary, as being on highlands di- viding the waters of the River St. Lawrence from the rivers falling into the Atlantic Ocean. What renders the supposition, that those ministers ex- pressed themselves in terms so contradictory of the intentions gratuitously ascribed to them, still more untenable, is, that there would not have been the slightest difficulty, with Mitch- ell's map before them, in defining with the utmost precision, if so intended, the boundary line as now contended for by Great Britain. |l;l. Had the intention been, as was affirmed, to assign to Great 89 -h line* [o other rer St. [obscot, of the Scotia River 'tween ^ohn, it igie as . Law- dthat of the either inebec gany ihouJd ds di- ■ivers ex- iions that tch- ion, by 3at Britain the whole of the basin of the River St. John, there would not have been any occasion, either to refer to the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, or that any part of the boundary should have been a line drawn due north from the source of the River St. Croix. In that case, the boundary would, by an ordinary conveyancer in possession of Mitch- ell's map, and of the intentions of the parties, have been described in the following words, or in others as explicit, and of the same import, viz : " From the source of the River St. Croix, along the high- " lands which divide the rivers that empty themselves either " into the River St. John, or into the River St. Lawrence, " from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, west of the ** mouth of the River St. Croix, to the northwesternmost " head of Connecticut River * . . East by a line " drawn along the middle of the River St. Croix, from its " mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source." Had it been intended, though for what object, with the intentions ascribed to the negotiators, is altogether unintelli- gible, that a due north line drawn from the source of the River St. Croix, should form a part of the boundary, a slight alteration in the phraseology, would, with equal facility, have effected that purpose. It is well known that this extraordinary pretension was suggested by the British Agent, under the Joint Commission of 1818, who, having also been the Agent before the Joint Commission of 1798, had then expressly declared that the north line must of necessity cross the River St. John, but that, if it was drawn from the source of the western branch of the Schoodiac, it would cross that river in a part of it almost at the foot of the highlands. Tiiat Agent, one of the m 40 !' I IM| liil ' I In HI' I! first settlers of the Province of New Brunswick, thoroughly acquainted with the subject, was, as late as the year 1798, of opinion that the highlands of the treaty lay north of the River St. John, and that the north line, in order to meet thenn, must cross that river. Sir Robert Liston, then his Britannic Majesty's Minister to the United States, construed the treaty in the same manner. The proceedings of the Joint Commission of 1818 were not published, and excited but little sensation at the time. It was only generally known that the Commissioners had not agreed, and that the reference to a foreign power, pro- vided by the treaty of Ghent, had become necessary. I was, for the first time, made acquainted with the claim set up by Great Britain in the spring of the year 1826, when ippointed Minister to the British Court. Wherever this pretension was known, it excited a general surprise and indignation. It was no longer an attempted construction of the articles of the treaty. It was viewed generally in America as being, not an interpretation, but a direct and obvious violation of the express terms of the treaty. You will find, by the official documents deposited in your library, with what pertinacity the claim was sustained by tlie British Agents : and you know that the extraordinary arguments to the same effect, contained in the Report of Messrs. Fratherstonhaugh and Mudge, were laid officially before Parliament. Subsequently a better spirit was evinced ; and this was followed by the conciliatory mission of Lord AsHBURTON. That the Government of Great Britain should ever have countenanced this pretended interpretation, has evei me. I on riei or five roughly ir 1798, 1 of the o meet len his nstrued 41 ever been, and is to this day, altogether incomprehensible to me. In the discussion of this pretension, the only difficulty on the part of the United States was that which was expe- rienced in an attempt to demonstrate a self-evident axiom, or to refute such an assertion as that " two and two make five." I II were 3 time, rs had r, pro- fry. I nn set when eneral mpted iewed but a f the your d by nary rt of iaJJy 2ed ; jord ouid has But this attempt was a fatal mistake, which shook the confidence justly due to the British Government for its fidelity in fulfilling its engagements, and which, by the ex- citement it produced and the incidents following from it, produced dangerous collisions, and prevented during a period of twelve years any approximation towards a conciliatory compromise. And now that such a compromise has happily been efffjcted, the attempts lately made to renew the dis- cussion on that particular subject can have, and have had, no other effect but to irritate. It appears that Count De Vergennes did, on the 5th of December, 1782, send some one map to Dr. FRANKLm, with a request that he would delineate on it the limits of the United States, as settled in tho preliminaries between the British and American Plenipotentiaries ; and that the map was returned the ensuing day by Dr. Franklin, with a note, stating that he had marked with a strong red line the limits aforesaid. It further appears, that in the geographical de- partment of the French Archives of Foreign Aftiiirs, which contains 60,000 maps, there is one of North America by Danville, dated 174G, in size about eighteen inches square, on which is drawn a strong red line throughout the entire boundary of the United States ; which line runs wholly south of the St. John, and between the head waters of that river and those of the Penobscot and Kennebec : it is the line T it; ( 1 1 ■ \ 1 1 1 1 , • 1 ^ 1 if ,1 1 II jii 42 contended for by Great Britain, except that it concedes more than is claimed : it leaves on the British side all the streams which flow into the St. John between the source of the St. Croix and Mars Hill : from the St. Croix to the, Canadian Highlands it is intended to exclude all the waters running into the St. John. There is no other coloring on any other part of the map. There is no endorsement or proof of any kind whatever that this is the map on which Dr. Franklin had delineated the limits as above stated. But admitting for a moment that this was the case, what does it prove? No line of demarcation traced on a map can alter the express terms of a treaty, or change the locality of a natural object. No red or other line, no legerdemain can transfer Mars Hill to the Highlands, in which the rivers that empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence have their sources, or make the White Mountains of New Hampshire be on the ridge which divides the waters of the River Connecticut from those of the Hudson. If the fact was established, it could only prove that a highly gifted man had once com- mitted a great blunder. This is: not altogether impossible ; but under all the circumstances of the case, it is so extremely improbable, and the presumption deduced from the fact, that there does exist in the French Archives a map of America with a red line, is so weak, that the supposition is altogether inadmissible. 6o\ laij in^ ani utt It may be, that the features of physical geography are less attended to, and the terms used in reference to it, less familiar to the mass of the English people than to Americans. But it would be difficult to find an American farmer who ili dos more streams I the St. 'anadian running ly other hatever ineated ent that ter the natural ransfer empty 3urces, on the 3cticut hed, it ! com- sible ; 3me]y t, that lerica ether are less !ans. who docs not know that, by the terms hciu^ht of land, hi^hlamh, which divide, or, dividing rid^^c, thiit rid^'c, or those high- lands, are always meant, in which tlic divided rivers, Hew- ing in opposite directions, have tiioir souroes. Unless direct and positive proof to the contrary shall be adduced, it is utterly impossible to admit that, within six days after hav- ing signed the treaty. Dr. Frankliv should have substituted for a point (the north-west angle of Nova Scotia) and for a line, declared expressly by the treaty to be on highlands dividing the rivers that empty themselves into the River 8t. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, a point and a line, which are on highlands which divide only the waters of the River St. John from those of the River St. Croix, and the Penobscot ; and which point and line arc one hundred miles distant from the highlands, in which rivers emptying themselves into the River St. Lawrence have their sources. It is, indeed, required from us to believe, that he had annihilated the due north line prescribed by the treaty, and substituted for it the crooked westwardly line which di- vides the Penobscot from the River St. John. It was not for the purpose of renewing the discussion, but in reference to the line thus ascribed to Dr. Franklin, that I have pointed out the proofs of the impossibiUty that the negotiators of the Treaty of 1782 could have intended the boundary claimed by Great Britain ; and, therefore, of the absurdity of the supposition which ascribes to Dr. Franklin the red line in question. I will go still farther : even if it was proved that the map found in the French Archives was that returned by Dr. Franklin to Count De Vergennes, it would be far more pro- bable that Dr. Franklin, after having traced on the map the southern boundary of the United States, left to some subor- dinate person in his office the care of tracing the residue, n 44 and returned to Count De Vergennes the map, without hav- ing compared it, than that he should have traced as the North-Eastern Boundary prescribed by the treaty the red line ascribed to him. ecause the treaty-making power neoessanly lievolvod Ujton the whole Union, as well accord- ing lo tlu^ Articles o\' Confederation, as. at'terwards. accord- ing to the Cv>nstitution o\ the United States. Weil, then, the question was. w hat is. or what was. the boundary be- tween the State o\' Massachusetts and the British province o\ Nova Scotia ' Nova Scotia did not join in the war of inde',xMidenee — did net separrite Irom the mother country ; Massachusetts did. and the question therelore was, what w as the boundary between them ' Now. in order to a general vnderstanding of that, we mulitieal occurrences on this continent. The war of 17. 56 brought on a general conli;ct on this conlinem be- 50 tWGcn England on the one side, and Franco and Spain on ihc other. From that period till the peace in lHV.h whieh ter- minated the war, Sjxiin possessed Florida, aiul Canada belonged to the French. Hy the peace ol" Paris in 17(»:i, Canada on the north, and Florida on the south, \verc ceded by France and Spain, respectively, to Great Itritain. Other conquests were made by British power in the West Indies ; and the British ministrv, in Octoher of that \cm\ hv i\\r. celebrated proclamation of the 7th ol' that month, delineil the boundaries of these respec ( colonies thus obtained from France and Spain ; and so far as the present subject is concerned, it may be enough to say, that the British (Govern- ment, in issuing the proclamation of 17('»;{, delining, descrrib- ing, and settling the boundaries of the ni'wly ac(|uire(l province of Canada or Ciuebec, asserted, for the boundary of Canada, a line against which Massachusetts had ('(in- tended, as against France, during tlu? preceding thirty or forty years. That is to say, the colony of l\lassachusctls had insisted that iier territory ran to the north hank of tho St. Lawrence. She claimed not to the highlands, but over them down to the rivei'. I'^ngland had never disiiountenaticcd this claim of her colony as against France. Fngliuid, then becoming owner of Canada by coiKpu^st and sul)se(|uent cession, described its boundaries as she desired to (ix tJHjm, by the celebrated line of " highlands." According to tho Proclamation, the line from Lake Nepissirigfat tlieriorth-W(!sf) was to cross the St. Lawrence and Lake ( 'haniplain in tho 45th degree of north latitude, and thence to proceed along the highlands which divide the rivers that empty themselves into the St. Lawrence from those whieh fall into the sea, iVc. Massachusetts complained of the proelamatio/i of \HV.i a» taking into Canada what she had insisted on as matter of her own right. Mr. Borland, Massachusetts agent, presented it strongly to the British Ministry as an invasion of the tcrri- w 60 I ' I'? Sii.i ', - ; )• (■■ ' torial rights of that colony. It happened, however, that in the interior of Maine, near the Kennebec, there was a tract of country to which it was alleged the crown of England had rightful claim. There grew up, therefore, a tacit consent, soon after the peace of '63, between the crown of England and Massachusetts, that if the former would forbear to as- sert any right to this territory, included within the general limits of the State of Maine, Massachusetts would not press the matter respecting the boundary between that State and Canada. Well, under these circumstances, when the peace of 1783 was made, the question was to ascertain what was the boundary between Massachusetts and Nova Scotia. The country was a wilderness, and the line was not easily defined. Many historical documents — the proclamation of 1763 — and many prior and subsequent proceedings of the Governments, were resorted to. Now I suppose that the ob- ject of the Commissioners of 1783 was to ascertain what was the existing line, and not to run any new line, as England being possessor of Canada by conquest from France, claimed under the French, and, according to general principles, would be bound by what had been the claims of her grantor. Now it is certain, that whilst the French owned Canada, down to the very day of its cession to Great Britain by the peace of 1763, the French maps, so far as I know, with hardly an exception, if any, represent the divisional line be- tween Massachusetts and Nova Scotia exactly according to the line contended for by us. The French maps which gave another representation, were the production of a sub- sequent epoch. It was fair, therefore, to say to England, " You must claim under your grantors, and according to their claim." of The provisions of the Treaty of 1783 undoubtedly meant to ascertain what the line was as it then existed, and so to It in ktof had [sent, [land 61 describe it. In regard to the map now presented, suppose the fact to be as I take it to be, that it was before the Com- missioners, because it has Mr. Jay's memorandum upon it, and connecting it with the proposition of the British minister of the 8th October, 1782, several things seem very fairly to be deducible ; and an important one is, that the north-west angle of Nova Scotia and the sources of the River St. John are identical, according to this map, and according to Mr. Oswald's proposition. How comes it then, the north-west- ern angle of Nova Scotia and the sources of the St. John being identical in the minds of men of that day, that that idea has not been followed up ? Well, that leads to one of the questions about which it is impossible to say that any one can lay down, beforehand, any positive rule, or decide fairly, without a full knowledge of the facts of the particu- lar case. The Commissioners proceeded upon a conviction of the accuracy and correctness of the geographical deline- ation upon the paper on their table Suppose it afterwards to turn out either that that delineation was, in some small degree, incorrect, or that it was materially incorrect, or that it was altogether incorrect ? what is the rule for such a case, or how far are mutual and common mistakes of this kind to be corrected ? On the face of Mitchell's map, (and a copy of that map was before the Commissioners, as all admit,) the Madawaska is laid down as a north and south line, or a river running from the north to the south ; there- fore, Mr. O.swALD says, " beginning at the north west angle of Nova Scotia," and then tracing the boundary to the Mis- sissippi, down that river to latitude thirty-one north, and so to the sea, and along the sea; and then says, the eastern boundary shall be the river St. John, from its source to its mouth. He goes, therefore, on the idea evidently that the source of the St. John is at the north-west angle of Nova Scotia ; or else he leaves a hiatus in his description. The fact, as U V.'' lil 62 slated by you, Sir, is, that this delineation of the Madawaska was erroneous. It is not a north and south river. Errors in the calculation of the longitude had led to giving it a north and south direction ; whereas, it should have a north- west and south-east direction : and this error carries the map, in order to conform to the fact, from forty to fifty miles further to the west. Now, of the various questions which we may reasonably suppose to arise in a case of that sort, one would be, whether, in a case of mutual mistake of that kind, founded on a mutual misapprehension, this error was to be corrected, or whether the parties were to be bound by it, let the true course of the river be what it might. These questions are no longer of great importance to us, since the whole matter has been settled ; but they may have their in- fluence, and are worthy of consideration in a historical point of view. The conflict of these maps is undoubtedly a pretty re- markable circumstance. The great mass of cotempora- neous maps is conformable to the claims of the United States, and the remarks read by the President of the Society are most cogent to evince this. The treaty negotiated in Paris, by Mr. Oswald, on the part of the British Govern- ment, met with great opposition in the British Parliament. It was opposed on the very ground that it made a line of boundary "exceedingly inconvenient to Great Britain ;" or as a leading member of Parliament said, that it made the United States masters both of Nova Scotia and New Bruns- wick ; and maps were published exhibiting this line exactly as claimed by the United States. These maps accompanied the Parliamentary papers and debates. Now it is very ex- traordinary — it would be deemed almost incredible, that if these maps, thus making out a case on which so much stress 63 laska rrors it a )rth- the liles '^hich sort, that was id by rhese be the ^ir in- point had been laid, against the British Ministry, and their nego- tiation, had been erroneous, nobody in the Foreign office, nor the Minister, nor Mr. Oswald himself, should have one word to suggest against the accuracy of these maps. They defended the treaty and boundary as presented on the maps, not going on the ground at all that those mnps ex- hibited any erroneous presentation. Nevertheless, it is a matter of historical notoriety, that from the time of the con- clusion of that treaty till our day it had been impossible to bring the two Governments to any agreement on the matter. That on the words of the treaty — on the fair and necessary import of the words of the treaty, the case is, and has al- ways been with the United States, I very much doubt if any intelligent Englishman at this day would be found ready to deny. The argument has been, not that it is possible to shew the line any where else — not that it is possible to bring the north-west anHe of Nova Scotia this side of all the wa- ters that run into the St. John — I suppose no man of sense and common candor would undertake to maintain seriously such a proposition as that — but tho argument always has been, that which was successfully pressed upon the King of Holland — that there was a difficulty in ascertaining the meaning of these words ; when we look to localities, the highlands, the streams, and face of the country ; and that difficulty led his Majesty, as difficulties of a similar charac- ter in other cases lead referees and arbitrators, into the no- tion of" splitting the difference," or compromising the claim — and drawing a line between that claimed by us on the one hand, and that claimed by the British Government on the other. The English Government, therefore, has always proceeded less upon the terms of the treaty themselves, than on those external considerations ; and especially upon that of the great inconvenience of such a line of demarcation, and founded upon that as its natural result, another inference, M 64 til II J the high impossibility that England would have agreed to a line — unnecessarily — which separated her own provinces from one another, and made the communication between them dependent on the will and pleasure of a foreign power. The treaty of Washington, and the negotiations which pre- ceded it, were entered into in a spirit of compromise and settlement. Wiien the present administration came into power, it de- termined, that as an arbitration conducted with the greatest diligence, ability, and learning, on the part of the United States, had failed ; and that, as the matter was likely at all events to terminate in compromise at last, it might be quite as wise for the pjirties to attempt to compromise it them- selves, on such considerations as they might see fit to adopt ; rather wiser this, indeed, you must surely admit, than to refer it to the consideration of a third power. (Great applause.) It was upon that principle, and in that spirit, that the negotia- tions of 1842 were entered into. It was altogether in that amicable and rational spirit in which one neighbor says to another, according to the Scripture, " Let us agree with our adversary while we arc on the way wiih liim." Or, as one might suppose two landed proprietors would have done, whose contiguous estates had inconvenient projecting corners — irregular lines, producing inconvenience in the management of plantations and farms. These things, in private life, are adjusted, not on the principle that one shall get all he can, and grant nothing, or yield every thing and get nothing ; but on the principle that the arrangement shall be for the mutual convenience and advantage of both parties, if the terms can be made fair, and equal, and honorable to both. (Great applause.) I believe, or at least I trust with great humility, that the judgment of the country will ulti- mately be, that tlae arrangement in this case was not an ob- 65 ■to a lices reen liver. jpre- and jectionable one. (Applause.) In the first place, I am will- ing to maintain every where, that in regard to the States of Massachusetts and Maine, they are better off this day, than if Lord AsiiiuiRTON had not signed the treaty, but had signed, in behalf of his Government, a relinquishment of the claim of England to every square foot of the territory, and gone home. These States get more by the opening of the navi- gation of the rivers, and by the other benefits obtained through the treaty, than all the territory is worth north of the St. John, according to any estimate any gentleman has yet been pleased to make. And as to the United States, if we can trust the highest military judgment in the coun- try — if we can trust the general sense of intelligent per- sons acquainted with the subject — if we can trust our own common sense on looking to the map, an object of great importance has been attained for the United States and the State of New-York, by the settlement of the question about the forty-fifth degree of north latiiude, along from Vermont to the St. Lawrence across the outlet of Lake Champlain. At the same time that these are gains, or advantages, it does not follow that because this whole arrangement is highly advantageous to the States of Massachusetts and Maine, of great importance to the United States, and particularly use- ful to the States of New- York, Vermont, and New Hampshire, that therefore it must be disadvantageous, or dishonorable to the other party to the treaty. By no means. It is a narrow and selfish, a crafty and mean spirit, that supposes that in things of this sort there can be nothing gained on one side, without a corresponding loss on the other. (Protracted ap- plause.) Such arrangements may be, and always should be, for the mutual advantage of all parties. England has not any reason to complain. She has obtained all she wanted — a reasonable boundary and a fair communication — a "con- venient" communication and line of intercourse between her i 06 own provinces. Who is therefore to complain ? Massa- chusetts and Maine, by the unanimous vole of all their agents, have adopted the treaty. It has been ratified by the English Government. And though in party times, and in contests of men, some little dust may be thrown into the air, and some little excitement of the political elements may be produced occasionally, yet so far as we know, no consid- erable fermentation on the subject exists. How far the United States consider themselves benefited by it, let the votes of the two Houses of Congress decide. A greater majority, I will undertake to say, in either House, was never given in favor of any treaty from the foundation of the Government to the present time. (Great applause.) 1^ !' ■ m With respect, Sir, to the publication of Mr. Feathers- TONHAUGH, and the tone of sundry articles in the London press, about the Paris map, I hope nobody supposes, so far as the Government of the United States is concerned, that all these things are exciting any sensation at Washington. Mr. Featherstonhaugh does not alarm us, for our repu- tation. (Laughter.) Going on the idea that either there must be a second arbitration or a settlement by compromise, — finding that no arbitration which should not end in a com- promise would be successful in settling the dispute, the Govern- ment thought it iis duty to invite the attention of the two StaleSj immediately concerned, to the subject — to ask them to take part in negotiations about to be entered into, with an assurance that no line of boundary should be agreed to without their consent — and without their consent, also, to all the con- ditions and stipulations of the treaty, respecting the boun- dary. To this the two States agreed, with the limitation upon the consent of their agents, that with regard to both States it should be unanimous. In this state of things, un- 61 jir [he in [he Iny id- [he the liter ras of doubtediy it was the duty of the Government of the United Slates to hiy before these Stales thus admitted into the nego- tiations, all the information in its power. Every office in Washington was ransacked — every book of authority con- sulted — the whole iustory of all the negotiations, from the treaty of Paris downward, was produced — and among the rest this discovery in Paris, to go for what it was worth. If these afforded any evidences to their minds to produce a conviction that it might be used to obscure their rights, — to lead an arbitration into an erroneous, unjust compromise, — that was all for their consideration. The map was submit- ted as evidence, together with all the other proofs and docu- ments in the case, without the slightest reservation on the part of the Government of the United States. I must con- fess that I did not think it a very urgent duty on my part to go to Lord AsHBURTON and tell him that I had found a bit of doubtful evidence in Paris, out of which he might perhaps make something to the prejudice of our claims, and from which he could set up higher claims for himself, or obscure the whole matter still further ! (Laughter.) I will detain you. Sir, by no remarks on any other part of the subject. Indeed, I had no expectation of being called upon to speak on the subject, in regard to which my own situation is a delicate one. I shall be quite satisfied if the general judgment of the country shall be — in the first place, that nothing disreputable to the country, nothing prejudi- cial to its interests in regard to the line of boundary, has been done in the treaty ; and in the next place, and above all things, that a fair, honorable, manly disposition has been manifested by the Government in settling the question, and putting an end to a controversy which has disturbed the re- lations of the country for fifty years, not always without m some danger of breaking the public peace, often with the eflfect of disturbing their commercial intercourse, spreading distrust between those having daily dealings with one anoth- er, and always tending to excite alarm, jealousy, and suspi- cion. (Loud and continued applause.) A vote of thanks to the President and the Hon. Daniel Webster, was then passed, the question being put by the First Vice-President, and ihe meeting adjourned. I) lis i; NOTE. e Mr. Gallatin, in his observations on Mr. Jay's Map, contained in his memoir, read on iho loth of April, slated that the line on the map, designated in Mr. Jay's hand-writing as " Mr. OsivaUVs line" must have been thus laid down with the assent and knowledge of Mr. Os- wald, and that a copy or graphic description of it must have been transmitted by him to his (government. On the 19th of April, English papers were received, by the packet ship "Mediator," containing the Parliamentary debate of the 2l8t of March, on the Ashburton 2''reafi/, in which Sir Robert Peel is re- ported to have said : " There is one more point on which I must touch before I sit down. The noble Lord has spoken at great length of a map recently discov- ered. [Hear, hear.] He seems to think that that map so discovered aflfords conclusive evidence of the justice of the British claims. Now, Sir, in the first place, let me observe to the noble Lord, that contempo- rary maps may be — when the words of the treaty referred to by them are in themselves doubtful — they may be evidence of the intentions of those who framed them, but the treaty must be executed according to the words contained in it. [Hear, hear.] Even if the map were sus- tained by the parties, it could not contravene the words of the treaty; but the noble Lord considers that a certain map which has been found in the archives of the Foreign Otfice at Paris, is conclusive evidence of the justness of the British claims. Now, Sir, I am not prepared to acqui- esce in any such assertion. Great blame has been thrown upon Mr. Webster with respect to this map. He has been charged with perfidy and want of good faith, in not having at once disclosed to Lord Ash- burton the fact of his possessing this map. Now J must say that it is rather hard, when we know what are the practices of diplomatists and negotiators — [a laugh] — I say, it is rather hard to expect that the ne- I 70 gotiator on the part of ttic United States shonlil be held bound to dis' close to the diplomatist with whom he was in treaty all the weak points of his case; and I think, therefore, that the reflections cast upon Mr. Webstkr— gentleman of worth and honor— arc, with respect to this matter, very unjust. This mnp was, it is true, found in the archives of the Foreign Ortice at Paris, and a letter of Dr. Franklin was also found, having reference to some map ; but there is no direct connexion between the map so found and the letter of Dr. Franklin. [Hear.] In general, there is such a reference in the case of mops referred to in despatches ; but there is none in this case. There is nothing to show that the map so found is the identical map referred to by Dr. Frank- lin in his letter; and nothing can be more fallacious than relying on such maps. For, let mc state what may be said on the other side of the question with rrspect to maps. We made incjuiry about those maps in the Foreign Office at Paris, and we could find none such as that in question at first. We have not been so neglectful in former times with respect to the matter as the noble Lord scums to think. We made in(|uiries, in 1626 and 1B37, into the maps in the Foreign Office at Paris, for the purpose of throwing light upon the intentions of the negotiators of 1783. A strict search was made for any documents bear- ing in any way upon the disputed question, but at that time neither letter nor map could be found. However, there were afterwards discovered, by a gentleman engaged in writing a history of America, a letter and a certain map, supposed by him to be the map referred to in the letter. In answer to our first inquiry, as I have already stated, no such map could be discovered. The first which we received from the Foreign Office at Paris was a map, framed in 17H3 by Dr. Faden, Geographer to the King of England. On that map is inscribed, 'A Map of the boundary of the United States, as agreed to by the treaty of 1763; by Mr. Faden, Geographer to the King.' Now, Sir, that map placed the boundary according to the American claim ; yet it was a contemporary map, and it was published by the Geographer to the British King. There is a work, which I have here, a political periodical of the time of 1783, called Berne's Journal. It gives a full report of the debate in Parliament upon the treaty then being concluded, and, in order to illus- trate the report, it also gives a map of the boundaries between the coun- tries as then agreed to. That map, Sir, also adopts the line claimed by the United States. On subsequent inquiry at Paris, we found a map, which must be the map referred to by Mr. Jared Sparks. There i» 71 boundary ». claimed by tW Bnmh^ U _ ._ ._ _,_^ ^^^ „. d.A„viU». of 1746 and •",'; ™ ^t .,nc. no indicion of con- ferred to by Mr. JA»e» Sfahk. , but „. To .ay ibat Lion between it and the ^"'^-^^Jl^Z.. »u. .»"« ■' «'« ,hey were connected U a mere u,,lo nW tnl ^^. ^^^ ,__,^ ^j„^_ .no'hermap. "--'" '""f He date 1753. That map «a. „as debited a map. l-y """ 'f °j ;, „„, „,„ in tbe po.,e,«on of in the vn^moT, of tbe iate Kmg, and « ^^ „^ ^„. l „„r,e Lord, but he did »°< J™— a^Ved line, and on that line .T.:». IHear.heat.l •' » """^ ' ,,„, negotiator, Mr. 0.W*..... U written 'Boundary a., f "'"f , "/ ^ ;,/s,„.„.. tHear, hear.l .„d that line fo.iowa the cla.m o ',e U,u_^ ^^ ._^^ __,. „, ,„, That ma,. wa8 on on extended scale. pWcai in.|U.riM. King, who wa. particularly cur^u «» ec 6__^_^,_^, ^,,„„„, ,„ On that map, I repc". " l''7;ff';',,„ce, on that line, ' B""""- .he United State,-.nd on four d He c"t, Now, 1 do not say „ a. described by Mr. OswAtn. H'"; „,„ „„go,lators ; hut It that was *e>»"";-y"7:'^^„; ^cl-aimuponcontempora- nothing can be more fallactous than ound ^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ; maps, unless yon can al»o P'-c * y ^^„, .^ „„ ,„a re- lators, •"^«''-*=""''lt">. en successful in obtaining our „r,ed to arbitration, we f"fj°;,"„„,.„ would be open to much d,.- Cims, I cannot help """^^ '^°;* h^telaimof Grea.Brit.in was well eossion. Meed.Idono.belteveO a *» „,,„« to rattfy. founded; .hat it U » "'»'"'.'•'';, ^oh have been instituted stnce I canno. say, either, that .he '"'l"' ^J,'' ,„„g,Hened my convcuon Mr. S»«KS' di»=overy have ^"^'^^ J^^^ ,, ,hey were, and rither way. I «WnU .hey leave m««r» ^^^ ^^^,^^,^,„„ .h.,, ring, I'hinlt, can ^^^Z^^:,^^ "^T'"SZ if referred to arbitratton the 'fr'^^y^^^.^f „„ps, which would not 72 It thus appears, not only that the map fouml in Paris by Mr. Sparks had already become known to the British Government, but also that the map in the King's library had been in its possession and was not com- municated to the Government of the United States. The books in the King's library had many years ago been transferred to thb British Mu- seum. This map was brouglit from the Museum to the Foreign Otfice during Lord Palmerston's times, and was known to him as well as to Mr. Featherstonhauoh. Wc have autiiority for stating that Lord Aberdeen has said, that lie was not personally aware of the existence of this map till after the conclusion of the treaty, and that Lord AsH- BURTOX was equally ignorant of it till his rcturu to England. mar by 11.11 \i^ We understand that a line, from Lake Nipissing towards the source of the Mississippi, had once been drawn on this map, and has since been partially erased, though still visible. As the line is that which, in that (juarter, had been i)roposed by the agreement of 8lh October, 1782, it is probable that it was originally traced in conformity with that agreement, and was thus far the counterpart of that of Mr. Jay. But this line has been erased : and the eastern boundary of the United States is not on this map as on that of Mr. Jav, and in conformity with the said agree- ment, the River St. John from its mouth to one of its sources. On the contrary, the eastern boundary is on this map, found in the King's library, that described in the Preliminaries of Peace, viz : the River St. Croix from its mouth to its source, and thence a due north line to the highlands. And this line, distinctly marked on the map, and designated in several places as " the boundary described by Mr. Oswald," carries the northwestern angle of Nova Scotia far to the north of the River St. John, and thence extends along the higlilands as claimed by the United States. There can, therefore, be no doubt that, although the line, proposed by the contingent agreement of the 8th of October, 1762, had ;n the first instance been traced on the map, this was erased, and the boundary, established by the Preliminaries of .'JOth November, 1782, (since ratified vcrouiim by the dcHiiitive treaty,) was substituted and to recognise. That was my firm opinion, but I confess that the speeches of Mr. RiVKs, and Mr. J. Si'ahk.s' iiscovcncs in liiu archives, Jiave not matciiuily strengthened my ronviclions ; I think they leave the question very much where it was." 73 marked on that map for the information of King George t ik Third, by Mr. Oswald liimself, or some one under liis direction. Anotlier map of Mitchell has been discovered in the State Paper Office in England, on which the boundary is traced with a red crayon according to the British claim : but this is of no authority, as it is not known by whom or when that line was traced. A copy of another map again exists here, which was published in 1784, under the auspices of the British Admiralty, and in which the boundary line is marked in con- formity with the American claim. ' There is a great similarity in the views of Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Webster respecting the weight to which those various maps are en- titled. We will say, that unaltered engraved maps are good evidence of the general understanding at the time, so far, and so far only, as they all agree in some one respect. This was the case witii respect to the higli- iands intended as the southern boundary of Canada by the Proclama- tion of 17G3 and the Quebec Act of 1774, and also as regards the boundary intended by tlie Treaty of Peace. In both instances, all the coteniporaneous maps published in England agree without a single ex- ception, and sustain the claim of the United States. Mitchell's map, as issued, and whhout subsequent lines traced on it, is the acknowledged evidence of the knowledge which the negotiators of the treaty of 1782-3 had of the topography of the country. But bound- ary lines, subsequently traced on that or on any other map, prove no- thing, unless it can be proved that they were adopted or traced by or with the knowledge of the negotiators. The only authentic maps of that character are that of Mr. Jay and that found in thu King's library. The question is now settled : and we consider these and other maps simply as historical or explanatory documents, and such as it is the ob- ject of this Society to collect and to rescue from oblivion. The map used by Mr. Jay, during the negotiations of 1782, was one of Mitchell. We have annexed a fac-siniilc transcript of its norlhenst- crn sheet. It diflers in no respect from Mitchell's original map, but in its being colored, and having besides a red line proved to have been traced on it by Mr. Jay, designated in his hand-writ. ng as Mr. Os- 74 waUVs line, and which is in conformity with the agreement of 8th Octo- ber, 1782. It proves beyond doubt, that the dividing highlands intend, ed by that agreement, (and which are described in the same identical words in the agreement and in the treaty of peace,) did, from the north- ern extremity of Mitchell's Medousa Lake to the northeastern source of the Penobscot, for a distance of more than one hundred and twenty miles, divide no other rivers, from those emptying into the River St. Lawrence, than tributary streams of the River St. John. This puts at rest the question respecting the intentions of the negotiators. We do not pretend that the coloring, exclusively of thnt line, was done by Mr. Jay. It appears to have been previously executed by a map vender. The green southerly boundary of Canada is evidently intended to be drawn in conformity with the Quebec Act of 1774. The residue appears to be only Mitchell's dotted lines colored. nd. ical •th- 5 of nfy St. I at 'as a ly he I