IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 11 1.8 1.25 1.4 J4 ^ 6" — ► VQ <^ /^ '^* §S^. /^ '■'# "# Photographic Sdences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 873-4503 ^ o CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical IVIicroreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notaa/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D D D Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie «t/ou pelliculAe I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ Cartes giographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleua ou noire) P~| Coloured plates and/or Illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relii avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distors^on le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte. mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas iti filmies. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a it6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithode normale de filmage sont indiquis ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D D D D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restauries et/ou pelliculAes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dicolories, tacheties ou piquies Pages detached/ Pages ditachies Showthrough/ Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ Qualiti inigale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplimentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc.. ont iti filmies A nouveau de facon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. \/ Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentaires: Various pagings. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmi au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 12X 16X 20X 26X 30X ] 24X 28X 32X Th« copy film«d h«r« has b««n raproduced thanks to tha ganarosity of: New Bruniwick Muieum Saint John Tha imagas appaaring hara ara tha bast quality possibia considaring tha condition and lagibility of tha originai copy and in icaaping with tha filming contract spacificationa. Original eopiaa in printad papar eovars ara fllmad baginning with tha front eovar and anding rn tha last paga with a printad or illustratad impras- sion, or tha bacic covar whan appropriata. All othar original copias ara fllmad baginning on tha first paga with a printad or illustratad impras- sion, and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraasion. Tha last racordad frama on aach microflcha shell contain tha symbol — ^- (moaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha symbol V (moaning "END"), whichavar appltas. L'sxamplaira fiimA fut raproduit grica A la gin^rositi da: New Bruniwicic Museum Saint John Laa imagaa suivantaa ont M« raproduitaa avac la plua grand soin, compta tanu da la condition at da la nattati da i'axamplaira filmA. at an conformity avac las conditions du contrat da filmaga. Laa axamplairaa originaux dont la couvartura 9n papiar ast imprimia sont fiimis w% commandant par la pramiar plat at 9n tarminant soit par la darnlAra paga qui comporta una ampraintca d'imprassion ou d'illustration, soit par la sacond plat, salon la cas. Tous laa autras axamplairaa originaux sont filmte an commandant par la pramlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'impraasion ou d'illustration at an tarminant par la darnlAra paga qui comporta una talla amprainta. Un daa symbolos suivants apparattra sur la darniira imaga da chaqua microflcha, salon la cas: la symbols -^ signifia "A SUIVRE", la symbols ▼ signifia "FIN". IVIap». plataa. t^'M^n mvz . ma> ha filmad at diffarant raductio.i .^tios. Thoaa too iarga to ba antiraly includad in ona axitosura ara fllmad baginning in tha uppar laft .Sand cornar, laft to right and top to bottom, aa many framaa aa raquirad. Tha following diagrama illustrata tha mathod: Laa cartaa, planchas. tabiaaux, ate, pauvant Atra fllmte A daa taux da rMuction diff Grants. Lorsqua la documant aat trop grand pour Atra raproduit 9n un saul cliche, il ast filmA A partir da I'angia sup^riaur gaucha, da gaucha A droita, at da haut an baa, an pranant la nombra d'imagas nteassaira. Laa diagrammas suivants illustrant la m^thoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 r 4 *'''«K5j '^i f^pSSiW! ■*< NORTH AMERICAN BOUNDARY. A. J, its:. V!^' fr*«- CORRESPONDENCE StLATINO TO THE BOUNDARY BCrWUH THB BRITISH POSSESSIONS IN NORTH AMERICA AND THR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CMDBR THB TREATY OF 178S. SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE REFERENCE TO ARBITRATION OF THE DISPUTED POINTS OF BOUNDARY, UNDER THE CONVENTION OF THEaDxH SEPTEMBER, 1827, AND THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE TREATY OF GHENT. WITH AN APPENDIX. # Pretenied to both Houaei of Parliament by CnT,tmand of Her Majeity, 1838. LONDON: PRINTED BY J. HARRISON AND SON. Mi •f^ •WfspWPpB^^ ■\\ .-i TABLE OF CONTENTS. A. Pig* to I'hc- CORRESPONDENCE between the British Government and the GoTcmment of the United States, relating to the letttement of the Line of Boundary ; from the year 1 83 1 to the year 1838 100 APPENDIX. ff I. Treaty of 1783 1 II. Article V. of the Treaty of Ghent, 1814 4 III. Convention of Arbitration, 1827 4 IV. Deciiion of the King of the Nctherlandi on the points referred to his arbitration. . 7 V. Map. itU IT?' .•rtiO nvi • I \ LIST OF PAPERS. i No. 1831 1. Viscount Palmeraton to the Right Hon. C. R. Vnif^han Forei^ Office, February 9. I Inelosure. — W. P. Preble, Eaq. to the Baron Verstotk de Soelen. The Hague, January 12. I 2. The Right Hon. C. R. Vaughon to Viscount Palmcrslon Washington, March 12. .'1 3. The Right Hon. C. R. Vaughan to Viscount I'almerston Washington, March 20. 4 4. Tlic Right Hon. C. R. Vaughan to Viscount Palmerston Washington, April 12. 4 5. The Right Hon. C. R. Vaughan to Viscount Palmerston Washington, April 20. 5 6. Charles Uankhcad, Esq. to Viscount Palmerston Washington, July 21. (i 7. Charles Rankhead, Esq. to Viscount Palmerston New York, August 23. 6 8. Viscount Palmerston to Charles Bankhead, Esq Foreign Office, October 14. 7 9. Viscount Palmerston to Charles Bankhead, Esq Foreign Office, October 14. 9 10. Charles Rankhead, Esq to Viscount Palmerston Washington, December G. 'J Inelosure. — Extract from the Message of the President 9 1 1. Charles Bankhead, Esq. to Viscount Palmerston Washington, December 20. 10 1832. 12. Charles Bankhead, Esq. to Viscount Palmerston Washington, Feb. 12. 10 13. Charles Bankhead, Esq. to Viscount Palmerston Washington, March 29. 10 14. Charles Bankhead, Esq. to Viscount Palmerston Washington, June 13 II 15. Charles Bankhead, Esq. to Viscount Palmerston Washington, July 13. II 16. Charles Bankhead, Esq. to Viscount Palmerston Washington. July 21. 13 Inelosure. — The Hon. Edward Livingston to Charles Bankhead, Esq. Washington, July 21. 12 17. Charles Bankhead, Esq. to Viscount Palmerston Washington, July 28. 14 18. A. Vail, Esq. to Viscount Palmerston Regent Street, August 20. 15 19. Viscount Palmerston to A. Vail, Esq Foreign Office, August 27. 15 20. Cliarlcs Bankhead, Esq. to Viscount Palmerston Washington, Dec. 5. 15 Inelosure.^ — Extract from the Message of the President 15 1833. 21. Viscount Palmerston to Sir C. R. Vaughan Foreign Office, Feb. 25. 16 22. A. Vail, Esq. to Viscount Palmerston Regent Street, April 3. 18 23. Sir C. R. Vaughan to Viscount Palmerston Washington, April 13. 19 24. Sir C. R. Vaughan to Viscount Palmerston Washington, May 13. 19 Inelosure i. — Sir C. R. Vaughan to the Hon. Edward Livingston. Washington, April 14. 21 2. — The Hon. Edward Livingston to Sir C. R. Vaughnn. Washington, April 30. 23 3. — Sir C. R. Vaughan to the Hon. Edward Livingston. Washington, May 11. 24 23. Sir C. R. Vaughan to Viscount Palmerston Washington, Jime 4. 26 lucloaure i. — The Hon. Edward Livingston to Sir C. R. Vaughan. Washington, May 28. 28 2.~Sir C. R. Vaughan to (lie Hon. Louis McLane. Washington, May 31. 29 36. Sir C. R. Vaughan to Viscount Palmerston Washington, June 12. .11 Inelosure I.— The Hon. Louia McLanc to Sir C. R. Vaughan. Washington, June 3. 33 2. — Sir C. H. Vaughan to the Hon. Louis McLane Washington. June 6. 33 27. Sir C. R. Vaughan to Viscount Palmcrslon Washington, June 20. 34 28. Sir C. R. Vaughan to Viscount Palmerston Washington, July 4. 3^ 29. Sir C. R. Vaughan to Viscount Palmerston Washington, Nov. 12. 36 30. Sir C. R. Vaughan to Viscount Palmerston Washington, Dec. 4. 37 Inelosure. — Extract from the Message of the President 37 31. Viscount Palmerston to Sir C. R. Vaughan Foreign Office, Dec. 21. 37 32. Viscount Palmerston to Sir C. R. Vaughan Foreign Office, Dec. 21. 40 1834. 33. Sir ('. R. Vanghan to Viscount Palmerston Washington, Feb. 12. 41 34. Sir C. R. Vaughan to Viscount Palmerston Washington, March 12. 42 Inelosure. — Tlio Hon. Louis McLane to Sir C. R. Vaughan. Washington, March 11. 43 35. Sir C. R. Vaughan to Viscount Palmerston W'ashington, March 20. 48 IncloBure.— Sir C. R. Vaughan to the Hon. Louis McLoue. Washiugton, March 16. 48 u 1834. 3(1. Sir C. H. ^'«ll)flli^l1 to Vi^roiint PnlniprHton Wnnhinffton, Mnnli SB. SI lai'loiun.' 1. — The Hon, Ix)iiin Mi'I Jiiu' to Sir C 11. Vnii(ihan, \Viurinciple of demarcation for which Great Britain contended, introduced a s|)ecial modifioation of that principle for the convenience and advantage of the United Slates, without oH'ering to Great Britain, any compensation for the loss thus occasioned to her. But these were not considerations by which His Majesty thought hin\self at liberty to be influenced, in deciding the question of his acceptance or rejection of tlie decision of His Netherland .Majesty. In whatever degree His Majesty's wishes or cx|)ectations may have been disappointed by that decision, His Majesty dill not hesitate to act upon the stipulation contained in the Vlltli Article of the Convention of Arbitration, that " the decision of the arbiter when given, " siiall be taken to be flnal and conclusive ; " and 1 lis Majesty fultilled tiiis duty witii tlie f.'reater cheerfulness, from the confident hope that in thus completing the eiigaiicnicut which he had contracted, he was finally setting at rest a dispute wliicli bad I. ecu so long and so li()|)elcssly ai:;itati(l, lirlwccn the two (iovcrnua'iits, to the interruption of that perfect agrceuK'nt and harmony on all points, which r If 6 it is His Majesty's sincere desire to see permanently established between Great Britain and the United States of America. His Majesty would indeed be deeply grieved, if he could suppose that the Government of the United Str.tes could hesitate to adopt the same course which His Majesty has pursued on this occasion. For what other prospect of an adjust- ment of this long pending difference would then remain ? Commissioners since the Treaty of 1 783, have found it impossible to reconcile the description of the boundary contained in that Treaty, with the real features of the country ascertained by actual survey ; and the hopelessness of establishing absolutely, in favour of cither party, the point which has thus, since the year 1 783, been the subject of controversy between them, has now received a new confirmation by the solemn decision of an arbitrator, chosen by both parties, who has pronounced it to be incapable of being established in accordance with the terms of the original Treaty, that Treaty having been drawn up in ignorance of the real features of the country, which it professed to describe. Seeing that there cannot be a settlement of the claims of either party in strict accordance with the Treaty of 178.3, what course would remain, even if the choice were now to be made, but that which was agreed upon by the negotiators of the Treaty of Ghent ; viz', the adjustment of the differences between the two Governments by means of an arbitrator ? And how unreasonable would it be to object to such an adjustment, because it aimed at settling by compromise, differ- ences pronounced to be otherwise irreconcileable. That such an adjustment, and not a rigid adoption of one of the two claims to the exclusion of all compro- mise, was the object of the IVth Article of the Treaty of Ghent, will be manifest upon referring to that Article, in which provision is made for a decision of the arbiter which should be final and conclusive, even although the arbiter, owing to the neglect or refusal of one of the parties, should have had before him only one of the two claims which it would be his j)rovincc to adjust. Even the official cor- respondence of the United States furnishes proofs that such was the understanding in that country, and among parties most interested in the subject, as to what would be the effect of the reference of this question to arbitration. " By " arbitration," (says the Governor of the State of Maine, in a letter to the President of the United States, dated May 19th, 1827, and previously, of course, to the conclusion of the Convention), " I understand a submission to " some Fori'ii^n Sovereign or State, who will decide at pleasure on the whole " subject, who will be under no absolute obhgations or effectual restraint, by " virtue of the Treaty of 1783." And it appears, by a letter from the same functionary, dated the 18th of April in the same year, that Mr. Gallatin had used the following words, in a despatch to his Government on the same subject : " An umpire, whether a king or a farmer, rarely decides on strict principles of " law, he has always a bias, to try, if possible, to split the difference:" and the Secretary of State of the United States, in a letter to the Governor of Maine, written after the conclusion of the Treaty of Arbitration (vi/. on the 27th of November, 18'J7), adverting to the above-mentioned exposition, by Mr. Gallatin, of tiie usual practice of umpires, and to the objection which the Governor of Maine had thereupon stated to the mode of settlement by arbitration, while he defends the Convention in spite of the objection of the Governor of Maine, admits that it is an objection to which the Convention is liable. These passages will be found in the printed paper. No. 171, 30th Congress, 1st Session, at pages 80, 8"), and 99. On every ground, therefore. His Majesty feels confident that if the Govern- ment of the United States have not already, before your recei])t of this despatch, announced their assent to the award of the King of the Netherlands, they will not hesitate to enable you to apprize His Majesty's Government of their acquiescence in that decision. The grounds on which Flis Majesty's acceptance of it was founded, have been fully explained to you in this despatch, and among the motives which influenced His Majesty on that occasion, there was none more powerful than the anxious desire which His Majesty feels, to improve and confirm the harmony which so happily exists on other subjects, between Great Britain and the United States of America, by thus settling, once for all, a (juestion of great difficulty, r id for which His Majesty is unable to see any other satisfactory solution. I am, &c. V. Bankhead, Enq., (Signed) PALMERS TON. Sic ifc. Sxc. 9 No. 9. Viscount Pitlmerston to Charles Bankhead, Esq. Sir, Foreign Office, October 14, 1831. you will learn from the instruction, contained in my other despatch of tliis (late, on the subject of the north-eastern boundary, that the communication wliich you are to make, in the name of His Majesty, to the Government of the United States, extends no farther than to propose a simple and unconditional acceptance of tht award of the King of the Netherlands by the United States, and the consecpuuit aji|)ointnu'nt of commissioners to carry that award into effect ; such being, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, the only course to be pursued at the present stage of the boundary ([uestion, consistently with the respective interests and obligations of the two Govenunents. You are nevcrtiielcss authorized to intimate privately to the American Minister, upon any suitable occasion, that His Majesty's Government would not consider the formal acceptance of the award by Great Britain and the United States, as necessarily precluding the two Governments from any future modifi- cation of the terms of the arrangement prescribed in that instrument, provided it should appear that any particular parts of the boundary line, thus established, were capable of being imjiroved to the mutual convenience and advantage of both countries ; and you wilt state, that, after the award shall have been formally acceded to by both (Jovernments, His Majesty's Government will be ready to enter, with the Ciovernmcnt of the United States, into the consideration of the best means of effecting any such modification by reciprocal exchange and concession. You will, however, be particularly cautious in making any communication of this nature, to guard against the possibility of being misunderstood as inviting negotiation as a substitute for the adoption of the award. Until the award is mutually adopted, any suca concert between the two Governments would be impossible, because each party claiming the whole of the territory in dispute, there is no boundary line between the two, with respect to which modifications could be proposed by either party ; but when the award is acquiesced in by both sides, and a boundary line is thus established to which both Governments shall have assented, there will then be a basis upon which exchanges or modifications might reciprocally be efiiected. I am, &v. Charles Bankhead, Esq. (Signed) PALMEIISTON. &c. 8fc inc. No. 10. Charles Bankhead, Esq., to Viscount Palmerston — rReeeired December 29. J My Lord, iVashington, December C), 1831. I HAVK the honour to transmit to your L)r(iship, a copy of the Message Iroin the I'lrsidcnt of the United States, dt livered, this day, to both Houses of C'oui^rcs.^, upon the roiuniencement of tho session. I have the honour to be, &c. (Signed) CHARLES BANKHEAD. Vitiount Palmerston. «(c. Use Sfc. Inclosure in No. 10. Exlrnvt from the Message of the President. "AFTKll our transition from the state of colonies to that of an independent iiiition, nuiiiy points were found lU'cessary to be settled between us and Great Ih'itidn. Ainonj; tlii'iii was the demarcation of boundaries, not described with siilKcicnt precision in the 'Treaty of peace. Some of the lines that divide the states and territories ol the United States from the IJritish jirovinces, have been detiiiilively fixed. That, however, which si'|)arates us from the provinces c\' ('niiada and New Brunswick to the north and the east, was still in (iispute when i came into olHce. But 1 found arrangements made for its Hettlement, over wliich I hail no control. The commissioners who had been appointed under the provisions of the Treaty of Ghent, having been unable to agree, a Convention was 10 made with Great Britain by my immediate predecessor in office with the advice and consent ol' the Senate, by wiiich it wa8 agreed " that the points of difference " which have arisen in the settlement of the boundary line between the American " and British dominions, as described in tlie ."jtii Article of the Treaty of Ghent, " shall be referred, as therein provided, to some friendly Sovereign or State, who " shall be invited to investigate, and make a decision ujwn such points of " difference :" and the King of the Netherlands having, by the late President, and His Britannic Majesty, been designated as such friendly Sovereign, it became my duty to carry, witii good faith, the agreement so made, into full effect. To this end I caused all the measures to be taken which were necessary to a full exposi- tion of our case, to the sovereign iirbiter ; and nominated as Minister Pleni- potentiary to his court, a distinguished citizen of the State most interested in the (juesfion, and who haed in a very short time to be enaiilcd to transmit to me the ditlerent papei-s connected therewith, and to give such an answer to my note ati should be satisfactory. No. 14. Charles Bankhead, Esq. to Viscount Pulmerston. — {Received Juli) 13.) My Lord, WitMngton, June 13, 1832. I HAVE heretofore delayed the fulfilment of the iiii^tructions which I had the honour of receiving from yourIx)rdship, in your dcHpatch of October 14, of last year, respecting the ulterior views which His Majesty's Government might entertain, when the question of boundary, as awarded i)y the King of the Netherlands, should have been fully accpiiesced in by tiie United States. 1 did so, because the Senate in its executive capacity had sliewn no dis- position to take up the (piestion, and 1 thought that the slightest intimation on n»y part, as to the possibility of future negotiation, would, perhaps, endanger the favourable decision of the Senate upon the original (piestijn, which decision, fully and unconditionally declared, was to precede any other stc|) which might be taken thereupon. However, during the last two days, 1 Uarnt that the whole boundary question has been under the consideration of the Senate j and Mr. Livingston informed me, that he hoped very soon to be able to connnunicate to His Majesty's Goveriunent the derision of the United States upon it. I thought that this was a proper moment, informally, to intimate to the Secretary of State that His Majesty's Government might not be indisposed to enter into explanations with this Government with a view to cHect some modifications by reciprocal exchanj,e and concession, but that the full and unconditional acceptance of the award by this country muit precede any such intention on the part of Great Britain. Mr. Livingston asked me (and he did s > informally) whether I was authorized to make or to receive any overture before the President had signified his assent to the award ; I replied, of course, in the negative. I hope that your I^jrilshij) will not consider that 1 have exceeded the dis- cretionary power with which you invested me in bringing forward, at this moment, the possibility of a future arrangement being effected relative to the north-east boundary. I have the hoiu ur to bo, &c. yi>:count Pnlmerston. (Signid; CHARLES I3ANKI1EAD. tjc. iic J,r. No. l."). Charles Bankhead, Esq., to Viscount Pulmerston. — (Received August dj (Extract.) iVashiugton, .Juhj 13, 1832. IT is with great regret that I have to announce to your Lordship, that the Senate has refused to sanction the aecpiiescencr', on the part of the President of the United States, to the award of the King of the Netherlands on the disputed territory. 'J'lie subject was submitted to that body early in the session, and nccom- ])anied by the earnest wish of the President, that tlie awanl should be agreed to. 'J'he message was referred to the connnittee on foreign relations \\\w reported their ojiinion that the President's views should be acirded to. A niolion was then made that the votes of two thirds of the Senate should be ((>n^idered i\ecessary to prononncc a final opinion. This enabled the opponents of the measure to defeat the view's of the Government, and finally, the Senate withheld their assent to the award of His Netherland Majestv, and recommended C 2 12 to the President to enter into farther negotiations respecting the territory in dispute. I am sure that the President and his Cabinet, regret this decision on the part of the Senate. I have not yet received from the Secretary of State the official notificatioii of this proceeding, but I am given to understand that sucli a document is in preparation, and Sir. Livingston informs me that he hopes (he tenour of it will be such as shall, in some degree, be satisfactory to His Majesty's Government. No. 16. Charles Hankhead, Esq., to Viscount Palmerslon. — (Received August 18.7 My Lord, IVaMmjton, July 21, 1832. I AM at length enabled to transmit to your Lordship a copy of the note from the Secretary of State of the United States, in answer to the one which I had the honour of communicating to this Government in December last, and which contained the accession of His Majesty to the award of the King of the Nether- lands upon the subject of the north-east boundary. I regret to state to your Lordship that the Senate of the United State* have not consented to follow the unreserved and conciliatory conduct which influenced His Majesty on thi.s occasion. The Secretary of State, in the enclosed letter, states that the reasons which have induced the Senate thus to set aside the award, are to be found in the manner in which that award was given, — that a distinct (jucstion was proposed for His Nethcrland Majesty's decision ; and that, instead of offering his opinion as to the true meaning of that part of the Treaty of 178.T, whi
  • vern- menf , it is not for me to judi;e, but it is one which has long been desired by the United Stales, and by obtaining which, they exjiect to derive great advantages. \'arious reasons are adduced by the Sierctary of State for desiring thut such a negotiation ^if entered into) should be opened at Washington, and he concludes with the cx|)ression entlie part of the I'residi'nt, of an anxious desire that the ditlerence may be settled to the mutual henetit and good will of the parties interested. I thought right merely to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Livingston'* note, without taknig any excejition to the londuc t ot the .'^enate in rejecting tl.i- award, or otiering any remark on the lenj^th ot' time whiih has ehipsed biiijic thai body have come to a dceisicju upon the subject. 1 have the honour to be, X:c. Vitcount Palmernton, G.C.B, Jsjc. S)C. &jC. ^Signed; GHAHLES HANKHEAD. Inclosure in No. HI. Thr Hon. Edward lArtnijstnn, to Cliarlfl.s linnkheod, Esq, Dcpiirlmeiit of Slate, Wtisliinfjlon, July 21, lb32. THE Undersigned, &c. will now have the honor to fulfil to Mr. Bankhead, m 13 &c., the promise which he made, that as soon as the action of the Senate shoultl he known, on the reference made to that hody, of the decision of the King of the Netherlands, the Undersigned would answer Mr. Bankhead's note of 20th Decem- ber hist. His Britannic Majesty's Government is too well acquainted with the division of powers in that of the United States, to make it necessary to enter into any explanation of the reasons which rendered it obligatory on the President to sub- mit the whole subject to the Senate for its advice. The result of that applica- tion is a determination on the part of the Senate, not to consider the decision of the King of the Netherlands as obligatory, and a refusal to advise and consent to its execution. But they have passed a resolution advising, " the President to " open a new negotiation with His Britannic Majesty's Government, for the as- " certainment of the boundary between the possessions v>f the United States and " those of Great Britain, on the north-eastern frontier of the United States, accord- " ing to the Treaty of Peace of 1783." This resolution was adopted on the con- viction felt by the Senate that the Sovereign Arbiter had not decided the question submitted to him, or had decided it in a manner unauthorized by the sub- mission. It is not the intention of the undersigned to enter into an investigation of the argument which has led to this conclusion, the decision of the Senate pre- cludes it, and the object of this commutiication renders it unnecessary ; — but it may be proper to add that no question could have arisen as to the validity of the decision, had the Sovereign Arbiter detcnnined on, and de- signated any boundary, as that which was intended by the Treaty of 1783. He has not done so, not being able, consistently with the evidence before him, to declare that the line he has thought the most proper to be established, was the line intended by the Treaty of 1783 ; he seems to have abandoned tlie character of arbiter, and assumed that of mediator, advising both parties tiiat a boundary which he describes, should be accepted, as one most convenient to tiiem. But this line trenches, as is asserted by one of the States of the Union, upon its territory, and that State controverts the constitutional power of the United States to circumscribe its limits without its assent. If tiie decision had indicated this line as the boundary designated by the Treaty of 1783, this ob- jection could not have been urged, because then, no part of the ttriitory to the north or the east of it, could be within the state of Miiine. And however the United States, or any individual State might think itself aggrieved by the de- cision, as it would in that case have been made in conformity to the submis- sion, it would have been carried into immediate cfl'ect. The case is now entirely dirterent, and the necessity for farther negotiation must he apparent to adjust a (lillerence which the Sovereign arbiter has. in the opinion of a co-ordinate branch of our executive power, failed to decide. That negotiation will be oj)ened and car- ried on by the President with the sinccrest disposition to bring to an amicable, speedy, and satisfactory conclusion, a ([uestion which might otherwise interrupt the harmony which so happily subsists between the two countries, and which he most earnestly wishes to preserve. The Undersigned is instructed to say, that even if the negotiators of the two parties are unable to agree on the true line designated by the Treaty of 1783, means will probably be found of avoiding the constitutional diHiculties that have hitherto attended the establishment of a boundary, more convenient to both j)arties than that designated by the Treaty, or that reconnnended by His Majes- ty the King of the Netherlands, an arrangement being now in progress witii every i)roi)ability of a speedy conclusion, between the United States and the State of Maine, by which the Government of the United States will be clothed with more ample powers, than it has heretofore possessed, to etlect that end. Should a negotiation be opened on this principal point, it will naturally embrace, as con- nected with it, the right of navigation of the river St. John, an object of scarcely less importance to the convenience and future harmony of the two nations, than the (k'.^i^nation of the boui.daiy, it being the wish of the President, and, as he has the best reason to Inlievi', that of His Britannic Majesty's Government, to remove at! causes for misunderstanding between the two countries, by a yve- vious settlement of all points on which tliey might probably arise. Presuming that the state of things produced by the resolution of the Senate above referred to, and the desire expressed by the I'resident to open, carry on, and conclude the negotiation reconmiended by that body, in the most frank and amicable manner, will convince His Britannic Majesty's Government of the ne- 14 cessity of meeting llic offers now mntlc with a correspondent spirit, the under- signed is directed to propose for consideration tlie propriety of carrying on the negotiation at this place. The aid which the negotiators on hoth sides would derive, from being in the vicinity of the territory in dispute, as well as the infor- mation with respect to locahties from persons well acquainted with them, which they might command, are obvious considerations in favour of this proposition. Until this matter shall be brought to a tinal conclusion, the necessity of refraining, on both sides, from unyexerciseof jurisdiction, beyond the bouiuiariei now actually possessed, must be apparent, and will no doubt be ac(|uie8ced iu on the part of the authorities of His Ihitaiuiic Majesty's provinces, as it will be by the United States. The undersigned, &c. C. Bankheud, Ei>q. (Signed) EDW. LIVINGSTON. No. 17. ^I Charlts Bnnkhead, Esq. to Viscount Palmernlon. — f Received August 2!).J (Kxtract.) Waxhington, July li8, 1832. I TAKK the liberty of transmitting to your I»rd»hip an account of the ))ro- focdings which took j)lace iti the Senate in their executive capacity, during the discussion upon the award of the King of the Netiierlands. Your l»rdship will observe by the perusal of this paper, that the Senate was divided into three parties : the first composed of those who desired the acceptance of the award ; among tliem was Mr. Tazewell, the Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations ; the second veas composed of those who thought that the cpiestion did not come under the "ognizance of the Senate ; and tlie third party included those who were opposed to the acceptance of the award. The result of this has been the rejection of the measure, and an invitation to the President to enter anew into negotiation with His Majesty's Government ujmn the whole question of boundary. The unfortunate wording of that instrument, which might imply mediation as well as decision, has given a strong hold to those who were opj)osed to the measure. I have no reason to doubt that the President desired the fulfilment of the award. No. 18. A. Vail, Esq., to Viscount Palmerslon. — CRvccired August 24.7 .'504, Krgent Strei-t, Augunt 20, 1832. THE Undersigned, Charge d* Affaires of the United States of Ainericii at the Court of His Uritannic Majesty, has the honour, in compliance \.ith instructions recently received from his Government, to inform the liiglit Honourable I^rd \'iscount Painierston, His Majesty's Principal Secrctiiiy of State for Foreign Afi'airs, that the Senate of the United States, to wiiom the President had, in the constitutional discharge of his functions, relerrcd the decision of the King of the Netherlands upon tl <: (|uesti()n submitted to him by the two Governments res|)ecting the boundary of their respective teiritor'cs, for its advice thereon, — has determined to consider the decision referred to, as not obligatory on the part of the United States, and refused to advise and consent to its being carried into effect. Tlie enclosed cojiy of a note addressed on the 21st ultimo, by the Secretary of State of the United States to His Majesty's Charge d'Aflaires at Washing- ton, which the Undersigned is directed to lay before His Majesty's Government, and to which he begs leave to refer l^)rd Palmerston, will acquaint his l.K)rd.ship with a resolution passed at the same time by the .Senate of the United .Slate>, advising the executive to open a new lu'gotiatitm with the Hritish Government, (or the purj)Ose of determinig the boundary in (piestion, — with the desire of the J'resident that such a negotiation may speedily be entered upon, and with his views and wishes as to the means of bringing it to a satisfactory ttiniination. 15 In submitting the above for the consideration of His Majesty's Govern- ment, the Undersigned avails himself of the occasion to discharge the pleasing diilv assigned to him, of assuring Lord Palmerston of the sincerity of the President's intention to enter u|)on the proposed negotiation with the most Lonciliatory disposition, which he flatters himself, will be met on the part of Ilia Majesty's Government, by a corresponding spirit, and by a desire equal to tiiat which he entertains of removing from the harmonious intercourse now so happily subsisting between the two countries, all possible causes of future contention or unfriendly feeling. The Undersigned, &c. (Signed) A. VAIL. Vitcount Palmerston, O. C. B. «fc. «fc. Sfc. No. 19. Viscount Palmerston to A. Vail, Esq. Sir, Foreitjn OJfice, August 27, 1832. THE Undersigned, &c. has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the note of Mr. Vail, &c., dated the 20th instant, announcing that the Senate of the United States have determined to consider the decision of the King of the Netherlands upon the question submitted to him by the Governments of His Majesty and of the United States, relative to the boundary of their respective territories, as not obligatory on the part of the United States, and that tiiey have refused to advise and consent to its being carried into effect; in conse- ((uence of which, the Government of the United States invite His Majesty'^ Government to open a new negotiation for the purpose of determining the boundary in question. The undersigned has laid Mr. Vail's communication before tiie King, and will not fail to inform Mr. Vail as soon as Hi.s Majesty's Government have come to a decision upon the important subject to which it relates. The Undersigned, &c. A. Vail, Esq. (Signed) PALMERSTON. «fc. S(c. &fc. No. 20. Charles Bankhead, Esq. to Viscount Palmerston. — (Received January 2, ISJS./) (Extract.) Washington, December .'), 1832. I HAVE the honour to transmit to your Lordship a copy of the message of the President of tiie United States, which was communicated to both Houses of Congress on the -1th instant. With respect to tiie north-east boundary, of course the President could say but little. He merely states, that early attention had been promised on the part of His Majesty's Government to the subject, on their reception of the de- cision of the Senate upon the award of the King of the Netherlands. The President has not failed on the present occa.sion to renew that expres- sion of friendly feeling towards Great Britain, which he has invariably touched upon in his several messages to Congress. Inclosure in No. 20. Extract from the Message of the President. THE question of our north-ca.stern boundary still remains unsettled, fu my last annual message, I explained to you the situation in which I found that business on my coming into ottice, and the measures 1 tiiought it my duty to pursue for asserting ti>c rights of the United States before the .Sovereign, who had been chosen by my predecessor to determine the question ; and also the manner in which he had disposed of it. A special message to the Senate in 16 It' their executive caparity, aftorwanU brouglit before them tlie qtieHtion, whetlier they wo\ihl advise a Hiihtnis.sioii to the npiiiioD of tiie Sovereign Arbiter. Tiint body having eonsidered the award as not obhgat> ly, and adviHed ine to open a farther negotiation, tlio proposition wan iininediali ly made to the British Governuient : but the circunistancoH to wliicb I have .ilhidcd have hitherto prevented any answer being given to tlie overture, ilariy attention, however, lias been |)roniiaed to the subject, and every eH'ort du my part will be made for a satis- fiietory settlement of tiiis qiieUion, interesting to the Union generally, and particularly so to one of its niembera. No. 21. VUcouiit Palmerslon to Sir C. R. V'auyhan. Sir, Foreiijn Office, February 25, 18.1.1. AMONCi the cpiestinns upon which it will be your duty to enter into early conimunicatioii with the American (Jovernment, on your return to your post at Washington, there is none \n wliidi His Majesty's Government feel a (lee|)er interest, than tiiat wbicii relates to the long disputed claims of the two countries, with respect to the boundary betwecji the north-east portion of the United Stales, and Ilis Majesty's colonial possessions in North America- Mis Majesty had indulged a contident hope, that the means of adjusting a ipicstidu wliich bad been the object of fruitless negotiation during a long series of years, and the settlement of which is essential to the jjreservation of a good understaiicling between the two countries, had at length, been attained, by the reference to arbitration formally agreed upon aiul regulated by the (."onvention t)f the '29th September, \H27 ; and His Majesty, influenced by an earnest desire to promote the harmony, .so happily subsisting between Ilis (Jovernment and that of the United States, no less than by his sense of the obligations imposed uj)on him, in common with the American Government, by that ('onvention, did not hesitate to declare his acccptiince of the decision of the Arbitrator, notwith- standing the large sacrifice, which it involved, of territory, heretofore considered as belonging to the Hritish Crown. It was not, therefore, without very deep concern, that HIb Majesty saw his hopes fnistrated, and the sacrifice which he had been willing to nuike rendered unavailing, by the communication contained in the note addressed by tht American Secretarv of State to the Charge d'AI'aires of His Majesty at Wash- ington, dated the 'ilst .July, [KVl. By that note, to which 1 have now to refer you, His Majesty's Government are informed, th.\t the Senate of the Uniied States, to which body the President, as recpiired by the constitution, had submitted the (piestion for its advice, had determined not to consider the decision of the King of the Netherlands upon the line of boundary, which was submitted to his arbitration, " as obligatory ;" and that they had refused to advise and consent to its execution, on the gromul tbiit His Netherland Majesty had abandoned the character of arbitrator, and bad assumed that of mediator ; and that he had not decided the (|uestion submitted to him, or had decided it in a manner unaulhori/ed by the terms oi the reference. The American Secretary of State observes that the validity of the decision would not have been ijuestioned, had the arbitrator determined upon, and designated any Ixmndary, as that which was intended by the Treaty of 17(S3. But that the line which the King of the Netherlands advises both parties to accept, as one most convenient to them, trenches on the State of Maine, which .State denies the constitutional power of the General (jiovernment to circumserib* its limits without its assent. Mr. Livingston goes on to say, that the necessity lor farther nc;^otiati(iii liad thus become apparent, to adjust a diHerence which the Arbitrator bad failed to decide ; and that the President therefore, in (■onformity with a resolution of the Senate, proposes to open a new negotiation with His Nlajesty's (Jovernment, " for the ascertainment of the boundary betwet'o the possessions of the United " States and those of (Jreat Britain, on the north-eastern frontier of the Uniteil " States, accordiiKj to Ike Treaty of Fence of 17H3. His Majesty's Government regret, that they cannot discover in this proposal any probable means of arriving at a settle.iient of tiiis ditlicult (luestiun. It appcarii tu Ilis Majesty's Goveriimeat tu bu utterly hopeless to attempt to find tion, wlictlipr tr. That body ii»en a farther uoverniiient : irevcntctl any or, has been le tor a HntiH- euerallyi and J/ 25, laTI, iter into early } your post at t feel a (lce])i'r two countries, United Stales, if adjustin.u ii a long series ion of a good taincd, by the e Convention earnest denire ^eminent and itiouH imposed invention, did -ator, notwitli- ore considered ajesty saw W\n lake rendered ■essed l)y thf ;sty at Wash- s Government tiie President, s advice, bad aiids upon the ;at()ry ;" and le ground tb:it Uor, and liad ion suiiinitti'd terms oi' the f tlie (leeision 'd upon, and ■caty ol 1783. otb parlies to Maine, which I) circuiuscrib* er ne,;otialii)ii ator bad failed resulutiun of 1 (lovennnent, of the United of the United n Ibis proposal tjuestiun. ll tempt lu £nd 17 out, at this time of day, by means of a new negotiation, an assumed line of boundary, which successive negotiators, and which commissioners emiiloyed on the spot, have during so many years failed to discover } and which, hnally, an impartial arbitrator, furnished by each clainmnt with every fact and argument that had been adduced on either side of the ((ueHtinn, had declared the impossi- bility of tracing, in conformity with the de8cri|)tion of it contained in the Treaty of 1783. Mr. Livingston does indeed suggest in a subsequent part of his note, the practicability of a negotiation on a broader principle. He states that, if the negotiators of the two parties should be unable to agree on the true line designated by the Treaty of 178.'}, "means will probal)ly he found of avoiding " the constitutional ditticulties that have hitherto attended the establishment of a " boundary more convenient to both parties than that designated by the Treaty, " or than that recommended by His Majesty the King of the Netherlands;" and he adds, " that an arrangement is now in progress with every probability of " a speedy conclusion, between the United States and the State of Maine, by " which tlie Government of the United States will be clothed with more ample " powers than it I'as heretofore possessed, to etlcct that end." His Majesty's (iovernment will eagerly avail themselves of any jirobable chance of bringing to a satisfactory settlement, a {|uestion of Huch vital con- secjuence to the harmony and good understanding betwceti the two Governments; and I am to instruct you to lose no time in endeavouring to ascertain from Mr. Livingston, in the first place, what is the principle of the plan of boundary, which the American Government appear to conteni|)iate as likely to be more con- venient to both parties than those hitherto discussed ; and, secondly, whether any, and what arrangement, such as Mr. Livingston alludes to, for avoiding the constitutional difficulty, has yet been concluded between the General Government and the State of Maine. It is necessary that His Majesty's Government should be informed of the basis on which it is projiosed to negotiate, before they can either entertain the proposal, or decide upon the instructions, which it may be necessary to give to the Minister, to whom the negotiation, when agreed to, may be entrusted ; and it is especially essential, that His Majesty should be previously assured, that the President of the United States will possess the power of carrying into full etJ'cct his part of any engagement which maybe concluded betwixt the Plenipotentiaries of the two Governments. You will assure the American Minister, in making these communications to him, that, if His Majesty's Government shall be enabled, upon receiving satisfactory ex])lanation8 on the points which I havejust mentioned, to ac({uiesce in the projwsition of the American Government, they will enter upon the negotiation which may then be opened, in the most friendly spirit and with the most sincere desire to arrive at a settlement mutually beneficial to both coun- tries ; and you may farther assure Mr. Livingston, that His Majesty's Govern- ment entirely concur with that of the United States, in the principle of continuing to abstain, during the progress of the negotiation, from extending the exercise of jurisdiction within the disputed territory, beyond the limits within which it has hitherto been usually exercised by the authorities of either party. It is due, however, to the frankness which His Majesty desires should characterize every conununication between the British and American Govern- ments, that I should not conclude this despatch without distinctly declaring to you, in answer to that part of Mr. Livingston's note, in which be exjiresses for the first time. t'\e wish of the American Government to connect with the discus- sion of the boundary ((uestion, that of the navigation of the river St. John, that it will be impossible for His Majesty to admit the principle upon which it is attempted to tieat these two ([uestions as necessarily connected with each other. Whatever might be the eventual decision of His Majesty upon the latter (luestion, if treated sei)arately, and whatever inav be His Alajcsty's disposition to j)romote the harmony so happily subsisting between the two countries, by any arrangements wliicli might tend to the convenience of the citizens of the United States, without ijciiig prejudicial to the (.ssential interests of liis own subjects. His Majesty canntit admit any claim of right on the part of the citizens of Maine to the navigation of tlu- St. John, nor can he consider a negotiation on that point, as iiecess.arily growing out of the question of boundarv. D it •7 1^ Hi« Majeity cannut tlierefore couitent tu cnibarraHH thr ne(;otiation reipect- ing thr bounilarVi by mixing up witit it h iliMuiutiDii r«»|>ccting the navigation of the nver St. Juhn, ait an integral part o( the annie <|ucittion. I am, &c. Rt. lion. Sir C. H. Vnuyhan. (Signed) I'ALMERSTON. 8fc. itc. Sff. PS. — You will communicikte the Htilistance of thii despatch to the American Minister, bv a note, in answer to that which Mr. Livingston addressed to Mr. Ikinkheadon the JUt July, 1832. i '' 1 No.i£i. A. Vail, Esq., to Vm'ount Pnlmrmton. — cReceived April 4.) ;«)4, Rnjenl Utrrft, April 3, 1833. IN a note which the Undersigned, Charge d'Affaires of the United States of America, had the honor to addresH, on the 2()th o( August hut, to the Right Honorable Ix)rd Viscount Paluicrston, Mitt Majesty's I'rincipal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he laid before his Lordship by direction of his Go- vernment, n pm|>osition to open a negotiation for the pur|Hwe of determining certain points of tiu! line of lK)undary between the United States and His Ma- jesty's North American colonies. ()n the 27th of the same month, I^rd Falmer- Bton hud the g(H)dnesH to a|)|)rise the Undersigned, by a note of that date, that the subject had been laid before the King, and that the decision of His Mi^jesty's Ciovcrnment upon it, would be made known to him as soon as adopted. la 8ubse(|uent conversations with which the Undersigned was honored by Lord Palmcrston, his I^>r(lsliip stated that His Majesty's IVIinisters felt some hesitation in coming to a determination with regard to the pro|H)sition of the American Government, for want of more precise infonnation than the Undersigned had it in his jKiwer to afford, respecting certain points which would necessarily come up for discussion in the course of the proposed negotiation, and appeared to entertain a desire that such information should be supplied. The Undersigned having (ommunicuted to his Government a copy of the written answer and the ini|H)rt of the verbal remarks of Lord Palmerston, has recently received from the .Secrt ;ary of State of the United States, an answer to his several despatches U|)on the subject, by which he is directed to state to Lord Palmerston, that the Presi- dent is still anxiously waiting for the promised decision of the British Govern- ment, and to add the following observations, which, it is ho|H:d, will serve to remove the difficulties which appear to have been viewed by Lord Palmerston as standing in the way of it. When the Secretary of State of the United States proposed that the contemplated negotiation should be carried on at Washington, his intention, as will appear on reference to his note to Mr. Bankhead of the ^Ist July, 1H.')2, of which a copy accompanied that of the Undersigned of tiie 20th of August, was simply to suggest a {dace which, as affording many desirable facilities for the proposed object, would, he thought, prove ecjuaiiy agreeable to botii parties : he now states more distinctly, that he never ntcant it as a point to be insisted upon on the part of the United States ; and he instructs the Undersigned to say to Lord Palmcrston, that, inasmuch as he intended it to be left to the option of the parties, if His Majesty's Government should entertain a preference for some other place, the President, animated by a sincere disposition to put an end to this and every otiier cause of diffeifnce between the two countries, is ready to instruct His Minister to enter upon the |)roposed negotiation with an anxious desire that it should l>e carried to an amicable close, on terms which will recjuire no sacrifice of national honor or interest from either of the parties. With regard to the enquiries made by Lord Palmcrston in conversation with the Undersigned, respecting the nature of the jjrojiositions to be brought forward on tiie part of the United States, in relation to the boundary itself, the character of the arrangement which might be effected with the State of Maine, and the wishes of the American Government respecting the navigation of the river St. John, the Undersigned is instructed to say that these being the very points which are to be made the subject of negotiation, after the parties shall have agreed to open one, they can scarcely re(|uire to be developed, as a 10 preltminary. on the wmple qurnfion, whrtlier the pnrticK are willing to ncp;ntinte : and, that to enter upon the coimidiTatioti of tho«i> |M)intH, at tho pn-Hont Htage of the butiiieHK, I'arther than lini*. in nent-ml terms, heen done in the overture made on the part of the United Stnten, would be to anticipate the negotiatiy order of the President, he has tht lionor to present for the early and favorable ronsideration of His Majesty's Government, indulges the hoiH- that the difficulties which appear to have prevente(»ilii)n of till' highlands of the Treaty, which, tliouL'li they mav be a more decided feature in tirj country than the latter, could not be placed upon the boundary without allowing the Americans to trench upon the acknowledged possessions of His Majesty in New Brunswick. Mr. Livingston, however, has called ii|)on me, and ex])laiiied more clearly the view wliicii he had only partially (ievelo|Hil in iiis note. Actordiiig to his explanation, the line which he would propose to (haw t'rom the sources of the St. Croix River, would be carried to tiie left of the due north lini', or westward, iiiftead of to the right, or eastward towards New Brunswick, upon a supposition that at a point some fifty miles (according to a small defeitive map wliich he pnxhK-edj westward of the |)osition upon the St. Francis Rivi-r, given to the United State> \>\ the decision of the King of the .Xetlurlands, highlands iiiav be found which would, as drsciibfd in the Treaty of IT^'J, divide waters falling on the one side into the River St. Lawrence, an clearly ; to his es of the westward, uppdsition which he \cii to the lis may he liiliiii^ on Atluiitic. viiuments (itC llllltllMl to stated to uU'Ut was u' Treatv invirsatidii k'asluii;;ton s pnijiosal, no tinu' in -ident and Inclosure 1 in No. 24. Sir C. R. Vaughan to the Hon, Edward Livingston. Washington, April 14, 1833. THE Undersigned, &c., having been directed by his Government to open, upon his arrival at Washington, a communication with the Government of the United States, upon the question which relates to the long disputed claims of the two countries with respect to the boundary between the north-eastern portion of the United States, and His Majesty's colonial possessions in North America, he has already made Mr. Livingston' aciiuainted with the instructions which he has received upon this (juestion on which His Majesty's Government feels so deep an interest, and the Undersigned is authorized by his Government to lay openly, and without reserve, the nature of those instructions in an official note to the Secretary of State, i.s they contain the answer which His Majesty's Go- vernment have decided to make to the note of Mr. Livingston, of the month of July last. liis Majesty had indulged a confident hope, that the means of adjusting a question which had been the object of fruitless negotiation during a long series of years, and the settlement of which, is essential to the |)reservation of a good understanding between the two countries, had, at length been attained by the reference to ari)itration formerly agreed upon and regulated by the Convention of the 2!Hh September, 18:^7 ; and His -Majesty, inlluenced by an earnest desire to promote the harmony so ha|)pily subsisting between his Government and that of the United States, no less than by his sense of the obligations imposed upon him, in common with the Ame-ican Government, by that Convention, did not hesitate to declare his acceptance of the decision of the arbitrator, notwith- standing the large sacrifice which it involved of territory heretofore considered as belonging to the Hritish Crown. It was not therefore without very deep concern, that His Majesty saw his hopes frustrated, and the sacrifice which he had been willing to make, rendered unavailing by the eonununication contained in the note addressed by the American Secretary of State to the Charge d'Artaires of His Majesty at Washingtcm, dated the 'ilst.luly, 18.32. By that note His Majesty's (iovernment are informed, that the Senate of tiie United States, to whidi body the i'resident, as required by the Constitution, had submitted the ipiestion for its advice, had determined not to consider the decision of the King of the Netherlani' upon the line of boundary which was sulnnitted to his arbitration '' as obligatory," and that they had re- fused to advise and consent to its execution, on the ground that His Netherland Majesty hat'(iuent part of Mr. Livingston's note, tlio |)ractical)ility is suggested of a negotiation on a broader principle. He states, that if tlie negotiators of the two parties shouhl be unable to agree on the true line, designated by the Treaty of 1 783, " means will j)robably be I'ound of avoiding the constitutional ditHculties " that have hitiierto attended the establishment of a boundary, more convenient " to both parties than that designated by the Treaty, or than that recommended " by His Majesty the King of the Netherlands:" and he adds, that " an " arrangement is now in progress, with eveiy probability of a speedy conclusion, " between the United States and the State oi'Alaine, by which the Government " of the United States will be clothed with more ample powers, than it has " heretofore posses«eiinciplc ot' the plan of boundary which the Americiui (Jovernment appear to contem]>late as likely to be more convenient to both parties than those hitherto discussed ; and secondly, whether any, and what arrangement, such as Mr. Livingston alludes to, for avoiding the constitutional ditKculty, has yet been concluded between theCieneral Government and the State of Maine. It is necessary that His Majesty's (Jovernment should be informed of the basis on wliich it is proposed to negotiate, before they can either entertain the projtosal, or decide upon the instructions which it may be necessary to give to the Minister to whom the negotiation, when agreed to, may be enti^usted ; and it is especially essential, that His Majesty should be previously assured, that the President of the United States will possess the power of carrying into full eliect his |>art of any engagement which may be concluded l)etween the Plenipoten- tiaries of the two Ciovernments. Tlie I'ndersigned is directed to assure the American Minister, in making these communications to him. that if His Majesty's Government shall be enabled, upon receiving satisfactory explanations on the points which have just lieea mentioned, to acfpiiesce in the |>roposilion of the American Government, they will enter upon the negotiation, which may then be opened in the most friendly spirit, and with the most sincere desire to arrive at a settlement umtually beneficial to both countries ; and he is further to assure the Secretary of State, that His Majesty's Government entinly concur with that of the United States, in the principle of continuing to abstain, during the progress of the negotiation, from extending the exercise of jurisdiction within the disputed territory beyond the limits within which it has hitherto been usually exercise-it)lc for His Majesty to admit the principle upon which it is attempted to treat tbebc two questions as necessarily connected with each other. Whatever might be the eventual decision of His Majesty ujwn the latter (piestion, if treated separatelv ; and whatever may lie His Majesty's disposition to |>i'umote the hariiKJiiy, so happily subsisliiig between the two countries, bv any aiTangemeiits which iiujilit tend t" the |n'(ting the boundary, b\ iiiixiii^ up with it a discussion respecting the navigation ol the river St., John, as an integral part ot the same question. The UiuU'rsigned. &c. (Signed) CHAI^ R. VAUGHAN. The Hon. lidward Livtiiynton, vSf. fc. Nr. i 23 should «()vern- ictly to tresses, ith tlie . Jolin, huh it h each ■ latter lositioii us, by i)t the is uwii ()( the idir u on of Itiatiou lig tlie iN. IncloBure 2 in No. 24. The Hon. Edward Livingston to Sir C. R. Vaughan. Department of State, Washington, April 30, 1833. THE Undersigned, &c. has had the honor to receive from SirChtiriesVanghan, &c., his note of the 14th instant, communicating the substance of the instruc- tions given by His Britannic Majesty's Government, in relation to the disputed question of the boundary betvreen the United Slates and the British Provinoe of New Bnmswick ; and has laid the same before the President, who has directed the Undersigned to jay, that he sees with great pleasure thiit the British Govern- ment concurs, with that of the United States, in the position, that His Nether- land Majesty had not decided the question submitted to him, since by Sir C. Vaughan's note it is acknowledged, " that the arbitrator, furnished by each " claimant with every fact and argument that had been adduced on either side " of the question, had declared the impossibility of tracing, in conformity with " the description contained in the Treaty of 1 783," the boundary line in question ; and as the determination of that line, according to the Treaty of 1783, was the only question submitted to the august arbitrator, and he having declared that he i'muid it impossible to trace it in conformity with the Treaty, it follows, that his inability to decide the point submitted to him, leaves the high parties to the submission, precisely in the situation in which they were, prior to the selection of His Netherland Majesty to be the arbitrator between them ; that is to say, they are thrown back to the Convention of the 2!»th September, 1827. By that Convention it was agreed to submit the (piestion, which was the true boundary according to the Treaty of 1 783, to the decision of an arbitrator to be chosen between them. The arbitrator selected having declared himself unable to perform the trust, it is as if none had been selected, and it would seem as if the parties to the submission were bound by their contract to select another ; but this would be useless, if the position assumed by the Government of His Britannic Majesty be correct, "that it would be utterly hoi)eless at this time of day " to attempt to rinil out, by means of a new negotiation, an assumed line of " boundary, which successive negotiators, and which conmiissioners employed " on the spot have, during so many years, failed to discover." The American Government, however, while they acknowledge that the ta^k is not without its difficulties, do not consider its execution as hopeless. They still trust that a negotiation openetl and conducted in a spirit of frankness, and with a sincere desire to put an end to one of the few cpiestions which divide two nations, whose nmtual interest it will always be to cultivate the relations of amity, and a cordial good luiderstanding with each other, may. contrary to the anticipations of His Britannic Majesty's Government, yet have a happy result ; but if this should unfortunately fail, other means, still untried, remain. It was, perhaps, natural to supjiose, that negotiators of the two powers coming to the discussion with honest prejudices, each in tavor of the construction adopted by his own nation, on a matter ot great import to both, should sc|)arate without coming to a decision. The same observations may ap|)ly to commissioners, citizens, or subjects of tile contciuling parties, not iiaviiig an impartial umpire to decide between them : and, although the selection of a sovereign arbiter would seem to have avoided these dilficulties, yet this advantage may have been more than countervailed by the want of local knowledge. All the disadvantages of these modes of settlement, heretofore adopted, might, as it ajtpears to the American Government, be avoided, by appointing a new ('ommi':sion, consisting of an e(|ual number of commissioners, with an xnnpire selected by some friendly Sovereign, 'rom among the most skilful men in Eurojie, to decide on all points on which 'hey disagree, or bv a com- mission entirely com|)osed of such men. so selecteil, to be attended in the survey and view of the country, by agents appointed by the parties. Impartiality, local knowledge, and high professional skill would thus be employed, which, altliough heretolore separately called into the service, have never before been combined for the solution of the <(nestion. This is one mode ; and perhups others might weur in the course of the discussion, should the negotiators fail in agreeing on the true Umndary. An opinion, however, is entertained, and has been herein- before expressed, that a view of the subject, not hitherto taken, nught lead to [mother and more favorable result. A free disclosure of this view might, according to the dictates of ordinary diplomacy, with more propriety, |)erhaps. be deferred until those of His Britannic 24 1: f 1 ! i \m\ Majesty's Government should be more fully known, or, at least, until that Government had consented to open a negotiation for determining the boundary ; but the plain dv.aling with which the President desiret , this and all his other communications with Foreign Governments to be conducted, hi>s induced a developement of the principle for the consideration of His Britannic Majesty's Government. Boundaries of tracts and countries, where the region through which the line is to pass, is unexplored, are freijuently designated by natural objects, the precise situation of which is not known, but which are supposed to be in the direction of a particular point of the compass. Where the natural object is found in the designated direction, no question can arise. Where the course will not touch the natural boundary, the rule universally adopted is, not to consider the boundary as one impossible to be traced ; but to preserve the natural boundarj', and to reach it by the nearest direct course. Thus, if after more accurate surveys shall have been made, it should be found that the north course from the head of the St. Croix should not reach the highlands, which answer the descrip- tion of those designated in the Treaty of 1783, — then a direct line from the head of the St. Croix, whatever may be its direction to such highlands, ought to be adopted, and the line woidd still be conformable to the Treaty. As this principle does not seem hitherto to have been adopted, it appears to the Government of the United States to offer to the commissioners, who may be appointed, the means of an amicable adjustment. When the note of the Undersigned to Mr. Bankhead in July last, was written, reasonable ho|)cs were entertained that the arrangement therein spoken of, by which the Government of the United States might be enabled to treat for 'a. more convenient lK)undar) , would, ere this, have taken place. The antici- pations then entertained have not, as yet, been realized, and the Government of the United States can only, in the present state of things, treat on the basis of the establishment of the boundary presented by the Treaty. As the suggestion in relation to the navigation of the St. John was intro- duced only in the view of its forming a part of the system of compensations in the negotiation for a more convei;i»jnt boundary, if that of the Treaty of 1 783 should he abandoned, it is not now insisted on. In conclusion, the President has remarked with sincere pleasure in Sir C. Vaughan's note, the expression of a desire on the part of his Government, to cultivate and increase the harmony and good understanding which so happily subsist l)etween the two countries, and to put an end to all questions that may, in the least degree, intemi|)t it, a disposition which is warmly reciprocated by the President. The Undersigned, &c. Right Hon. Sir C. R. Vaughun, (Signed) EDWARD LIVINGSTON. ifc. iff. Sartially developed in his note, and which the latter conceives might lead to a more favourable result ; it seems a])plical)le to the manner in which the line due north Irom the sources of the St. Croix River may be drawn, in conformity with the Treaty of 178."!, though not strictly according to the terms in which tiuit Article is drawn up. The natural feature of the boundary which Mr. J^ivingston ^upposes to exist, and to which the line in (iuesti(m is to be drawn, it is presumed are the highlands menti(mc(l in the Treaty, the fixing the position of which highlands has formed the principal difficidty hitherto in adjusting the bo\mdary. A deviation from the direct north line laid down in the Treaty, might load to an i;l)li(pu' line being drawn to mountains to the eastward of it, which would trench upcti His Majesty's territories of New Brunswick. 'J'hc Undersigned does not however venture, with the imperfect knowledge which he has of all the bearings of the view developed by Mr. Livingston, to do more than suggest a doubt of its advantages. The rejection of the award of tho 26 arbitrator, by the Government of the United States, revives to their full extent, the pretensions of Great Britain, and it becomes an object of great importance to put an end to this question of boundary ; " one of the few questions," as Mr. Li- vingston observes, " which divide two nations, whose mutual interest it will always " be, to cultivate the relations of amity and a cordial good understanding with " each other." It is the duty of the Undersigned to transmit to his Government immediately, the note of Mr. Livingston, but at the same time he cannot resist from inviting the Secretary of State of the United States, to offer, without waiting tlic result of that reference, some more prompt and etfective measure for the settlement of the boundary than the renewal of a negotiation on an iiiadmiusible basis, ur recourse again to commissions of boundar}', which though u])on an improved plan, so far as the insuring of a final result may he concerned, arc too complicated in their nature to bring about a speedy or a satisfactory decision. The Undersigned, &c., The Hon. Edward Livingston, (Signed) CHAS. R. VAUGHAN. ifc. £(c. Sfc. SM f No. 25. Sir C. R. Vaughan to Viscount Palmeraton.— (Received June 11 .) (Extract.) Washington, June 4, 1833. BEFORE Mr. Livingston gave up the Department of State to Mr. McLane, he sent to me his promised explanation of the proposition for settling the boundary, which he partially developed in his note of 30th April, enclosed in my despatch of May 13. I have the honour to enclose a copy of the note of Mr. Livingston, which will shew your Lordship that he conceives that a line drawn obliquely westward from the source of the St. Croix, instead of directly due north, which has alone been followed hitherto, in search of the highlands of the Treaty of 1783, may lead to highlands which shall answer the description in that Treaty of dividing waters falling into the Atlantic, from those falling into the river St. I^wrence, and thereby enable the President at once to fix that hue as the boundary. Mr. Livingston proposes that a joint commission, constituted in either of the modes he mentioned in his note of 30th April, should be sent to explore the country on the line, the general bearings of which he has described by a diagram which is contained in his note. The Government of the United States being restricted to tre.it only upon the terms of the Treaty of 1783, on account of constitutional difhculties which both Mr. Livingston and Mr. McLane declare to be insurmountable, the propo- sition of Mr. Livingston mny be received as shewing the anxious desire of the President to devise some mode by which the question of boundary may be ttnally sit tied. It was jiroimsed by Mr. Livingston in his note of 30th Ajjril, to have recourse to commissions, should a renewed negotiation fail to settle the ((uestion in (iisiiute. The answer to the dtniand of the Hriti.th (lovernnient lor farther explanations, before they could entertain the oti'er of the President to ojien a new iici-'Dtiation, is, that as the arrangements in proi^ress last summer, to remove the constitutional difficulties, have not been made, the Government of the United States can treat only on the basis of the Trc-aty of I7S3, which the lititish Go- vernment has staled to be hopeless and inadmissible ; — a negotiation, tiierefore, between the two (iovernments, is not likely to take |)lace. It remains then for the British (lovernment to decitle whether it will accede to the proposition of Mr. Livingston. The relief wliii ii it dUlts from the restrictions itnposed upon the President by constitutional ditliculties, consists in drawing the line from the monument, westward, and oblic|uely, instead of due north ; from whence it may be insplied, that it would result in a more advantageous boundary to (J.^eat Britain, than that ollered by the due north line, by the cession of the territory included in the angle formed by the direct and the obll(|ue line. When Mr, Livingston pointed out to me his imaginary line ui)on a small 97 map, I concluded that it would terminats north of the St. John, but far westward of the Sf Francis River, thereby offering a more advantageous boundary to Great Britain than the line proposed by the King of the Netherlands. In a conversa- tion since with Mr. McLane, and with a better map before us, I was induced to believe, that the special commission might rather be directed to explore, > in search of highlands, the line of boundary laid down by the American commis- sioners imder the Vth Article of the Treaty of Ghent. Great Britain might thus be i)laced, by accepting Mr. Livingston's proposition, in a worne position than that which they were willing to accept, by acquiescing as they thought they were bound to do, and at a great sacrifice of territory, in the award of the arbiter. In my answer, therefore, to the explanation of Mr. Livingston, a copy of which I have the honour to enclose, I have thought it right to enquire what may be fiie intended course to be pointed out to the special commission. The obscurity in which the position of the highlands still remains, throws some difficulty in the way of acceding to Mr. Livingston's proposed plan without farther explanation. Wc caiuiot predict where our assent to this proposition may leaf' us. It is not probable that the Ameriv-ans will ever be brought to consent to draw a line from the .St. Croix, to the only point where the separation of waters can be found acruratcly in conformity with the Treaty. It is where the Chaudi^re which falls into the St. Lawrence, is separated from the Kennebec which falls into the Atlantic, westward of the sources of the St. John. If, however, it is true that the American Congress placed the highlands at the sources of the St. John, from the year 1779 to 1782, it is fair to conjecture that this was the position of the highlands contemplated by the commissioners who framed the Treaty of 1783. In my note to Mr. McLane, acknowledging the receipt of Mr. Livingston's explanation, I have stated that the delay occasioned by a reference to His Ma- jesty's Government imposes upon me the obligation of investigating, and calling for farther explanation, before I submit the proposition to your Lord.ship. Constitutional difficulties, said to be insurmountable, restrict the President from treating for a boundary more satisfactory to both parties than the one suggested by the King of the Netherlands. The state of Alaine chuses to insist upon the whole disputed territory having been vested by the Treaty of 1783, in the United States, according to the construction put upon that Treaty by the people of that State, to whose lot the territory will i;ill, it bein;^ situated on their frontier. Maine denies the power of Congress to dispose of any part of it, by an arraniicmcnt with (Jreat Britain ; and thus the proposed alteration in the mode of seeking tiic termination of the boundary according to Treaty, is the only concession we can expect at present from the Ccnerd Government. In my correspondence with the D<'partmcnt ot Stale, since my return to Washington, upon the subject of boundary, 1 have been anxious to shew that it is hopeless to entertain the offer to negotiate, restricted as the American (Jo- verninci\t is, to an inadmissible basis. I have cndeavorcil in my last note of the .'Ust May, which is enclosed, to shew that the line of boundary laid down by the negotiators in the Treaty, was imaginary, fiom their ignorance at that time of the actual geography of the country, which is pni\cd by the numerous commissions which have been aiipoiiited since its conclusion, to ascertain what was the line which was laid clown i)y them. A strict adherence to the acknowledged defects of that Treaty, must render the settlement of the boundary an interminable (piestion. I have stated tiiat the rejection of the award of the arbiter by the (lovern- nicnt of tlic I'niled States leaves it to (ireat Hiitain to maintain the claims and pretensions to be found in the British statements laid before the arbiter. If wc arc to treat at any time for a conventional line ot'houndary, lain of opinion that the one best defined would be, from wiiere a line due north from the St. Croix would strike the St. John's river, and iheiiee alcnig its right bank to it.s source. This line would fairly divide the disputed territory between the two parties, and Great Britain would not ohjcc-t to giving up some settlements made hy the Americans, as 1 have been given to understand, upon the Connec- ticut iiiver, which would have fallen into the possession of His Majesty, if the line of the King of the Netherlands had been acce|)ted. I do not know whether I shall receive from .Mr. McLane any explanation of the presumed termination of the line to be explored by a special commission, E 2 M pnjiwsed by Mr. Livingston, which may induce tils Mnji'sty's Govminicnl tuucxcdu to the pn)|>o8itiou, cncuinlHTcd an it it) with a ditiiculty ntti-nding the selection of coniniiiiHioiieis, and accompanied m it must he, with delay and ex]a>ncc. It muHt bo recollected that it is made by the President in a spirit of c<>nciliatinn ; and should it fail to accomplish the object intended, the neccHtiity of abandoning the defective description of the boundary in the Treaty of 1 7H3, will be so obvious, that the restrictions u|K)n the President must be ;;()t the better of, and the Government of the United States must ai^rce to treat for B conventional boundary. This (iovenununt will not at present listen to any proi>oeal which deviates from the terms of the Treaty of 1783. ; * , 4. J L it| Inclosurc I. in No. 25. The Hon. Edward Livingston to Sir C. JR. Vaughan. Sir, Dfpttriment of State, Wanhington, May 28, I8.'W. IN the two conversations we have had, on the 13th and 27th instant, you requested some further developcment of the propositions contained in my note of the 30th April. The principal object of that note was to shew, that the failure of the several endeavors which had been made, to ascertain the true boundary between the United States and the British Provinces of New Brunswick and Lower Canada, ought not, as is thought by His Britannic Majesty's Government, to be attributed to any insuperable difficulty, but rather to the inefficiency of the means heretofore resorted to, in order to secure such a decision as should lie binding on both l)artic8, and to the want of .ittention by the commissioners and arbiter severally employed for that purpose, to an established rule in the settlement of boundaries. The first point .seems to be fully explained in my note above referred to, and I repeat, that the President will agree to either of the modes therein suggested, to secure a final decision of the ane, that inHiiprraiiK- i-onHti- tutinnal dirticuiiios inipoHe uiH)n the (Jovernincnt of the United States, a rcHtric- tion to treat only of a line of" boundary according to the terms of the Treaty of 178.'!; that the only deviation, therefore, which can be admitted in tracing the iwundary from the strict terms of the Treaty, is an abandonment of the direct due north line from the St. Croix, which ha.n been hitherto followed in Hcarch of the highlands of the Treaty, and a ]iermission to be given to a joint comini.ssion (to be sent expressly to examine the country) to lollow anobli(|ue line to the west- ward of the direct north line, until they shall meet with highlands answeriiiif the descrijjtion given of them in the Treaty, as dividing waters falling into the At- lantic, from those which fall into the river St. Lawrence. A line drawn to them wherever they may be found, from the momnncnt at the source of the St. Croix, would be such a compliance with the description of the lioundary laid down in the Treaty, as to remove all constitutional ditlicultics in the way of the (iovern- nient of the United States, aiul enable it to Hx that liiu' as the line of boundary. It is not for the Undersigned to discuss the nature of the constitutioniil difli- culties mentioned by Mr. Livingston. It is to be lamented that they iire stated to be insurmountable, and that the proposition of Mr. Livingston, altera discussion which has occupied the two (jovernmcnts, from time to time, for upwards of forty years, is the only ofler which the British (iovernmcnt can expect to receive from the (Iovernmcnt of the United States. It appears to the Undersigned that the time has now arrived, when this perplexed and hitherto interminable (pieslion, can only be set at rest by an abandonment of the delVti c description of boundary contained in the Treaty, by the two {Jovernments imitually agreeing upon a con- ventional line of boundary, more convenient to both parties, than those insisted upon by the connnissioners of boundary, under the Vlh Article of the Treaty of Ghent, or the lint suggested by the King of the Netherlands. The proposition of Mr. Livingston very justly i)rovides against any deviation eastward from the direct north line from the St Croix, but the operation which it contemplates is still so restricted to the terms of the Treaty, that the basis of it is the same as that which the Undersigned has been instructed by his (iovern- mcnt to inform the (iovernmcnt of the United States, it was hopeless to negotialv' ui>on. The lines of boundary laid down by the commi.'O'ioners who framed the 'JVeaty of I7h;}, may fairly be considered as imaginary, arising from their ignorance, at the time, of the actual gcogra|)hy of the country. 'J'he |)t. .John's, 'i'hc omission of all nienlion of so remarkable a leaturc in the boundary as the intersection of that river, both in the Treaty and in the accounts extant of the negotiations, justifies the inference that the comn'issioncrs who framed that'i'reatv did not contemplate the existence, noilli of the St. John, of the highlands which thcv (lesi'ribe. The Undersigned must here remind the Secretary of State of the United .States, that the British (jovcrnnunt, by the rejection of the decision ol the King of the Netherlands, is at liberty to recur to their former position before the arbitration, and to maintain the claims and pretentions they originally established. A strong point in those claims is the exclusive possession of the St. John ; nor 8t iDU8t it be inferred that Great Britain, by having expressed awiliingnrM to accept the line of boundary suggcHtcd by the arbiter, which intersected the St. John, ta in uny tthane prepared now to surrender that claim without a due e(|uivuient. Tlie Un(leri(i(;ned begs leave to observe, that the iniprexHion left upon his mind after his conversation with Mr. Livingston, and the production by him of a map upon a small scale, is, that the highlands to be sought in the manner he proposed, would probably be found north of the St. John, but some miles westward of the River St. Francis. A subseipient conversation with Mr. McLtme left the impression that the special commission woidd have their atten- tion directed to an examination of the country along the line assumed as the boundary by the American conunissioners under the Treaty of Ghent. The delay occasioned by a reference to his Government imposes u|)on the Undersigned the obligation of endeavouring to investigate fully, and to seek every explanation of tliis proposition made by Mr. Livingston, as a means of settling the <|uestion of boundary, before he submits it to the consideration of His Majesty's Government. From what has been already stated in this note, the Undersigned will be happy to receive from Mr. McLane some farther explanation of the course intended to be pointed out to the special commissioners, who, he takes it for granted, are to be appointed in one of the two forms stated by Mr. Livingston in his note of .'U)tli A|)ril. If it is in the contemplation of the American (Jovernmcnt to seek the higldands north of the St. John, and upon tlie line assumed by the American Commissioners under the Treaty of Ghent, the assent of tbe Hritish Government to the proposition of Mr. Livingston, would concede to the (n)vernment of the United States, nearly all that they have hitherto claimed, and place the Hritisli Government in an infinitely worse position than they were willing to accept at a great sacrifice of territory, by accpiiescing. as they thought themselves bound to do, in the award of the arbiter. The obscurity which, after all the endeavours of the two Governments, still rests u|)on the juisition of the highlands, the Secretary of State, will allow, throws some difficulty, without farther explanation, in the way of acceding to the propo- sition of Mr. Livingston. Tlie Undersigned requests, &c. ne Hon. I-Muis McLane. (Signed) CHAS. R. VAUGHAN. &(C. &iC. «(C. No. 26. Sit C. R. Vaughan to Viscount Pa merston. — C Received July 9 J (Extract) Washinyton, June 12, 1833. I HAVE now the honor to enclose a copy of a note which I have received from Mr. McF^Kine, the Secretary of State, in answer to the further explanations of Mr. Livingston's proposition, which I rc(|ucstcd in a note, dated 3 1st May, transmitted to your Lordship in my despatch of June 4. Mr. Mt'Lanc informs me in the enclosed note, that the President readily directed such farther explanations to be given, as might render that proposition explicit and intelligible ; that no limitations are to be put ujjon the special commissioners, but such as are re(|uircd by a faithful adherence to the description of boundary in the Treaty of 17H3 ; that wherever bighlaiuls may be found answering to the description of thcin in the Treaty, in any part of the disputed territory, whether north or south of the river St. John, a line is to be drawn to that point upon them, from the mornnnent at the source of the St. Croix, which shall be nearest to the direct north line from that river. Mr. Mc. Lane observes, that Mr. Livingston, in his note of 28th May, has provided against any deviation eastward. I have acknowledged the receipt of Mr. McLane's further explanations, in a note, a copy of which is enclosed, and 1 have promised to submit the proposition to the considciationof His Majesty's (jovernment. Your b)r(lship will be aware that, in my correspondence with the American Government, I have distinctly stated, according to my instructions, that it app( ars to His Majesty's Government to be utterly hopeless to attempt to find out at this time of day, by means of a new negotiation, the line of boundary in conformity with the description contained in the Treaty of 1 783. Mr. Livingston and Mr. McLane agree in considering the difKculty to arise more from the I' as principle hitherto nwumcd, nnd the manner pursued in cocking for it, than in any defect in tho description. Mr. McIjuic Btatcii in th<> eiirloHwInole, thnt a cotiventioiml lineof lM)UM«lury, ■outii of tl)c true line uf the Treaty, would de|>rive the State of Miunc of territory, and it roidd not tlierefon' be adopted, unleHH on xroundu of greater public neccHMity thiin at prexent exiRt, without the eoiment of thnt State, which it is not pmhubie would be given while there rcinaiim a reusonabU' pruHpect of by the Senate. I am convinced that it is made in a sincere spirit of conciliation which makes it dilHcult ti< rL\u'r of the General Govern- niciit, under the constitution ol' the United Statis, to dispose of any portion of territory belonging to either of the Slates c()miM)sing the C'nion. The territory of the State of Maiiu' is supposed lo comprehend all the l.ind wliitli would be thrown within her limits, by establishing the true line of the Treaty of 1 783 ; and as any conventional line south of the true line of the Treaty •^ would deprive her of io much of her territory, It could not b« adopted unleti on groutulH of greater nuhlic iieceMity than at present exists, without the consent of that State. It is nut probable that such consent would be given by the State of Maine while thera remained n reasonable prospect of discovering the line of the Treaty of I7A3, and for the same reason the President would not h« authorized, after the recent proceedings in the Senate, to venture now to agre* upon a conventional line without such consent. Under these circumstances, the President directed the proposition sub- mitted in Mr. Livingston's note of 30th April, an affording not only a reasonable f)rospect, but in his mind the certain meanit of ascertaining the Ixiundury called or by the Treaty of 178^), and of finally terminating all the perplexities which have encompassed this subject. In reply, therefore, to the wish expressed by Sir C. Vaughan to be informed what limitations it is intended to be put u|Mm the course to he pursued b^ the special commissioners, whether their attention is to be directed to any onrticular spot, or whether they are to bo left at lil>erty to stop at the first highlands answering the re(|uired description with which they may meet after their depar- ture from the monument, the UndcrKJgncd hits the honor to state, that it ia not expected that any limitations will be |)ut upon the course to be pursued by the H|R'cial commissioners, but such as are recpiircd by a faithful adberence to the description of boundary in the Treaty of 1 78.'J. It is true that drcat Britain has hitherto insisted upon the highlands of the Treaty of 178.'l being soUf^ht fur exclusively south of ibe St. John llivir, but it if also true that the United States have, with e<|ual coiifideiue and pertinacity, insisted upon seeking for tluni exclusively north of that river. It is the ilifticulty of reconciling these conflicting pretensions which ban hitherto |irevented the settlement of the boundary (luestion, arising cbiefly, however, from the impracticability of finding u point of highlands answering the description in the Treoty to which a line due north from the monument could be drawn. It is now proposed, therefore, to make another effort, and by means which heretofore have not been tried to overcome this dithculty, and discarding the due north line, should that become necessary, to seek for and find, in the first place, " the highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into " the St. I^wrence, from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean ;" and when these shall be found in any part of the disputed territory, north or south of the St. John's River, to draw a line from the monument to the said highlands, and to that point thereof which shall be nearest to a due north line from the monu- ment. Mr. Livingston, in his note of 2Mth May, has already provided against any deviation eastward from the direct north line from the St. Croix. The Undersigned, &c., (Signed) LOUIS McLANE. Rt. Hon. Sir C. R. Vaughan, Sfc. i)C. ifc. he land I if the Treaty Inclosure 2 in No. 2G. Sir C. R. Vaughan to the Hon. Louis McLane. Wanhmgton, June 6, 1833. THE Undersigned, &c., hastens to acknowledge the receipt of the note of the Secretary of State of the United States, affording him the further explana- tion which he thougiit it his duty to require, of the proposition wade by Mr. Livingston for settling the boundary. Tile Undersigned begs leave to express his satisfaction upon learning that the President directed an immediate answer to be given to his enquiries, and an assurance that no limitations are to be jiut upon tiie course of the proposed conmii-ssion, wi'.icii is to endeavour to find higiilands separating waters as discri- bcd in the Treaty of 17^.'?, in any part of the disputed territory, north or south of the St. John. The Undersigned will lo.se no time in subniitting the proposition made by flie (Jovcrnment of the United States to His Majesty's Government ; as the President, it appears from Mr. McLane's note, is not authorized, after the recent proceedings in the Senate, to agree upon a conventional line of boundary F rr^ 34 without the consent of the state of Maine, which it is not probable would be given, while there remains a reasonable prospect of discovering the line of the Treaty of 1 7HX The Undersigned, &c. Thf Hon. Louis McLanr. (Signed) CHAS. R. VAUGHAN. I rli I l\ ,1 ■'I' II No. 27. Sir C. R. Vauffhati to Viscount Palmerston. — f Received July 18.J My Iy)rd. Washington, June 20, 1833. TIIK President of the United States having left Washington on a visit to the northern states, I apprehend that, though Mr. McLane, the Secretary of State, has returticd to Washington, all further discussion of the boundary (pies- tion will be suspended until His Majesty's Government reply to the proposi- tion originally made by Mr. Livingston, and which I have already submitted to the consideration of your Lordship. I am convinced by what has passed between myself and Mr. McLane, that the President is very anxious to bring tlie boundary (jucstion to a settlement. How far that object is likely to be attained by the only proposal that he at present feels himself at liberty to make, it is for your I^)rdship to decide. It appears t'roni the correspondence which I have had the honour to trans- mit to your Ijordshij), that insurmountable (M)nstitutional dilHculties restrict the Government of the United States to treat only for a boundary according to the des«'rii)tion of if in the Treaty of 1783. Negotiation being lio|)eles8 upon such a basis, it is now |)rop()se(l to have recourse to a joint couunission to examine the country in a direction not strictly according to the letter of the Treaty, but in hG|)e8 of being able to terminate the line from the St. Croix, upon highlands which may answer to the description of them in the Treaty. It appears from the note of Mr. Livingston of July last, and of Mr. Mcl^ne of the :')th instant, that restrictions have been imposed upon the Presi- dent in compliance with the pretensions of the State of Maine, which lays claim to the whole of t!ic disi)ute(l territory. Maine was detached from Massachusetts, and admitted as a separate State into the Union, on the I.''>th .March, IH20; and from its local |M)sition it haa acipiired all the rights over the disputed territory which belonged to Massa- chusetts, one of the thirteen confederates of the revolution. It cannot be ex|>ccted that Great hrifain should admit the pretensions of the State of Maine to a territory which has never yet, since the conclusion of the Treaty of I 7^.'V been vested in the United States, as it has never been ascer- tained to the satisfaction of both parties, what portion of it, in conlorinity with the terms of that Treaty, ouiilil to be set apart from the possession of the British Crown. To admit the pretensionfi of Maine, would be to allow the (lefet:ts ol the Treaty to be construed entirv.-ly to the advantage of the United States. The compact by Treaty which made the thirteen colonies a new nation, was between the General fioveniineiil of that nation and (ireat ISritain. The cession in the Treaty, so far as it concerns the north-eastern boundary of the United States was conditional, and made to depend upon ascertaining the true line of boundary designated in the Treaty It is surely, therefore, for the two Governments to remedy any delects in their original contract, and to carry it into complete exe- cution without retereiice to the pretensions of any particular Slate. The constitution of the United .Stati-s gave to Congress the power " to " dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory " of the United States;" but it declares al.st) that nothing shall be done to prejudice a particular State, lu this last clause, i apprehend, is to be tbundthe consiitutional dilliculties which have ffiven rise to the restrictions imposed by the Senate upon the President, when directed to treat for the settlement of the boundary. If the proposition made by thi^ President ^hould be rijected by Mis .Ma- jesty's (iovernment, or tail in attaining the object sought after, nothing can be done until the coiistilutioiuil diflicidties now said to be insurmountable are removed. Thev mav be removed whenever tlie State of Maine will consent • i ■'i If 35 to leave the general Government unfettered by her pretensions ; but according to Mr. McLane's note, there is no hope of obtaining the consent of Maine, until every means iiavc been tried to trace the boundary according to Treaty ; and the acceptance of the proposition of Mr. Livingston, is recommended on those grounds. Enough has been done to prove the difficulty of tracing the boundary precisely according to the description of it in the Treaty. When it guaranteed the independence of Massachusetts, it likewise guaranteed to Oreat Britain the full possession of the province of Nova Scotia. When they were separated, the boundary westward of Nova Scotia, and between that province and Massachu- setts, had never been accurately defined, and as the actual geograj>hy of the country was not known, the commissioners who framed the Treaty of 1783, could only draw an imaginary line. A fruitless attempt to correct the defective description of the boundary was made by commissioners under the Vth Article of the Treaty of Ghent. This attempt has been followed by recourse to arbitration, which, according to tho Convention, was to have been a final and conclusive measure. The arbiter, furnished by each claimant witli every fact anil argument that has been adduced on either side of the question, declared the impossibility of tracing the boundary fine in conformity with the description contained in the Treaty of 1 783. It is utterly impossible to establish a division of the disputed territory according to that Treaty, and yet we are fissured that certain insurmountable constitutional difficulties must restrict the Government of the United States to treat only upon that basis. At the time when His Majesty's CJovemment is called ujmn to deliberate upon the only deviation from his restrictions which the President feels himself authorized to make, I cannot refrain from submitting to your Lordship these observations upon the pretensions of Maine, which have im[)oscd restrictions upon the powers of the executive, directed to settle this question, and u|)on the hopelessness of arriving at any satisfactory result, if we are to adhere to the letter of the Treaty. I have the honour to be, &c. Viscount Palm>^stn, -^.C.B. (Signed; CHAS. R. VAUGHAN. «fc. 8ff. &c. iisions of usion of II ascer- ty with le Uritish )f the The ween the II the (I Slates louiidary inents to k'tc exe- ii r " to lirritory (lone to uuiid the ^I'd by It of the No. 28. Sir C. R. Vanghan to Viscount Palmerston. — /^Rfceivi'd Augunt \.) (Extract.) Wnshiitylon, July 4, 183.5. THK President returned to Washington this morning. During his absence notiiing has occurred in my communications with the Secretary of State relative to the boundary question, and it seems to me that all discussion upon that subject will be avoided tmtil the decision of His Majesty's Government shall be known upon the proposition made by Mr. Livingston. Tiic information, probably, to be found in the Colonial Department, and that which may be ac(|uired from persons well ac(|uainted with the interests of Lower Canada and New Ikunswick, will have afl'orded the means of ascertaining, satisfactorily, the advantages and disadvantages of accepting that proposition. Tliouiih the constitution of the United States holds out to Foreign I'owers that Treaties are to be etfected by Ministers acting under instructions from the President, yet the Senate is invested with a controul over all subjects arising out of intercourse with Foreign Powers. Their participation in the making of Treaties luus generally been limited, since the administration of (Jeneral W;ish- ington, to advising and consenting to ratity a Treaty ; but their agency has been admitted by the President, formerly, by advising on the instructioii.s to be given previously to opening a negotiation. SVIieii the Senate, in the month of July last year, advised the rejection ol the decision of the King of the Netherlands, they look the initiative in the |)rocess of the negotiation which tliey direiled the President t.i oti'er to open at Washington for the settlement of the boundary, as they restricted the executive to treat only for a boundary, according to the de- scription in the Treaty of 178.3. 1 am jiersuaded tliiit tlure will be great ililhculty in constituting a joint com- mis,'St. Croix Kiver to tiie point where it strikes the 8t. John, and thence let it be continued along the right bank of that river westward to its sources, and afterwards, by the most direct line, to the sources of the Connecticut. I conceive that such a boundary would be worth purchasing by the sacrifice of any territory south of the St. John, and westward of the due north Une from the St. Croix. I;. ■ I No. 29. Sir C. R. Vaughan to VUcount Palmerston. — f Received December 5.J My I.rord, Washington, November 12, 183.3. THE Secretary of State, Mr. McLane, informs me, that the President has expressed an anxiou.'* desire to receive before tlu- meeting of Congress, on the 4tli of December next, the answer of His Majesty's Government, to the pr(!|)osal which I had the honour to transmit to your Ijordship, to settle the boundary between His Majesty's jjossessions in North America and those of the I'nited States, by having recourse to a commission of scientific persons, selected in Europe, wlio should examine the (lis|)uted territory, in search of highlands westward of the due north line from the St. Croix already explored, where waters are divided, which fall (m the one side into the river St Lawrence, and on the other into the Atlantic Ocean. The discovery of such highlands would coincide siilticiently with the terms of the Treaty of 17H3, to justify the Presi- dent in fixing the line of boundary, on his own authority, without any inter- vention of the Senate or any attention to tlie pretensions of the State of Maine. I have endeavoured to repress the impatience of the President by stating, that he niifjht rest a.ssurcd tliat there was no dis|)ositi()n, on the part of His Majesty's (iovernment, to deter coming' to a decision ujxjn any |)oint in agitation between tlie two (lovernnienls ; lint that the (juestioii of boumlury had heen a suliject of (()titr.)versy between the two nations for lil'ly years, and the delay in investigating tlie proposal of the United States niigiit justly be attributed to the • 37 great and important measures of domestic policy, which had occupied His Majesty's Government to a very late period of the present year. I have the honour to be, &c. CHAS. R. VAUGHAN. Viscount Palmerston, O.C.B. fifc. He. ifc. (Signed) No. 30. Sir C. R. Vaughan to Viscount Palmerston. — f Received January 1, 1834.^ (Extract.) Washington, December 4, 1833. THE two Houses of Congress having announced to the President that they were constituted, and ready to receive any communication from him, the annual message, a copy of which I have the honour to enclose, was deli- vered on the 3rd instant. With regard to the relations with Great Britain the President observes, that it is gratifying to perceive, that the intercourse between the two people is becoming daily more extensive, and that sentiments of mutual good will justify the hope, that unsettled questions may be satisfactorily terminated and new causes of misunderstanding prevented. He informs the Congress, that the interesting question of their north-eastern boundary is still undecided, but that an answer may be daily looked for, to a proposition submitted to the British Government with the view of establishing the line designated by the Treaty of 1 738. I have always pointed out to the Secretary of State, that the reotriction imposed by the Senate upon the President, to treat only for a line according to to that Treaty, is one of the great difficulties in settling the boundary ; and I have endeavoured to repress the expectation of receiving an answer imme- diately to the proposition of Mr. Livingston, on account of the complicated manner in which it has been proposed to constiluie a commission of scientific persons, to be sent from Europe, to explore a line, deviating only from the defective description in the Treaty of 1783, by permitting a search for high- lands, in any direction westward of the due north line from the St. Croix, laid down in that Treaty. Inclosure in No. 30. Extract from the Message of the Prendent of the United States to Congress. December 3, 1833. WITH Great Britain the interesting question of our north-eastern boun- dary remains still undecided. A negotiation, however, upon that subject has been renewed since the close of the last Congress, and a proposition has been submitted to the British Government with the view of establishing, in confor- mity with the resolution of the Senate, the line designated by the Treaty of 1 783. Though no definitive answer has been received, it may be daily looked for; and I entertain a hope that the overture may ultimately lead to a satis- factory adjustment of this important matter. No. 31. Viscount Palmerston to Sir C. R. Vaughnn. Sir, Foreign Office, Deceinber 21 , 1833 HIS Majesty's Government have given the most attentive and deliberate consideration to the several communications wiiicli they have received, through you, from the Government of tlie United States, upon the important subject of the north-eastern boundary ; and I am conunanded by His Majesty to instruct you to make the following eoinnnuucation to the American Government in reply. His Majesty's Government liave great i)lcasure in acknowledging the friendly spirit which pervades theconmiunications of the Government of the United States on this su'iject. Desirous as His Majesty's CJovernment are to confirm and perpetuate the good luK'erstaiuling which so happily subsists lietween the two countries, they naturally feel anxious to bring to an amicable adjustment, a ([uestion which has so long remained unsettled ; and they catuiot but fiatter themselves !«•, W ;l 38 that, through a conciliatory disposition on both sides, the remaining difficulties might he overcome. • His Majesty's Government trust that they gave a proof of" this disposition on their part, when they intimated to the Government of the United States, that not only were they pre))ared to abide, as they consider both parties bound to do, by the decisions of the King of the Netherlands, upon such of the points referred to him upon which he has pronoiniccd a decision ; but that they were willing to agree to the compromise which that Sovereign has recommended, upon the single point on which he found it impossible to make a decision strictly conformable with the terms of the Treaty. The Government of the United States has not hitherto concurred with that of His Majesty in this respect ; but as such a course of proceeding, on the part of the two Governments, would lead to the speediest and easiest settlement, it is tlie wish of His Majesty s Government to draw the attention of the American Cabinet to some considerations on tills subject, before they advert to the new proposition made to you by Mr. Livingston. It is manifest that nothing but a sincere spirit of conciliation could induce His Majesty's Government to agree to the adoption of the arrangement recom- mended by the King of the Netherlands; because the boundar)- which he propo.ses to draw between the two parties, would assign to the United States more than three-fifths of that dispuietl territory, to the whole of which, according to the terms of the award itaelf, tbe title of the United States is defective in the same degree as that of Great Britain. But it seems important, in the first place, to consider what the reference was, which the two parties agreed to make to the King of the Netherlands, and how for that Sovereign has determined the matters which were submitted for his decision. Now, that which the two Governments bound themselves to do, by the Convention of the 29th of September, 1827, was, to submit to an arbiter certain " points of difference which had arisen in the settlement of the boundary " between the British and American Dominions," and to abide by his decision on those points of diflerence ; and they subsequently agreed to name the King of tbe Netherlands as their arbiter. The arbiter, then, was called upon to determine certain (piestions ; and if it should appear that he has determined the greater part of the points submitted to him, his decisions on those points cannot be rendered invalid by the mere circumstance that he declares, that one remaining point cannot be decided in any manner that shall be in strict con- formity with the words of the Treaty of 1783; and that he, consequently, recommends to the two parties a compromise on tliat particular point. Tlie main points referred to the King of the Netherlands were the three following : — 1st. Which is the spot designated in the Treaties as the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, and which are the highlands dividing the rivers tliat empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, from those falling into the Atlantic Ocean, along which highlands is to be drawn the line of boundary from that angle to the north-west head of the Connecticut River. 2nd. Which is tiic north-west head of the Connecticut River. .'id. Which is tbe boundary to be traced from the river Connecticut along the parallel of the forty-firth degree of north latitude, to the river St. Lawrence, called in the Treaties, Iroijuoih or C'atara(|uy. Now, without adverting for the present to the opinion of the arbiter on the first point, I have to remark that on the second point he has given a positive decision, strictly confined uithin the limits of the reference, and to which no objection, even of a tecbnical nature, can by possibility be urged. On tbe third |>oint also, tbe arbiter has given a ))ositive decision, and has declared that the forty-fifth degree of latitude should be determined by obser- vation, lie has mdecd added to this decision a ree.onunendntiun that Rouse's Foiiit, and a surrounding circle with a radius of one kilometer, shall belong to tbe United States, whether Rouse's I'oint be, or l)e not, included within the territory of the United States according to the boundary to be drawn by astronomical observation ; and His Majesty's Government, in subscribing to tbe decision of tbe arbiter on this point, wliieh, like his decision on the second, they consider to be binding on both parties, declares itself willing to accede to the above stated reconiniendatton. > I ( I ; difficulties dinposition states, that aund tu do, 9 referred to : willing to n the single lonfbrmable ;d with that on the part ement, it is e American t to the new »uld induce Dent recom- y which he nited States h, according ective in the he reference erlands, and litted for his do, by the D an arbiter he boundary his decision me the King led upon to termined the toints cannot ;s, that one i\ strict con* onsequently, iU re the three -west angle tliat empty the Atlantic ry from that Tticut along Lawrence, rbiter on the a positive to which no ;d on, anil has by obser- that Rouse's 11 belong to d within the e drawn by bscribing to the sccimd, o accede to 99 ft appears then that, upon two points out of the three,-the arbiter has made a plain and positive decision. U|K)n the remaining point, he has declared that is impossible to find a spot, or to trace a line, which shall fulfil all the conditions required by the words of the Treaty, for the north-west ang:le of Nova Scotia, and for the highlands along which the boundary is from that angle to be drawn ; and he, consequently, recommends to the two parties a line of boundary, which he considers to be conformable with the spirit of the Treaty, and to approach the most nearly to the probable intention of its frainers ; and this line the British Government is still wiUing to adopt. But though the arbiter has declared that it is not possible to find a north- west angle for Nova Scotia, nor a separating range of highlands, which shall be precisely conformable with the words of the Treaty, yet in the course of his reasoning ui>on this (mint, he has decided several questions connected with it, upon which tiie two parties had entertained different, views ; iind it is the opinion of His Majesty's Government, that tiic decisions of the arbiter upon these subordinate questions ought to be acquiesced in by the two Governments. Tliey think that the spirit of the agreement to make the reference, requires that the two parties should so ac<[uiescc, and they are, moreover, of opinion that, by doing so, the two Governments would clear away several of the remaining points of diflcrence, and materially facilitate an amicable adjustment of the rest. 1st. The arbiter expresses his opinion that the temi " highlands," may properly be applied not only to a liilly and elevated country, but to a tract of land which, without being hilly, divides waters flowing in different directions ; and, consequently, according to this opinion, the highlands to be sought for, are not necessarily a range of mountains, hut rather the summit level of the country. 2nd. The arbiter expresses his opinion, that an inquiry as to what were the ancient boundaries of the North American Provinces, can be of no use for the present purpose ; because those boundaries were not maintained by the Treaty of 1783, and had, in truth, never been distinctly ascertained and laid down. .3rd. The arbiter declares that the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, mentioned in the Treaty of 1 783, is not a point which was then known and ascertained ; that it is not an angle which is created by the intersection of any lines of l)oundary at that time acknowledged as existing ; but that it is an angle still to be found, and to be created by the intersection of new lines, which are hereafter to be drawn in pursuance of the stipulations of the Treaty. And, further, that the nature of the country eastward ol the said angle, affords no argument for laying that ar^le down in one place rather than in another. 4th. He states that nti just argument can be deduced for the settlement of this rjuestion from the exercise of the rights of sovereignty over the Fief of Madawaska, and over the Madawaska settlement. .5th. He declares that the highlands contemplated in the Treaty should divide immediately, and not mediately, rivers flowing into the St. Lawrenre, from rivers flowing into the Atlantic, ami that the word "divide,' equires contiguity of the things to be divided. (5th. He declares that rivers falling into the Bay ofChaleur, and into the Bay of Fumly, cannot he consideretl according to the meaning of fbp Treaty, as rivers flowing into the Atlantic ; and, s-pecitically, that the rivers St. John and Ristigouche cannot be looked upon as answering to the latter description. 7th. He declares that neitiier the line of bouiuhu y claimed by (Jreat Britain, nor that claimed by the United States, can be adjudged as the true line, without {le|)artiny: from the principles of e(|uity and justice as between the two parties. Now, whether the two parties adopt the mode of settlement recommended by the arbiter, and agree to divide between them, in some proportion or other, the disputed territory ; or whether they shall still make another attempt to trace a boundary in strict conformity with the words of the Treaty ; in either case it appears to His Majesty's Government that it would be necessary to adopt tiiese _^ seven decisions of the arbiter, as a groundwork for further proceedings ; and it ), seems that no satisfactory or useful result could be obtained from the local f survey proposed by the American CJovernment, until the two parties are agreed upon these seven jwints. But with respect to the proposition made by the American Govenunent, the lirst question which presents itself is, whether there is any reasonable probability 1 1 1 ; )i '•i w jl 1 m. f ^Ui, 40 that a fresh local Burvey to be made in the manner suggested, would afford a solution of the remaining problem. The Treaty requires that highlands should be found, dividing rivers which fall into the St. Lawrence, from rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean ; and that those highlands should be found in a direction due north from a spot which has already been determined, namely, the source of the river St. Croix. Now, every thing which is known of the geography of the country tends to shew, that no such highlands can be found in that particular meridian ; and the American Government, almost admitting that fact, suggests that the required highlands should be sought for in a north-westerly direction from the ascer- tained spot. No doubt can exist that, by going far enough to the westward, such highlands as tliose required by the Treaty could be found, because it is well-known that the high ground in the neighbourhood of the source of the St. John, divides the Kennebec which falls into the Atlantic, from the Chaudi^re which falls into the river St. Lawrence. But the difficulty which is said to prevent the Government of the United States from acquiescing in the recommendation of the King of the Netherlands is, that the Federal Government has no authority to agree to any other line of boundary than that, which is described by the Treaty, which constituted the L^nited States ; at least not to any other line which might imply a cession of any part of the territory to which the Treaty, as hitherto interpreted by the United States, may appear to entitle one of the component States of the Union. But if this objection is insurmountable as against the line recommended by the King of the Netherlands, would it not be equally fatal to that suggested by Mr. Livingston ? Because, if the boundary was formed by a line drawn from the head of the St. Croix to highlands found to the westward of the meridian of that spot, that boundary would not be the boundary of the Treaty ; seeing that the Treatyreciuircsthe boundary to be run along themeridian of the headof the St. Croix, and the State of Maine might object to any deviation from the line of the Treaty in a westerly direction, as justly as it could to any deviation from that line in a southerly direction. Nay, it might object, with more appearance of reason, to a westerly departure from an ascertained meridian, which is distinctly specified in the Treaty, than to a departure southward from an imaginary line, which is only described in the Treaty, and the finding of which is a thing that has not yet been accomplished. The present state of the case, therefore, seems to be this : that to carry the Treaty strictly and literally into execution, is physically and geographically im- possible ; and that there exist constitutional difficulties in America which have not yet been surmounted, which prevent the Government of the United States from agreeing to a compromise. Upon a full view of this matter, then, His Majesty's Government think that, in the first place, and i)reviously to any further negotiation, they arc entitled to claim from the (iovernmcnt of the United States an ac(|uiesccncc in the decisions pronounced by the arbiter upon all tliose points which he has decided ; and, in the next place, tiiut, iis a preliminary to any attempt (in which His Majesty's Goverimient would gladly concur) to settle the remaining point by negotiation, they ought to be satisfied that the Government with which they will have to treat, is j)ossessed of the powers necessary lor carrying into effect any arrangement upon which the two parties might agree. I am, &c. Rt. Hon. Sir C. R. Vaughan, (Signed) PALMERSTON. iff. Sfc. 6fc. -3 No. 32. Viscount Palmerxlon to Sir C. R. J'autjhan, Sir, Forriyn OJfire, Deremher 2\ , 18,33. WITH reference to my accompany ing despatch ot December 21, the sub- stance of which you will communicate in an official note to the American Cioveniment, I iiave further to instruct you to make in the same shape, the following observations to Mr. McLane, on tiie subject of that constitutional tlitliculty by wliicli iilone the Aniericiin (jovernniciit, as ajipears from your correspondence with Mr. Livingston, is prevented from a('<|uiescing in the uld afford a 41 arrangement reconiniended by the King of the Netherlands for the final settle- ment of the boundary in the neighbourhood of the river St. John. The constitutional ditiicuity in (jucstion is stated to be, the want of authority in the Government to cede territory belonging to any one of the States of the Union; and it arises, on the present occasion, in consequence of an objection advanced by the State of Maine. The Government of Maine assumes, that the Treaty of 1 783 has given to that State a perfect title to all the territory lying to the southward of the highlands north of the St. John, and to the westward of the meridian of the head of the St. Croix. The State of Maine can have no other title to this territory than that which she derives from the Treaty ; and if the Treaty is found to have left that title imperfect, the assumption that the territory claimed under it is part of the territory of Maine, falls to the ground ; and that assumption is the basis of the constitutional objection by which the American Government conceives itself fettered. The arbiter has certainly failed to establish a boundary, such as is described by the Treaty, for the whole of the interval between the source of the St. Croix and those highlands which divide the waters of the Chaudiere from those of the Kennebec ; but he has at least determined what is nol that boundar}'. He has decided, for instance, in opposition to the claim of Great Britain, that the boundary to be sought for does not lie along the highlands to the south of the St. John ; but he has equally decided that it does not lie along the highlands claimed by America to the north of the St. John. For, by declaring that the rivers St. John and Ristigouche are not Atlantic rivers within the meaning of the Treaty, and, farther, that the Treaty requires an immediate division of rivers by the highlands, and is not satisfied by an immediate division in one direction, and a mediate division in the other, he has decided, that neither the highlands claimed by Great Britain nor those which are claimed by America, fulfil both of the necessary conditions. The arbiter's opinion is, that each of those ranges of highlands fulfils one of those conditions, and fails to fulfil the other ; that it is geographically impossible that there should exist highlands east of the sources of the St. John, which can fulfil both of them together ; and, conse(|uently, that the territory which lies between the highlands claimed by Great Britain, and those claimed by the United States, respectively, is not the absolute proi)erty of either party, but is, in some proportion or other to be hereafter determined, the property of both ; that the territory, if not entirely British, is also not entirely American ; and therefore is not such territory as the American Government can be precluded by the constitution from relinquishing. The only part of the territory in question to which the Government of the United States cannot constitutionally give up its claim, is that part which belongs of right to Maine, according to the Treaty of 1783. But the arbiter has clearly decided that the whole of the disputed territory does not so belong to the State of Maine ; and finding it impossible to determine how much of it is so belonging to Maine, he recommends a compromise by which the contending parties should settle their differences. I am, &c. The Rt. Hou iSir C. R. lauylian. (Signed) PALMERSTON. &c. &c. &c. No. 33. Sir C. R. Vaughan to Viscount Palmerston. — (Received March \^.J My l^ird, Wanhington, February 12, 1834. I HAVE the honor to acknowledge the receipt, on the 10th instant, by way of Livcr|)ool, of your Lordship's desj)atches, dated the 'ilst December. Until the arrival of the pai ket, bearing these despatches on the 10th of February, no intelligence from Europe had been received of a later date than the 'J7th Novem- ber, owing to an unusually long continuance of contrary winds. Having re(|uesti(l an audience of tlie Secretary of State, I delivered to him on the 1 Itii instant, two notes, copies of which it is not necessary to enclose, as they were traiisciipt.«^ of tlie despatches which your Lordship directed me to coniinunicate otlicially to the Covcrnnientof the United States. Wiien I pri'scntod the contents of the first of your Lordship's despatches, I observed that it was the opinion ol His Majesty's Government, that no favourable G 42 result could arise from the actual survey proposed originally by Mr. Livingston, until the two Ciuvcrninents should agree to nccjuieBce in certain points, wliich the arbiter had dearly decided accortling to the submission. Those points he would find enumerated in the note which 1 had delivered to him. It' the American Go- verntnent would consent to agree ujwn those points, many subjects ol' difference would be cleared away, and a tinal adjustment materially fVditated. After reading the tirst note, Mr. McLane seemed to think that the acquies- cence in the jwints enumerated by your Lonlship would still leave the President in all the embarrassment of the constitutional difficulty started by Maine, which Mr. Livingston's proposition was designed to get rid of, as wherever the propo- sed survey should discover highlands, on that point tiie Executive could fix the line of boundary as being according to the Treaty, without any reference to the Senate or to the pretensions of Maine. Having noticed the difficidty which Maine might again ofltr to any line di- verging from the due north line of the Treaty, to reach highlands to the west- ward of it, I presented in a second note, the observations contained in your Lord- ship's last Despatch, on the constitutional difficulty which has prevented the United States from acquiescing in the arrangement recommendetl by the King of the Netherlands. Mr. McLanc stated that he should immediately lay my notes before the President, after which he promised to see me again. There is no probability that I shall be able to report upon the disposition of this Government to acquiesce, in time for the packet which will convey this despatch. I have the honor to be, &c., Viscounf Palmerston, (i.C.B. (Signed) CHAS. R. VAUGHAN. 8ff. &(•. Ikc. No. 34. Sir C. R. Vaughan to Viscount Palmerston. — f Received April 2\.) My Uird, IFashimjton, March \2,\^34. I HA^'E the honour to trarsmit to your Lordship, the answer which 1 have just received from the Secretary of .State of the United States, to the two notes upon the question of boundary, which, according to your Lordshiji's instructions, I addressed to him on the lOlh ultimo. The President declines acquiescing in the seven subordinate points enume- rated by your I-«rdship, and growing out of one of the three jKjints wliich were submitted to the arbiter. With regard to the two other points, it is denied in the enclosed note that the arbiter had decided them ; but if His Majesty's Govern- ment will accede to the proposition made by the United States, for a survey upon the new principle |)ro|)osed, he is willing to adopt the stream situated farthest to the north-west ajnong those which fall into the northenunost of the three lakes, as the northermnost head of the Connecticut River, according to the Treaty of 17k3, and to disjiose of the other \w\nX by adoi>ting the latitude laid down in a survey of Valentine and Collins made in 1771 and 1772. The President thinks that the highlands of the Treaty may be found with the aid of more accurate surveys by skilful j>ci-8ons, freed as they arc to be, from the restraint of |)rocee(iing in a due north line from the monument at the sources of the St. Croix River; and he is |)ersuaded that His Majesty's (jovcrnment will be disposi,^e of the King of (ireat Kritain, on the north-eastern frontier of the United States, according to the Treaty of 1 7H',\, The proposition submitted by Mr. Livingston in his letter of the 'Mth April proceeds upon this basis, in the hope that, if embraced, it will remove the princi])al ditHculty which prevented the arbiter from attaining the object of the reference. The Undersigned is constrained to observe, however, that he cannot admit that even a decision, wiuch less the expression of an opinion by the arbiter upon some of the disputed points, but of a character not to settle the real controversy, is binding upon either party in any future attempt to adjust that which the arbiter failed to settle. Now the main object of the stipulation in the Vth article of the Treaty of Ghent, of the commis ;ion raised under that article, and of the reference to the King of the Netherlands, was the ascertainment of the north-eastern boundary along its entire line, according to the Treaty of 17H3, and which had remained unascertained since that period. It is true that, in the ascertainment of this boun- dary, many |)oints, as is most generally the case in disputed cjucstions of location, were involved, and that each of thost may be admitted to be necessary to the discovery of the true boundary throughout the whole line ; but when the arbiter felt himself unable to decide more Ih.tin one, or at most two, of thi'ne poinln, he was in fact little nearer the nccomplisluncnt of the great and real object of the reference, or of the objects of the Treaty of \7K\, and that of (iheiit, than if he bad left each point uiidctcrniiiicd The most material point in the line of the true boundary, liotli as it rcs|)ecls the ditHculty of the subject, and the extent of the territory and dominions of the respective (iovernmeiits, be confessedly not only failed to decide, but acknowledged his inability to decide, thereby imposing u\m\i both (Jovernnients, and especially that of the I'liitcd States, owing to the peculiar structure of its institutions, the unavoidable necessity of resorting to further negotiation, and other means to ascertain the real boundary of the Treaty of 17h;J; and as a necessary conse(|ucnce, each party was absolved from any obligation to ado|)t bis recommendations. Not only has the arbiter not decided all the points necessary to be ascer- tained for the |)urpose of establishinsr the true boundary oj'tlie Ireaty of 178.'} ; but the vital and most material point, that without which no ste]> can be taken in fixing the boundary and running the line sti|)ulated by the Treaty of \7H'i, he has undeniably left undecided, whereby the great objects of the Treaties and of the Convention of reference have been di'leated. Nor can the Undersigned admit, that of the three main points of difference referred to the arbiter as necessary to ascertain the boundary of the Treaty of 17!S3, he has decided two, as is sup|)Osed by His .Majesty's Government. On the first point it is not contended that the arbiter made a decision, or that he found either the angle or the higiilands called for by the Treaty of 1783; but it is on the contrary clear, that so far from deciding that point, or finding those places, he merely expressed an opinion of what would be suitable tor the parties to adojjt in lieu of the line of the Treaty ; and it appears to the Under- signed e(|ually clear, that, in relation to the third jioint, his opinion is expressed in no more positive language, and with no nearer an ap[)r(iacii to a decision. On this point he expresses an ojiiiiion merely that it will be suitable to |)rocced to fresh operations tu incuiuic the ol»ci\ed lulitude, but in such manner that 4ft the fort at Rouse's Point shall be included in the territory of the United States. The Undersigned is aware, however, that if the proposition made by Mr. Livingston should be acceded to by His Majesty's Government, and the commission hereafter to be appointed should result as the Undersigned believet it will, in ascertaining the true situation of the boundary called for by the Treaty of 1783, it would be afterwards necessary, in order to ascertain the true line of boundary, to settle the other two points according to which it is to be traced : and as the ])ropo8ition contained in Mr. Livingston's letter docs not apply to either of these points, the President is sensible that some understand- ing upon them will be proper to the attainment of the great object he is pursuing. The President has therefore directed the Undersigned to say, that if the proposition he has caused to be made, be acceded to by His Majesty's Govern- ment, notwithstanding that he docs not admit the obligatory efl'ect of the decision, or rather the opinion of the arbiter on the point, he is willing to take the stream situated farthest to the north-west among those which fall into the northernmost of the three lakes, the last of which bears the name of Con- necticut Lake, as the north-westcrnmoBt-head of the Connecticut River, according to the Treaty of 1 78.3. As it respects the third point referred to the arbiter, but upon which he failed to decide, Sir Charles R. Vaughan is, doubtless, aware, that as early as the year 1771 find 1772, the hne of boundary involved in it, was surveyed and marked along the 45th parallel of north latitude from the east side of Lake Cham|)lain to the river Connecticut, by Thomas Valentine, deputy surveyor on the j)art of the province of New York, and by John Collins, deputy surveyor of the province of Quebec ; that since that period, grants of land have been made by the resjjective Governments on both sides up to this line ; that settlements have been formed, that towns have risen up, and that jurisdiction has been exercised by the two Governments up to this line on either side. These facts are certainly cogent proofs that this line is the true boundary according to the Treaty of 1 783 ; and it appears to the President, that regarding the preser- vation of the population on both sides, their habits and settlements, this third point might be disposed of with nmtual satisfaction to both nations, and in strict conformity witii the Treaty of 1783, by ndoitting the line as surveyed and marked by Thomas Valentine and John Collins, in 1771 and 1772; and he will accordingly agree, if his pro|)08itiou as to the first point be embraced, to ado])t this hne. An acquiescence by the United States in the ojnnions, which it is supposed by His Majesty's (iovernment have been pronounced by the arbiter in the course of his reasoning upon the first point submitted to him, is liable not only to the objections already stated, but to others which the Undersigned is con- strained by the spirit of frankness in which the pro|)usition directed by the President has been ])resented, to inform Sir Charles R. Vaughan, are insu- perable. It is in the first place to be observed, that the matters to which the arbiter's oj)inions mentioned by Sir Charles R. Vaughan relate, although subjects on which the two parties may have entertained diU'erent views, were subordinate merely to the point in dispute submitted to the arbiter, and were used by the parties in illustraticm of their pretensions, and as affording grounds to sustain their respective positions on the real point in dispute. Tiie views expressed by the arbiter on these matters cannot be regarded as decisions within the meaning of the reference, but ratiier as postulates or premises by which, in the course of his reasoning, he arrived at tiie opinion expressed in regard to the point sub- mitted for his decision ; and it therefore follows, that the acquiescence on the jtart of the United States, as re(iuired by Great Britain, would be to reject as erroneous the conclusion of the arbiter, and at the same time to adopt the premises and rea.soning by which he reached it. It must also be remarked, that these seven jwstulates or premises selected by His .Majesty's (iovernment as necessary to be conceded by the United States, are but part of those on whicii the arbiter, in the course of his reasoning, was e(iually explicit in tiie expression of his views, and tiiat on others his reasoning may be considered as being more favourable to the pretensions of the I'nitel States; and no reason is perceived, therefore, why an acquiescence in the 46 I opinionH of thr nrhiter upon Uicm ahould not equally apply to all the preniiiM by him iiM'^iiMU'd, mid lie l)ii)(lin^ u|ioii Ixith (■iivi'mincDtH. The UnderHigiied i» ptTNiiaded. however, that there i* no nbligution upon either party to a('(|iueM< v in the upitiioii ot° the arbiter on any ol the mattcfH in- voked in his prenuMen, and that to do lo would defeat the end of the firment negotiation. It ap[)cara to be eonreded that, upon thin great and nuiat material point, the arbiter lias not made hiH decinion in such manner as to be binding u|)on either of the iMurtirs ; and if, in con».-quence of this fact, no obligation can ahie to acN f|uie*ce in hi* opinion u|)oti the inuiii |M)int he wan called upon to decide, certainly there can be no greater obligation to yield, not to his decisioiit, buttohiHopinionH upon niattcrH subordinate merely. The stipulationH in the Treaty of Ghent require the asrertainment and de- termination of those parta of the Imundary deoigiiated in the Treaty of Peace of 17S,'». therein mentioned, and the throe points of difference between the com- misKioncm appointed accordion to the former Treaty, were referred to the de- cision of the arbiter. Of thcHe the most material point is that of the high- lands to which the pro|>oHition directed by the President a|>i>lies, and which are designated in the Treaty of Peace a.stlie north-west angle oi Nova iicotiu, formed by a line drawn due north from the s(vurce ol the St. Croix River to the highlands dividing the rivers that empty theniKclvcs into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean. Now should it even be admitted that, in relation to some of the matters subordinate to this material point submitted to him, the arbiter may have ex- pn*88ed his opinions, yet it is obvious that the result of his reasoning;, and of those opinions upon his premises, taken together, instead of leading to the de- termination he was called upon to make, necessarily conducted him to the con- clusion, that neither of the lioundaries claimed by the re9])ective parties is the true line, and that he himself could not ascertain and determine which the true line accordini; to the Treaty, is. His premises and reasoning, therefore, ended in satislying the judgment oi the arbiter, that it was impossible for htm to decide the great point submitted to him. Uut. instead of reviewing his course of rea- soning, which, for the cause already stated, there was good ground to distrust, and in the opinion of the Undersigned wholly to reject, inasmuch as to admit its accuracy would be subversive of the objects and stipulations both of the Treaty of 1 rH3, and of that of Ghent ; an«l instead of ]ir(x-ee(ling by other means to ascertain nnd determine the tnie line, he recommended a new hne confessedly different from that called lor by the Treaty of 1783, answering in no particular the words of that Treaty, and which could only be established by a Convention between the two GoTemments. But this reconmiendation the Government of the United States could not adopt, nor without the consent of the State of Maine, agree upon a new and conventional line, ditfereitt from that re(|uire(l by the Treaty of {leace. llie resolution of the Senate, |iursuant to which the present negotiation has happily been renewed, proposes lo ascertain the boundary according to the Treaty of I7KI; and for tliis purp<)se, by whatever means it may be attained, the authority of the Government of the United States is complete, without the co-o|>cration of the State of Maine. Now it must be admitted, that the arbiter precluded himself from attaining this object, by his reasoning on the subordinate uiattcrs already mcntiontHi, and by failing afterwards to adopt other means not only allowable, but usual m such cases. In all questions of boundaries of tracts and countries designated by natural objects, the jiiain and universal ndc of surveying is, first to find the natural object, and then to reach it by the nearest direct course from any given point, and with the least possible departure from the particular course called for in the original deed or Treaty The obstacles by which the connnissioners, in the first instance, and the arbiter afterwards, were prevented from ascertaining the boun- dary upon tiic first jioint of ditlcrcm e, was the supposed i:n|H)ssibility of finding such highlands answering the description of theTrcaiy of l7H.'i, as could be reached by a line drawn oHitiuii submitted by the President pro* IioNiH to employ, and in the niunner particularly rclVrred tu in the lelttrs whidi lavp bi«n heretofore nddrf«M^ liy the Secrctaiy of Ktate to Sir Charles K. Vaughan. Now the profiosition of the I'reHident is tu find the tiighlaiuls anttwiring the description of thnae called for by the Treaty of 17H3, and to tlieiii, from the luoiiunient, to run n direct line ; aiid the President dues not duubt that, with the aid of ntore accurate surveys by skilful perHuim.un the gruund, and freed from the restraint hitherto impused by a due north line, such iii^hlands may be found, and wiiich either the commissioners or the arbiter mi;;ht imve fuund, had tliey adopted the rule now propoHcd. But the British (government asks tUe United bluti's, as a preliminary co ;- cesaion, to acquiesce in the opinion of the arbiter u|Kin certain subordinate facia, bein^ xevcn in number, by which, ol>viuuHly, 1h- was prevented from hndin^ that which it is the ot)ject of the I'resident now to discover. The Undersigned is persuaded that Sir (^hariea K. Vauglmn will admit tiiat the concession of these opinions would, in eriect, defeat the Hule object nut only of the proposition, hut of the negotiation at present renewed, i. r. the ascertainment and determinatiua of the boundary according to the Treaty of 1783. By the opinion of the arbiter, in relation to these Hubordinate matters, he reaches the conclusion that the discovery of the line of 17h3 was impracticable, and 'hat the question could only be settled by u conventional line ; and, there- fore -the ac(|uiescence of the United ,States in tlic same opinions would, in limine, confine the negotiation to a conventional line, to which, in the present state of the controversy, they have no authority to agree. To irwiftt u|k)u such concession would nut uiurely defeat tlui object oi' the negotiation, but would be an unnecessary departure from the terms and stipula- tions of previous Treaties. The clear object of tlie Treaty of Ghent is to ascertain the boundary designated by the Treaty of 1783, and that object it should be the mutual desire of tiie two Goverimients to accomplish by all the means at their conumnd. Althougli tl»e ed'urta already made for that \< •^<- have proved unsuc- cessful, neititer parti(« should be deterred, seeing hov. < ply the «ubject affects their amicable relativuis, from resorting to others more prunubing in their nature, but which, on |)reviou8 occat^ions, have been ovcrhxjked. If after a resort to the plain and universal rule now recomnieuded, it should be found impracticable to trace the boundary according to tlie Treaty uf 178,'{, it would lie time enough, and might then be desirable tu enter u|)ou a negotiation tor terminating the ditticuity by the adoption of a conventional line SMtisfnctory to both parties. This mode, Iwwever, could unly be adupted with tlie special assent of the State of Maine, and it is believed that the probability uf siK-h assent in tlte present state of the negotiation, while un the part of the authorities of that Stale, no doubt is entertained of the pnicticability of ascertaining the true line, and while so inucii contidence is felt in the means now prupused, is tuo rianote to justily any attempt to iinxure it. It would also be impossible tu recimcile the |)eople uf that State to the result of auy negotiation, in which should be at once conceded those points res- pecting which, in the course of his reasoning, it is supposed the arbiter com- mitted the most serious error, and by which he was prevented from coming to a decision by which both parties wouhl have been bound. The proposition directed ny the President, therefore, is to submit the whole subject, so far as it relates to this tirst point of ditlerence, to the commission mentioned in the note to .\Ir. Livingston of the ."JOtli of April, and clothed with the same puwers as belonged to the commissioners under the Treaty uf (liient, and to the arbiter, in order that, mstructed by the introduction of the rule now explained and not adojited by their predecessors, they may have greater means for a satisfactory discharge of their duties. F'or a successful termination of the labours of the commission to be instituted under this proposition, an unlimited discretion over all the jioints 48 M necessary to a pi'oper decision of the subject committed to it, is indispensably necessary ; and it must be obvious, that if the new commissioners should be restricted to the reasoning of the arbiter, either in its premises or conclusions, the only object of their appointment would necessarily be defeated. The Undersigned believes that, in the foregoing observations, it will be found that a sufficient answer has already been given to the suggestion of Sir Charles R. Vaughan, that the objection to the power of the Government of the United States to' adopt the line recommended by the King of the Netherlands, will be equally fatal to that suggested by Mr. Livingston. It may .lOt be im- pro])ei', however, further to observe, that the objection arises from the want of authority in the general Government to adopt a line confessedly different from that called for by the Treaty of 1 783 ; but their authority to ascertain that line being imquestionable, their power to employ all the legal and usual means for its ascertainment is equally clear. It is with this view that the proposition presented by the President, proposes to conform the course to tlie natural object, whereby the true line of the Treaty would be legitimately ascertained. On the (vhole, the Undersigned (tersuades himself that His Majesty's Go- vernment will be disposed to co-operate with the President in another eifort for the adjustment of this important subject ; and not be deterred from embracing the means now proposed, from an apprehension of difficulties which it is confi- dently believed are not likely to occur. Tlie Undersigned avails himself. Sec, (Signed) LOUIS Mc LANE. Sir C. R. Vaughan. No. 35. Sir C. R. Vaughan to Viscount Palmerston. — (Receired May 5.) (Extract.) Woi^hington, March 20, 1834. .^S I wished to avail myself of the earliest opportunity of transmitting to your Lordship a copy of Mr. McLane's answer to the pro|>osals for facilitating the settlement of the boundary, I had not time to consider it attentively before the packet sailed of the IGth instant, by which I forwarded my last despatches. Tiie decided opinion of Mr. Mcl^ine, that no part of the award of the arbiter could be binding ujmn the American Government, the rejection of the seven subordinate jwints, growing out of the first of the three distinct main points. sul)mitted to arbitration, and the jjrojKJsed conditional acceptance only of ♦i.e iwo others, though clearly decided according to the terms of the Treaty and of the submission, have induced me to make the observations in reply to Mr. McLane, in a note, a copy of which I have the honor to enclose. It appears to me that the Secretary of State of the United States will not admit any change in his plan of attempting, by a now and complicated com- mission of survey, to discover the division of rivers, which might |icrmit the President to run a line of boundary, which wouhl be .so nearly according to the terms of the Treaty of 178.'i, that he could assent to it without reference to the States of Maine and Massachusetts. Inclosure in No. 3.">. Sir C. R. Vdiujiian to the Hon. Louin McLane. iVashiiiijton, March IG, 1834. THE Undersigiicd has the honour to inform .Mr. McLuie, that he has transmitted to His Majesty's Govcmnuiit a (•oj)y of the iidti- received from him, dated the lith instant, in answer to tin.' proposal nuide by the British (Jovern- ment to the Goveriii'itnt of the United States, that botii parties should agree to 49 acquiesce in certain points, decided by the arbiter, which might facilitate the settlement of the north-eastern boundary of the United States. The Undersigned begs permission to call the attention of the Secretary of State of the United States to some observations, which he wishes to make upon the objections, which are said to be insuperable, on the , \rt of the United States, to an acquiescence in the points, which he has had the honour, according to his instructions, to submit to the American Government. The adoption of the views of the British Government, by the Government of the United States, was meant to be the groundwork of future proceedings, whether those proceedings were to be directed to another attempt to trace the boundary by a fresh survey of the country, as proposed by the United States, or to a division of the territory depending upon a conventional line. The Undersigned finds, that, in the note of Mr. McLane, there is a positive objection on the part of tlie United States, to consider any point of the controversy, as decided by tiie arbiter, to be binding upon the American Government ; that to agree in tiie seven points enumerated by the British Government would be to aciiuiesce in the premises, by which the arbitrator had arrived at a conclusion already rejected by the Senate of the United States. Tlie arbitration of the King of the Netherlands was invited, and accepted in the following general terms: "that His Majesty would be pleased to take " upon himself the arbitration of the differences between the two countries." The opinion of the arbiter was asked in the statements of the respective parties, not upon a question involving the whole continuous line '>f boundary, but upon three separate and distinct points, which were specified. The first of these main jwints could not be entirety decided by the arbitrator; but he decided seven subordinate points growing out of it, in which the United States have been asked to acciuiesce, as preliminary to any further proceedings. The Undersigned lias already had the honour to state in a former note, that the British (Jovernment does not conceive that the decision of the arbiter is invalidated, and ought to be set aside entirely, because it has failed to decide one of the three distinct points submitted to him. Mr. McLjme does not admit that the arbiter has decided, as the British Government .isserts, two out of the three main points submitted for his decision. In the opinion of the Undersigned, he has clearly decided what ought to be considered as the north-westernmost head of the Connecticut River ; but ac- cording to Mr. McLiine's note, the Government of the United States will only admit it conditionally. With regard to the third separate and distinct point submitted by the respective parties, the tracing the boundary line along the forty-fifth degree of latitude, in the American Statement ; " the ([uestion referred is, whether, under " the Treaties of I7S3 and of (ihent, the old line may be ccntinued to be " considered as the boundary of the United States, or whether this shall be " surveyed anew in conformity with the late observations of latitude." The arbitrator dciided strictly, according to the terms in which the question was put to him, in the American statement, that it would be right to proceed to fresh operations to measure the observed latitude. This decision was accompanied with a recommendation, that Rouse's Point, to which the United .States had abandoned all claim, should be restored to them. The Undersigned has had the honour to declare the willingness of the British Government, to grant that cession as a part of the preliminary points to be agreed upon by both parties before they proceed to further negotiation. Without any consideration of the cession of this point by His Majesty's Go- vernment, Mr. .NlcLaiie proposes to dispose of this third point (the line of boundary on the l.'ith dciirce til' latitiuk", by both parties agreeing to adopt the old line sur- veyed by N'alciitiiie and Collins previously to 1774. It appears, on .et'ercncc to the stiiteinciits delivered to the King of the .Netlu'rhuuls, that both parlies sus- pected the siuvey of \ alentine and Collins of great inaccuracy, and the only nu)tivc for retainii\g it can be thiit some American citizens nuiy have made settle- ments ujion some nine miles of territory, which a new survey might throw into the possession of (Jrcat Britain. 'I'lie I'lidersignt'd taunot agree with Mr. McLane that the accpiicscence of the I'nitcd Stales in the seven suliordinatc jioints lately submitted by His .Ma- jesty's (iovcrniiiciit would coDfir.i; the negotiation, in limini'. to a conventional line, to which the President has no authoritvto aurec; and. notwithstandimr the H ■ ^ i 50 unlimited discretion which the Secretary ot State proposes to pive to the com- missioners to be a]ipointe(l accordinir to Mr. Livingston's proposal, not n step can they take unless the two Governments agree upon two of' the seven subordinate points, which the Undersigned has enumerated in a former note, as they deter- mine the character of the land they are to discover as dividiuo; waters according to the Treaty of 1783, and what are to be considered as Atlantic riveis. Whatever may be the reluctance of the United States to consider the de- cision of the arbiter u|K)n any separate point, as not binding upon either party, l>ecau8e he failed to discover the line of boundary so defectively described in the Treaty, yet it cannot but be agreed that, in all points decided, there is un the lan- guage of the report of the Senate) the impartial opinion of a disinterested judge, selected by both parties to settle a (piestion of great perplexity. In answer to the observations of Mr. McLanc, that on many points the reasoning of the arbiter has been more favourable to the United States than to Great iJritain, and that, therefore, aKpiiescence should eout reserve, into immediate cttect, by comniis- " sioners ajipointed for that purpose by the contracting parties." Great Britain, in fulfilment of the obligations contracted under that Article of the Convention, announced to the United States her willingness to abide by the award of the arbiter. Ic is not for the Undersigned to decide how far the liritish Government 'vas entitled to insist upon the question of boundary having been finally settled by the decision of the King of the Netherlands. The Senate of the United States, according to the statement of the proceedings given in the eighth volimie of Congressional Debates, decided by a majority of only one vote, the numbers beiiii: twiuty-oiie to twenty, to (lecliiic to adopt the boundary recommended by tlic King of the Netherlands; and, by a similar majority, the numbers being twenty-three to twenty-two, the .'igned finds so important a measure defeated by a bare majority— when a m.ijurity of one oidy decided the Senate to advise the opening of a new negctiatioii- when that negotiation was restricted to one inadnussible basi-;, and aecompanieci with new pit'tensions which the Bi'itish (Jovernment could not consent to entertain in coimection with the liountlary tpiestion ; — when the plan pro|)osed by the United States for another attem|)t to trace the bouiulary of the Treaty i.- so complicated, and wlien tlic points proposal by ll'.c Hriiish Government are rejected, which were to render that plan more |iiactical)le, it is a subject of >incere reirret that the award ol the arbiter was set aside, which by conierring ujion the Uiuted States three-tilths of the disputed territory, together with Rouse's Point, nuule a much gi-eater concession than is ever likely to be olitaineil by a prolonged negotiation. But it is alleged that an insuperable con- stitutional ditliculty occasioned the rejection of the award, and therefore Great Britain is under the necessity ol ascertaining, previously to any further procce[i It is by thiT be [•on- rcat I'd- any lat. the tnds roni It proposal is to appoint a commission of e(|ual mnnbers, with an umpire selected by some friendly Sovereign, from amongst the most skilful men in Europe, to accompany the conuiiission, and decide n|>on the !^\w\, all points upon wliiili the conunissioners may ilisagree ; or to ap|ioint a connnission composed entirely of skilful persons selected by a Sovereign, and to be attended by agents a|)poiiitcd by the res|)ective parties. Having noticed to Mr. McLane the inconvenient complication of the intervention of a liiendly Sovereign, and the cxpencc and ditlitiilty of engaging, in such a coniniission. the talents icid indeiiendcncc ncci-^sary lor the accom- plishment ol' llu' object in view, be seems to think tluit tlicic will be no 11 -J 63 m ■€\ : ■ I'- ll / . Mil ( difficulty in obtaining tlie assent of the United States to any modification of Mr. Livingston's plan for constituting a commission which His Majesty's Govern- ment may propose. Mr. McLane declares in his note, tiiat a conventional line of boundary, or a new attetnpt to find the line of the Treaty of 1783, arc the only alternatives ; and that the United States have no power to adopt the former without the assent of the State of Maine. Tlie General Government has the constitutional authority to estabUsh the line of 1 783 ; and the President and the Senate are of opinion that it is practicable to ascertain that line ; and that it is hopeless to obtain the assent of Alaine, to a conventional hne, until the impracticability of so doing is proved, after a fresh examination of the country. Under these circumstances His Majesty's Government is invited by the President to make another effort to find the line of 1 783. I have the honour to be, &c. Viscount Palmerston, G.C.B., (Signed) CHAS. R. VAUGHAN. &ic. iendently of tlic preiiminary ;>cti(iii of the Senate: but neither the I'resident, nor the Senate, nor both united, had au- thority without the assent of the State of Maine to agree u|)on a new and conven- tional hne. Now, it is clear that in tlie second instance of the vote of the Senate, to which Sir Charles R. Vaughan has referred, the advice given by that body had no relation whatever to the opinion of the arbiter ; but on the contrary, as the Senate had previously refused to concur in consenting to the adoption of the award, suggested only that course, which, in the opinion of the majority, it would be expedient for the President, under the circumstcinces, to pursue. And if it were proper, which in the opinion of the Undersigned it is not, to enter into any speculation of the reasons by which the minority of twenty two on that occasion were influenced in refusing to give any advice to the President, they might well be supposed to arise either from such advice being unnecessary, or perhaps a disposition with some to insist upon the strict pretensions ujmju the j)art of the Uniti'd States, without farther negotiation. But however unne- cessary such advice might be, it nevertheless miinifested that, in the opinion of twenty-three members of the Senate, not only deserving, but, from the co-ordi- nate authority of that branch of the executive power in any ultimate arrange- ment of the subject, commanding, the highest respect, it was yet practicable to ascertain the line of boundan,- according to the Treaty of 178.3, and that it was advisable that the President siiould enter upon a new negotiation for that object. This resolution, therefore, did not defeat, " so important a measure," to wit. the adoption of the line recommended by the arl)iter, which as has been shewn, was defeated before, thongh it may be admitted to have restricted, lor the present at least, the general discretion of the President in his farther efforts to arrange the difficulty, to a negotiation to fix the Iwundary according to the line of 1783, Anil it cannot be too often repeated, or too forcibly impressed upon the mind of Sir Charles R Vaughan, and u|)on the consideration of his Government, that any attempt to i)rocure the consent of the State of Maine to a new conventional line after the proceedings of the Senati , and while, in the opinion of so large a portiim of that body, the ascertainment of the line called for by the Treaty of 1 783, was |)racticable, woidd have been utterly ho|)eless. It is, however, a consideration of even greater nnportance, in the present state of the discussion, that, ar^ to the practicability of yet ascertaining the true line of the Treaty of 17<1, the opinion of the President concurred with that of a majority of the .Senate. The President has been at no time less sensible of the difficulties attending the settlement of this subject, tbati of the vital importance of its settlement to the future amity between the two nations ; and he has never been unwilling to give every evidence of hi;- ^-olicitiide to the full extent of his constitutional authority. He dulv a|)preciate-; the observation of the Committee of the .Senate iilludcd to bv Sir Charles R. \'a\ii;han, that it is a <|uestion of much |)erplexity and difhculty : and he has, iherefore, alwav:- endeavouied to bring bis mind to the consideration of the subject with thai firmness and lortitiide, no less than with the most friendly disposition, necessary to overcome the difficulties with which it is beset. He ])erceived, however, that in all the previous efforts between the two (ioverniueiits to ascertain the boundary according to the line of he Treaty ol 17>*''J, and in tlie di liljeratiuns of the arbiter, a natural and uiiil'oriu 55 able to that it or that easure," lis Ijeen ted, I'oi efforts to the |)res8ed ot his to a new rule in the settlement of disputed (|uestion8 of location had been altogether overlh the line of I7K!, which shall be designated as such by the commission contemplated in the jiroposition submitted under the direction of the ] 'resident. The want of authority in the (ioverument ol' the L'uited States, which has been >tated as a dilHcuIfy to the iuloption of the line rei'onunended by the arbiter, arises iVom the eircumstaiice that tiiat line is not only confessedly different tVom the ori^'inal line called lor by the Treaty, but would dejjrive the State of Maine of a portion of territorj-, to which, according to the line of 1783, she v.Duld be entitled. Hy the |iroposition of the President, howcvei, a com- mission is to be raised, not to recommend or establish a new line different from the Treaty of I7n.3, but, to determine what the true and original boundary, according to that Treaty was, aiid in whicii of the two disagreeing parties the right to the disputed territory, originally was. For this purpose the authority of the original commissioners, if they could have agreed, was complete under the Treaty of Ghent, and that of the new connnisssion, now to be constituted, cannot he less. It ajipears to the I'ndeisigned, fioui a view of the whole subject, that it imperiously becomes both (Jo\erninents seriously to consider the present posture 56 t'' I ' J •!■ t ;^| " I i ! h I'' i of the affair, and tlieir future amicable relations ; and, in proportion to tlie difficulties admitted to exist, to cultivate the disposition necessary to surmount them. it is not contended that either of the high parties are bound to adopt the hne of boundary recommended by the arbiter ; and the Senate of the United States have refused, by a vote of great unanimity, to consent to its adoption by the President. It cannot, with propriety, be contended, that the United States were under gri'ater obligation to take the line recommended by the arbiter, when he himself could not be satisfied of the right of either party, than either Government would have been under, to adopt either of the lines upon which the original commis- sioners disagreed. Nothing remains, therefore, but to discard tlie line called for by the Treaty of 1 783, and adopt a new and conventional line, mutually convenient for both parties, or to make a further efTort, by means yet untried, but affording reasonable \w])e of success, to discover the true line of the Treaty of 1 7H3. To ii(l()|)t the former alternative the United States have no power without the assent of Maine, and that assent in the present state of the controversy, while there remains a reasonable hope of discovering the true and original boundary, it is not possible to obtain. It is under such circumstances that the Government of His Britannic Majesty is invited to unite with the President in another effort, aided by the adojition of a plain and easy rule of surveying, to find the line of the Treaty of 1 7H3 ; and thus finally to remove the chief obstacle to that state of amity, which it is so much the interest of both nations to cherish and i)erpetuate. The Undersigned, &c. Right Hon. Sir C. li. ]'(iughan, b!c. &r. iic. (Signed] LOUIS McLANE. Indosure 2 in No. 30. Sir C. K. VaiK/han to the Hon. Louis MrLnnf. U'dMmjtiin, March 24, 1H34. THE Undersigned, &c. has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the note of Mr. McLanc, &c., of the '2ist instant ; and lie feels himself called upon to offer some ex]>lanati()n of the misapprehension, which it appears that he has entertained of the bearing of the several divisions in the Senate, when the award of the King of the Netherlands was under their consideration. The Undersigned found in the rejKirt, which lias bcpn published of the proceedings in the Senate on that occasion, the (piestion distinctly taken, and the award rejected by a bare iiiiijority of one vote. Tlie division of thirty-five to eight, which Mr. !\IcI.^ine statts was decisive ujton the award, as it negatived the resolution in the report of the couiniittee which rcconiniended the acceptance, escaped the attention of the Undersigned, in coiiseiiueiiee of that (juestion having been divided and encumbered with amendments. Subsequently, a resolution similar to the one in the report of the conunittee, the Uiulersigned now finds was rejected by a vote of thirty-four to eight. The inference drawn by Mr. Mcl^uie from these two divisions is, that only eight Senators were in favour of accepting the award ; and it had been deterniined that two thirds of the Senators present niu>t concur in consenting toaccejit it, which (ould not. from the nature of the opinions expressed by the aibiter, be carried into effect by the President without the consent of the Senate. Mr. McLane asserts that the decision of twenty Ui twenty-one, cited by the Undersigned, had no direct application to tlic validity ot the award, and afforded no indication of the o|tiiiion ol the award lA' the tweiitv Senators who voted lor its acceptance, and yet the vote was (li-.tlnctly taken ii|m)1i the (|iie>lio!i, whether the Senate should a(l\ ise the Pk -iiiei.l to (kcline to adupl the lioiiiidary leeoni- niiiided by lli> .Majoiy the Kiim ol the .VethiTJaiid^. With ri'gard to the obsi'ivation of the Underj-igiied, that the mode in which it wa.s proposed by the United States to settle the boundary was coni|)licated, he did not mean to apply it to the adoptiim of a rule in the settlement of disputed (piestions ol location, hut to the nianiier in which it is |iroposed bv the United States, that the new lonimission of survex shall he sclecteil and constituted. U I 67 Tlie only alternative now l)einj<, according to Mr. McLane's note, to decide upon a' conventional line of boundary, or to make another attempt to find the line of the Treaty of 1 "83 ; and the United States not having the power to adopt the former without the aa.'.cnt of Maine, the Undersigned will seize the earliest opportunity of laying before Ilia Majesty's Government the invitation of the President to make another effort to discover the line of the Treaty. The Undersigned, &c. The Hon. Louis MrfMne, (Signed) CHAS. R. VAUGHAN. S)f. Sfc. &f. ■d by the iiri'onli'd volid for whether , ri'i'oni- No. 37. Sir C. R. Vaughan to Viscount Pnlmerston. — ^Received July \lj (Extract.) IVanhinyton, June 12, 1834. Mr. McLanc has lately expressed to me some impatience to receive the answer of His Majesty's Government to the proposal for settling the boundary. I beggetl leave to remind him, that the British Government had not been in- attentive to that proposal, that I had had the honour, according to your Lordship's instructions, to invite the acquiescence of the American Government (as a pre- liminary to any future proceedings) in certain points which were distinctly enumerated, and which it was thought had been satisfactorily decided by the King of the Netherlands The proposal of the British Government had not been met with that ready concurrence which was expected. However plain ai.d : nple the proposal of the Government of the United States now under the de oeration of His Majesty's Government might at first ap|)car, it varied but little from a renewed attemjjt (declared to be inadmissible) to trace the boundary according to the Treaty of 178:3. Mr. Jcrterson, when President of the United States, acknowledged in a message to Congress, dated 17th October, 1803, that the boundaries established by the Treaty of Paris, in the north-eastern and north-western angles of the United States, were voo imperfectly described to be su.sceptible of execution. Under his administration, a Convention for settling the boundary was signed at London on the 12th of May, 1803, by Lord Hawkesbury and Mr. Rufus King, which the .Senate woidd not consent to ratify ; but amongst the documents which accompanied that Convention, when it was submitted to the Senate, are the instructi(ms sjiven by Mr. Madison to Mr. King, in which he observes, that the dilficulty in fixing the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, " arises from a reference " of the Treaty of 1 783, to the highlands which it is now found have no •' definite existence." The principal object of the pliin proposed by the AnHTicin Government, is to send a new commission in search of these high- lands, and the only deviation from the terms of the Treaty is, that the new survey is to be made westward of the due north line which has been fruitlessly explored by the commissioners under the \'th article of the Treaty of Ghent. I stated to Mr. McLiine that I found, upon reference toamaj), that the new conwnission could not find in their course westward any highlands answering the Treaty description of dividing waters fiowing into the Atlantic from rivers which empty themselves into the St. Ijawrence ; as, so far as the latter part of the description was concerned, the high fiat land through which the river .St. John passes, must intercept any waters in their course from highlands south of that river to the St. Lawrence. If this was foreseen, and if upon the commis- sioners failing to discover the highlands of the Treaty south of the St. .John, it is expected that they are to continue their examination in the territory north of that river, it should be recollected that (ireat Britain has always maintained, on undeniable grounds, that the United States have no claim to any territory be- tween the St. John and the St. Lawrence. The American Commissioners engaged in negotiating the Treaty of Paris, were instructed according to the " Secret " Journals of Congress," that it was not thought advisable to continue the war merely to obtain territory as far as the St. John. In the old charter of Massa- chussetts Bay there is no mention of the St. John as the boundary of that colony; and in the ancient charter of Nova Scotia, granted to Sir William Alexander in 1G38, oil the country is included from the Bay of Chaleur to the Kennebec River. 56 Upon itiy Mnlinf; that it was my prlvalf opinion that if the proponal of the Anierirnn (iovrrnnuMit ghoiilil Ik- iuith of the St. Joiin, Mr. Mcl^me ohHerved, that any such condition would amount to a refusal to ncx-ept the ))ro|H)Hal. mi l.lrl'f f ' No. 38. VUcovnl Palmer»ton to Sir C. R. VaiKjhmK Sir, Foreiijn Offin; Or/o//«T 30, 1834. HIS .Majesty's (Joverninent iiave considered, with all the attention which the {^reat importance of the subject demands, the notes addressed to you (m the 1 1th and *2 1 St of March, hy Mr. Mcl.4me, Secretary of State for the I'nited States, of which copies were enclosed in your despatches of March 12, and Marcii 2N, respectively ; and I am conununded hy His Majesty to instruct you to make the following answer to those communications. IIi.4 Majesty's (iovernment perceives with great satisfaction in the languag;e of Mr. McLune's notes, and in his earnestness in pa-ssing upon His Majesty's Government a jiropotition helieved hy the President of the United Slates to be conducive to an adjustment of important diHcrences between the two Govern- ments, a new prooj of the friendly sentimentj of tiie (Jovernment of the United States towards that of His Majesty, and a fresh manifestation of a desire to con- firm and |ierpetuate tlie amicable relations now so ha|)pily subsisting between the two countries. Animated by a similar spirit of cordial friendship towards the i'resident, and Government of the United States, and actuated by an unabated and most anxious desire, to arrive at a settlement of this (piestion of '.)Oundary by any means not inconsistent with the honcnir and with the essential interests of (rrcat Uritain, His Majesty's (iovernment in replying to the No'.ea of Mr. Mcl^ne, have deter- mined to abstain from expressing all the regret which they feci, at finding that the American Government still declines to come to a separate understanding on these several (loints of ditt'erence, with res|)ect to which the elements of decision are fully before both Governments. Hut His Majesty's Government cannot refrain from saying that they regret this circumstance the more, because on the one hand, these |H)ints of ditlurence are not beset with such dilKculties as attend the ascertainment of the highlands describcil by the Treaty of 1 'S.'J, and because on the other hand, the settlement of these )>oit)ts could not tail to facilitate the adjustment of the remaining |)oints of difference, by narrowing the field of dis- cussion, and by clearly establishing some of the data, upon wliich a right deter- mination of those remaining points of difference mu.st depend. Passing by, however for the present, these subjects of just regret, but without in any degree abandoning the argument contained in my despatch of the 21st Decem- ber, His Majesty's fJovermnent will now address themselves exclusively to that proposition of the President, which is contained in Mr. McLane's notes, and in tlie previous connnunications of Mr. Livingston of the 3()th A|)ril, and 28lh May, 1833; the proposition, namely, that new commissioners should be up- pointed, who should be empowered to seek, westward of the meridian of the source of the St. Croix, highlands answering to the description of those wliich are mentioned in the Treaty of 1783. The President founds this proposition on what Mr. McLane represents to be, a plain iuid universal rule for surveying and laying down the boundaries of tracts and of countries, designated by natural objects. This rule being, tirst to find the natural object, and then to reach that object by the nearest direct course, I'rom any other given point ; and with the least possible departure I'rom the particular course prescribed in the original deed or Treaty in which the boundarv is described. The President, it is said, does not (l()ul)t that with the aid of more accurate surveys of the ground by skilful persons, highlands answering to the definition of the Treaty, may yet be found, and he adds that " should a new conunission of survey, freed from the restriction of following " the due north line of the Treaty, find any where westward of that line, high- " lands separating rivers according to the; Treaty of' 17^.'^, a line drawn to them " from the monument at the source of the .St. Croix river, will be such a I'ul- " KItncnt of the tcnni ol that Tronty, hh that the FrcMidciit can agree to make " it the homidury without a rt'tcreiu-e to tlie Stair ol Maine. " Mitt MajcHty'H (lovvniment think it ri)i;ht, witli regard to thix propooition, in the tirst place, to iay, that however juHt and reationuble the rule of Hurveving here stated by Mr. McLane may seem, they do not conxider tliut rule to he ho se- neraily entahhohed und recognized aa Mr. Mcl>ane aflsumeH it to he. liiH Ma- jeityM Ciovcrimient, indeed, do not recollect any caHc Himilar to the preitent in which tiic principle here anscrtcd has heen actually put in practice ; hut, on tlie contniry, they rrniend)er a cane not merely analogouH to that which iH now under diitcuHHiun, hutariiting out of the same article of the ttame Treaty of 17H3, iu which this supposed rule was inverted by the agents of the Ameiicaa (Jovern- nient itself. The Treaty of \7ii'^ declared that the line of boundary was to proceed from the Ijikcof the Woods " in a due west course to the river MissiHsippi." It was afterwards ascertained, by actual survey, that even the sources of the Mississippi lie south of the latitude of the Uike of the Woods, and that, consecjuently, it would be impossible to reach the Mississippi by any line drawn due west from that lake. In order to escape from the ditticuity thus encountered, it was urged by the American commissioners that the natural object, the Mis- sissippi, should be wholly i sfiKirittiiuj rivers, accnnliiKj tn the Trviity nf 1783, and in conformity with the words of tliat Treaty, thev must bo " highlands which divide those 12 m " rivfrs thnt empty tlirmHt'lve* into the lijviT St. Lnwrfiicc I'nim tliom- which " tall into thu Atlantic Ocean." A*, tlu-ivforc, the hi(;hhin(lit intended l>y the Treaty, nrc to he diHtin^uiHlied I'roni other higldandn hy the rivern whicli (low I'roni them ; and uh thoite (h»tingniHl)in)i; riverHaruto he known from other riverH hy tlic itituution oC their moutlis, it in oliviouH tliat the operatiouH ul' tlie Hnrveying com- miMHioners ean lead to nu iiractieal reHult, unleOH it he Hcltled herorehand which are the rivurH that full into the St. Liiwrenee, '.'"'I 'vi.i,.!. .uc diuHe thut fall into the Atlantic Ocenn. Now, with reupcct to the river* which flow northward into the St. Lawrence, no difll'rence of opinion Iium uritten hetween the two (lOvernmcntH. Hut with renpect to tlic riverH which flow Houthwurd into the Atlantic Ucean, a diH'erence of opinion ImM taken place. The British Govermncnt contend that the Treaty of I7h;\, cHtahlinhed u distinction in this rcitpect, hetween the Atlantic Ocean and the Hay of Fundy, and tliat riverK falling into the Hay of Fundy, arc not, for the purposen of the Treaty, rivers falling into the Atlantic Ocean. The American (lovennnent on the other hand, han maintained, that, for the purposes of the Treaty, the Hay of Fundy in part of the Atlantic Ocean, and that rivers faHing into tlie hay, may be considered to be rivers falling into the ocean. I do not deem it necessary to recapitulate in this place the conclusive arguments, by which it has l)cen shewn, in the Uritisli statements, whicii were laid before the arbitrator, and whicli are now in the hands of the American Government, that the framers of the Treaty of 17H3, when they used in the second article, the words " rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean," could not possibly have meant to designate any rivers whose mouths were situate to the eastward of the River St. Croix, which falls into the Hay of Fundy. I think it Butticient on the present occasion to advert, in support of this construction of the words of the Treaty, to the striking fact, that whilst the River St. Mary, which was to form the southern boundary of the United States, is described in the llnd Article of the Treaty as falling into the Atlantic Ocean, the River St. Croix, which was to form the eastern boundary, is described, not merely in the same Article of the Treaty, but in the very next member of the same sentence, as falling into the Bay of Fundy ; while a little further on in the same Article, the eastern line of boundary, where it terminates at the mouth of the river St. Croix, and the southern line of boundary, where it terminates at the mouth of the River St. Mary, are described as " rcsiMK-tively touching the Hay of Fundy and the " Atlantic Ocean." Can it be seriously maintained that, in a Treaty for settling a ([uestion of such vast imjtortancc, as a boundary between two con- tiguous States, a matter which of all others imperiously recjuires preciseness of expression, the terms " Hay of Fmuly," and " Atlantic Ocean," should have been thus set, not once only, but twice in the same Article, in pointed op|)osition to each other, and yet that no real distinction should have been intended to be drawn between them ; but that the " Bay of Fundy," and the " .Atlantic Ocean," should have been carelessly used as synonymous and convertible expressions ? His Majesty's Govermncnt conceive that no reasonable doubt can be cntertaii\ed that where the St. Croix, the eastern limit of the I'nitcil States, is described as falling into the Bay of Fundy, it is advisedly so described, in contradistinction to the other rivers which are mentioned in the same Article, as Howing into the Atlantic Ocean. Hut, if the St. Croix, whose mouth is situate at the very entrance of the Hay of Fmidy, is not an Atlantic River in the iiuaiiiiig nf ih, Treaty, none of the rivers which discharge themselves to the eastward *< St. Croix, and higher up in the Hay, can possibly be considered as such. The view which has unifonnly been taken of this (juestion by Mis Maj "s Government, has lately received additional conHrniation by the terms ol ilic award of the King of the Netherlands, The opinion ex|)rcsse(l in that document, that the Rivers St. .lohn and Ristigouche are not Atlantic River>, according to the meaning of the Treaty, although it may not be acce|)te(l by the Government of the United States, as carrying with it the authority ol an award, is at least, to use the language of the rej)ort of the .Senate of the United Slates, " the impartial " opinion of a disinterested judge selected by both parties to settle a question of " great ])erplexity." Considering then the force of the arguments which 1 have here cither stated fil or referred to, niui mlvertiii|t tn the I'ltct that IhoDc nr^tiincnti hnve been con- finned liy ll>e opiniuii of uii iiii|iiirtiiil authority nelccted by the coininon euiiMcnt of the two (ioveriiinentH, iliH MajeHty'x (iovcrtiineDt truit that the American (.'nliinct will !»' |ire|)!\rcd to a^rec with that ut' MiH MajcHty, ua to the coiiHtniction to lie put upon IhiH paHHa^c uf tlie 'IVenty, and will concur in deciding that tho Atlantic KivcrH whi(-h are to (;ui(le the coniiiiiHMionerH in Hcarchin^; lor tho highlandn descrilted in the 'i'reaty, are tlioHc rivers wliich fall into thu 8ea to the westward of tiie nioutii of the River St. Croix. You will rejiresent to Mr. McLiuie that Mis Majesty's Government, consider a clear agreement between the two (iovennnentH on thix point, to bo uii indixpcnHaiile preliminary to the eHtabliithment of any new commixHion of survey. 'I'ill this point is decided, no survey of coniniiHsioners can lead to any useful result : but the decision of this point, turns u|ion the interpretation of the wordii of a Treaty, and not ujion the ojierations of surveyors; and. His Miijesty'a Covermnent having; once submitted this point, in conmion with others, to the judgment of an impartial arbitrator, by whose award they have declared themselves ready to abide, they cannot now consent to refer it to any other arbitration. I am, &c. liiijhl Hon. Sir C. R. Vauyhan, (Signed) I'ALMER.STON. St. «(r. iir. ss of have sisition to be :ean," ons ? ained I (1 as ( tion o the vcrv I K lie incnt, ng to iment ist, to iiutial ion of No. .39. Sir C. R. Vaughan to Viicount Pnlmerston. — ^Received Decnnber 8.J My IjOid, WdKhtmjton, Novfinber 12, 18''^4. THE Secretary of State, Mr. Forsyth, re(iuested to see me on the Gtli instant, when he stated that the President had directed him to ascertain whether 1 had received the answer of His Majesty's (iovernment to his proposition for settling the boundary. That he was under an expectation of receiving an answer upon referring to tlic notes of Mr McLane of the 1 1th and 2.'Mesce in the points submitted by your lx)rdship nuist have thrown in the way of giving a decisive answer to Mr. Livingston's projiosition. His Majesty's Goven\ment have to regret the rejection of that line, and, upon referring to tlie debates in tlie- Senate, I find that he voted for tlie adoption of it. I observe in your Lordship's first despatch of tlie 'ilst December, 1833, that the British Government is still willing to adopt that line. I siiould wish to be prepared to meet iuiy overture wliich may be thrown out during the next session of C'ongresa for revoking the rejection of that line by the Senate, which entirely released His Majesty's Govenunent from any obligation implied by the terms of the Vllth Article of the Convention of Arbitration. It should bt remembered that the north-eastern Iwundaryof the United States is carried by tho line proposed by the King of the Netherlands beyond the river St. John, and the denial of the claim of the United States to pass to the nortli of that river is one of the strongest points maintained in the British statements. It is true that one object of interest to Great Britain, in this question of boundary, is secured by it, namely, an uninterrupted communication between HaUfax and Quebec, but the line proposed by the King of the Netherlands passes from the St. Francis River to join the line assumed by the American connuissioners under the Treaty of Ghent, which leaves, in its course to the Connecticut River, a narrow strip of land to Great Britain, upon the right bank of the St. Lawrence, in some places not more thiin thirteen miles wide. Though the conuimnications received from the Govemnv'nt of the United States, shew a marked desire to remove the possibility of the relations between the two Governments Iwing disturbed by tht- boundary being left in its present state, they still persist in restricting any negotiation to the impracticable object of tracing the boundary strictly according to the description of it laid down in the Treaty of 1 7H3. They have refused to facilitate the adjustment of the controversy by accpiiescing in the preliminary {wints submitted to their consideration by your f»rdship not long since ; and it is to be hoped sonu' proposal of compromise, more hkely to end in a satisfactory •^sult than their last proposition, will ultintately be made by them. i have the honour, &c. (Signed) CHAS. R. VAUGHAN. llscounl Palmerston, G.C.B. iic. &c. s<«. r il» No. 40. Sir C. R. I'augkan tc I'lscount Palmerston. — Received December 'lA.) My Lord, Wwthimjton, NoLentiter '27, ISM. HAVING been induced to draw up a sunmiary of the proceedings between the British Government iu>d that of the United States, since the Treaty of Ghent, for the settlement of the Iwundary, I take the liberty of transmitting u copy of it ••) your Ijoi-Hship. I trust that your I»rdship will excuse my callin:; your attention to the inclosed paper, but I am at a loss to account for the little progress which I have made towards settling the ((uestion of b«)undary since I returned to Washins-ton, and there is every reason to believe, that it will be bnmght before congress, before tlie close of the approachiiii: session. I iiave the honor to be, &c. riscount Palmerston, (i. C. B. (Signed) CHAS, 11. VAUGHAN. &c. 8fc. «(r. J Inclosure in No. 40. Summary of the Prtceedinf/s for .yettliiuj the norlh-efutrrn lioundurij of the United Sldtfs, uith obneriation.'i upon the present state if that que.tion with thi' Americiin (lociTuinent. BY the .Itli Article of the Treaty of Ghent, which was concluded on the 2A\\\ Dicember, 1814 it was agreed that Cominissiouers should be apponited to 63 trace the line of boundary between His Majesty's North American {wssessions and the United States, as designated in the Treaty of 1 783. The Commissioners were named in 1816, and they held their first meeting at St. Andrews, in New Brunswick, on the 23rd of September of that year, and they held their last meeting, after which they adjourned, on the 1 3th April, 1822, havini^ entirely differed from each other in their views of the line to be established. It was agreed by the Treaty of Ghent, that in that case, tlie Com* missioners sliould make their reports to their respective Governments. The reports of the British Commissioner i.> dated 23rd October, 1820 ; and that of the American Commissioners, 13th April, 1822. It was also agreed by the Treaty of Ghent, that the differences of the Con* tracting Parties should be submitted to the arbitration of some friend!;- Sovereign, in the event of the Commissioners failing to ascertain the line of boundary intended in the Treaty of 1 783, and a Conventii^a of Arbitration was concluded at London ca the 29tii September, 1 827. His Majesty the King of the Netherlands accepted the invitation of both parties " to be pleased to take upon himself the arbitration of their differences." It was agreed, that instead of tlie voluminous and complicated reports of the Commissioners of Boundary under the 5lh article of the Treaty of Ghent, new statements should be submitted to His Majesty the arbiter. The first statements were interchanged between the respective Governments in the course of the year 1829, and they were delivered, together with their final statements, to tlie king of the Netherlands, in the course of the year 1 830. In these statements, the ai-gumcnts of both parties were directed to the maintaining of the respective lines of lM)undary assumed by their Commissioners under the 5th article of the Treaty of Ghent. Three points were submitted to the arbiter as the points of difference between the two countries. His Majeitty the King of the Netherlands was called upon to decide from these statements, 1st. Wliiit was to l)e considered as the j)oint designated in the Treaty of 1783, as the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, and the line of boundary to he traced thence according to the Treaty of 1783, along the said highlands to the most north we-stem head of tl>c River Connecticut. 'Jiid. Which is to be considered as the most north-western head of the Connecticut . 3rd. Whether the Iwundary line from the Connecticut along the forty-fifth degree of north latitude to the River St. Lawrence, ought not again he surveyed Pud laid down afresh. With regard to the first point of difference it was contended in the British statements, in conformity with the rejxjrt of the British Coninn.ssicmers under the 5th Article of the Treaty of Ghent, that the north-west angle of Nova Scotia of the Treaty of 17N'<, was to be found uiwn the first highlands with which they met, at Mirs Hill, forty-three miles from the source of the River St. Croix, where they terminate their due-north line of the Treaty. They proceeded to draw thence according to that Treaty, a line along the broken chain of hills trending westward from Mars Hill to what ihey considered to be the north -westernmost head of the ('(innecticul River. This line passed at the heads of the Rivers I'enobscot, Kennelwc, and Androscoggin, wlii(rh were considered by tliem to be the rivers designated in the Treaty of 1783, as falling into the Atlantic Ocean, and that tl'.cy were divided from rivers en\ptying themselves into the River St. Liiwrencc, not iiumediately, but the line being drawn according to Treaty, " along the said " highlands," and those highlands terminating westward at the distance of nearly lOO miles from Mars Hill in high land which separates the Cliaudiere rivir which ein|>ties itself into the St. Lawrence, from the Kennebec river which falls into the Atlantic, they mediately divide rivers emptying themselves into the St. Lawrence, and therefore sutliciently coniplv with the terms of the Treaty of 1 7H3. With regard to the second jujint of difference, Great Britain contended for establishing tlie source of the stream wliit h Hows into the uppermost lake alwve Coiinertieiit Lake, as the most nortii-westcrn head of the ('oiinccticut River. \\ itii regard to the third point of difi'ercnce in the British statements, it is 64 ftj* 'i M li Vi f contended that the forty-fifth parallel of latitude from the Connecticut to the St. Lawrence, ought to be again surveyed and laid down afresh. In the American statements it is contended, with regaid to the first point of dift'erence, that tlie north-west angle of Nova Scotia is to be found at a point 144 miles from the source of the St. Croix, following a due-north line, and sixty-six miles beyond or north of the River St. John ; that the north- eastern boundary of the United States ought to be traced thence along the elevation of land which lies to the north of that river, leaving in its course to the source of the Connecticut a narrow strip of land to Great Britain, upon the right bank of the River St. Lawrence, in some places not more than thirteen miles wide. With regard to the second point of difi'erence, it is contended in the American statements, that the head branch of Indian stream should be consi- dered as the north-westernmost source of the Connecticut ; and with regard to the third point, instead of consenting to a fresh survey of the forty-fifth parallel of north latitude, the United States adhere to the survey of Valentine and Collins made in 1771-1772. Upon which line it is stated, that a Governor of New York, in 1775, gave a grant of 20,000 acres of land. The awanl of the Arbiter, the King of the Netherlands, was delivered at the Hague on the 10th of January, 1831. His Majesty determined that the documents exhibited, and the vague and indeterminate stipulations of the Treaty of 17K3, did not permit him to adjudge either of the lines of boundary assumed by the respective parties in their state- ments. His Majesty, it may be collected from the award, was of opinion, that the term highland, applies not only to a hilly or elevated country, but also to land, which, without being hilly, divides waters fiowing in difterent directions ; — " that the verb divide, appears to recpiirc the contiguity of the objects to be " divided ;" — that the ancient delimitatio" of the British provinces docs not aflbrd the basis of a decision ; that the source of the St. Croix River, witii which the north-west angle of Nova Scotia ought to coincide, was detennined only by the declaration of 17i)8, which indicated that river; that the instructions of congress, when the Treaty of 1 783 was negotiating, locate the said angle at the source of the River St. John ; that according to Mitchell's maj), the latitude of that angle is upon the hanks of the St. I.,awrcncc, consequently, that the north- west angle of Nova Scotia was unknown in 1 783, unascertained by the Treaty of Ghent, and still remaining to be found. With regard to the second point of difference submitted to the arbiter. His Majesty decided that the stream situated furthest t(» the north-west of the streams, falling into three lakes, the last of which bears the name of Connecticut i^ike, nnist be consii' >red as the north-westernmost bead of Con- necticut River. With regard to the tiiird point of difference, the survey afresh of the line of boundary from the Connecticut to the St. I^iwrence, along the 4,')th parallel of latitude north ; the arbiter decided, that it would be proper to j)roceed to fresh oiKsrations to measure the latitude- As His Majesty the King of the Netherlands was unable, from the docu- ments laid before him, to adjudge either of the lines assumed by the res|)ective parties, he suggested a line of boundary which he conceived it would be expedient for them to adopt. 'J'his line p.issed in a due north direction, from the moinnnent erected at the source of the St. Croix River, in 179H, to the centre of the River St. John, up that river to the mouth of the River St. Francis, and up the St. Francis River to its source, north of the St. John, and thence till the line should meet the one assumed by the American connnissioners under the rtlUi article of the Treaty of Ghent, when both lines were to be united in one and the same to the source of the Connecticut River. This line of boundary, propiscd by the arbiter, was most disadvantageous to tircat Britain, as it conferred upon the United States three-fifths of the terri- tory in dispute, and it < arried their north-eastern boundary beyond and to the north of St. John ; while (ireat Britain insists that the account which has been published in the United States of tiie negotiations of Faris, which ended in the Treaty of 1783, proves that the United territory north of the River St. John. States can have no claim to any 66 I'ctive idiunt ii;l'OUS tirri- () the s biei» II (he any Besides, the arbiter chose at the same time to propose that Rouse's Point, lonej since abandoned by the Americans, as clearly within the drijree o( hititnde which was to be tiie boundary of the Hritish possessions in Lake Champlain, according to the Treaty of 17h;j, should be restored to the Americans without any apparent reason or equivalent. His Majesty's (Jovernnient, in order to put an end to this long dispute about the boundary, did not hesitate to aimounee to the Ciovernment of the United States, their willingness to accpiiesce in the line proposed by the King of the Netherlands, in fulHIinent of the obligations contracted under the Conven- tion of Arbitration, by the 7th article of which the parties agreed that " the decision of the arbiter, when given, shall be taken as final and conclusive; and it shall be carried without reserve into immediate effect." The awartl of the arbiter was delivered at the Hague on the 10th of Jainiary, 1831 ; and on the 12th of that month, Mr. Preble, the American Minister to the Netherlands, without any reference to his Government delivered a protest against it, in order, as he stated, that he mi;;bt not be presumed to acquiesce in proceedings which were a departure from the power delegated to the arbiter by the jiarties interested. Mr. Preble being a native of the State of Maine, which is the State most interested in the decision of the (juestion of boundary, and he having been employed to draw up, with Mr. (laMantin, the final statement to be laid before the arbiter, his protest was calculated to influence the final decision of his Government. He denied that authority had l)een given to the arbiter to determine what boundary should be established, if the Treaty of 1 7>>.'{ could not he executed according to its stipulations ; and he asserted that such a substitution of boundary had been steadily resisted at Ghent and at Washington. He denied that the " ligne des versants" claimed by the Americans on the lM)rder of the St. I.,awrcnce. and the " liKtie des versants" claimed by Great Britain at Mars Hill, (which he describes as an i.-iolated hill) ecpially well comjKirt, as the arbiter conceived, with the language of the Treaty. — Tl .it no rivers can empty themselves into the St. Lawrence from the highlands claimed by the British, as either the river .St. John, or the river Restigouche must intervene. The award of the arbiter, iaul the protest of Mr. Preble were communi- cated at the same time by him to the Governor and I..egislaturc of his native State, that of Maine, and resolutions were j)assed to prevent, if possible, the President from ac(|uiescing in the line pro|)osed by the arbiter. Though it was generally understoiid that the President ofthel'nited States was disposed to abide by the award of the arbiter, he avoided the responsibility ol deciding upon its validity ai\d when the congress assend)le(l at Wash.ington ill the month of December, is.^L he submitted the award to the Senate for their counsel and advice. It was referred to the committee on foreign relations, and Mr Tn/ewi II, the chairman, made a re|nMt on llii' '.!lst ^Llrell, IH.'VJ, which I (included with a resolution that the Senate should advise the President, to aii|iiiesce in the decision ol the King of llie Netherlands. It was not iiiilil the ^.'Ird June, Is.'VJ, that the Senate came to a vote upon that resolution of their committee, when it was negatived by thirty-tive to eight, being more than a majority of two thirds of the Senators present, which is necessary, according to the constitution, to decide (|nestions involving the participation of the .Senate with the Ivtecutive in tmnsactions with Foreign States. A (|uestion favourable to a set! lenient ol the point was afterwards put in another form, and was negatived only by a majority of one.* The reason iiiven to His Majesty's (lovernment (or the rejection of the decision of the arbiter, in a note fr<>m (he Secretary of Stale. Mr. Livingston, dated'Jlst .Inly, l^.'t'i, were, that the Senate co\ild not advise and consent to the execution of the award, because ihe decision ol llie arbiter was not considered as ohligatory--th.it Ills Netherland Majesty not being able, consistently, with the evidence heline liiin, to declare the line ol boundary intended by the Treatv, had abandoned the character of arbiter, and had assumed that of a medi.ilor, advising lM)th parties thai a boundary which he described should be accejitcd as one most convenient to both of them. *See .Mr. McLkiu-'s rxiiliiimtiuii uf tliia Voto, |i. ^4, ami Sir Thus. Vaugluii's obivrvntiuiK ii|>oii it, |i. an. I 1 ( • Wi 06 l'„ i It was stated also in the same note, that the line of Iwundarj' suggested by the Kiiii; o» tlie Netherlands trenches on the State of Maine, and that State contniverts tiie constitutional power of the General Government to circumscribe its limits withr>ut its assent. The Senate, after having rejected the award, recommended it to the Presi- dent liy a majority of twenty-three to twenty-two, to olfer to the British Go- vernment to o|)en a new negotiation at Washington for the settlement of tli« boundary, hut tiiey restricted the President to treat only for a boundary such as it is (iescribe the United States liir claim to the territory which lies northward and eastward of the line recommended by the arbiter for an ample indcnmity, in order that the General (loverinnent might make such arrangement with Great Britain as should comport with the iriti rests of the United Stated. The (Jovcrnor tin refore submitted to the Legislatun' the expediency of authoriz- ing their agent at Washinirton to make an arrantrement lor an indemnity with the (ii.icral (Government, which would relieve their relations with Great Britain lioiu nmch embarrassment, and put an end to those collisions with the British authorities, which, if continued, must inevitably prevent the settlement of the territory, and endanger the peace of ihc natii>M. It was declared by the Gover- nor, that it was the decided and uiiaminous opinion ol the agent of Washington, and of the d'li-gation of the State in congress, that surli an aiiangement sliouUI Lc made by .nich the Stale would be amply remunerated in a pecuniary point 67 ^■■i of view for the loss to be sustained, and the principle would not be iilmndoned for which the State had contended that the United States, or General Govern- ment, have not the constitutional power to alienate any portion of the territory of a State without its consent. It was at the same time recommended by the Governor, tliat the State of Massachusetts should be invited to unite in the proposed arranjj;ement. The whole territory of the State of Maine was formerly a part of Massachusetts, which purchased in the year 1674, the grant of Charles I, of the province or county of Maine to Fernando Gorges, and that State, by tiic act of separation, retained the fee simple of a moiety of the wild lands, but, the residue and the entire sovereignty and jurisdu'tion was vested in Maine, «hi(;ii was admitted into the Union on the l.'ith March, 1820, having been thus constituted a sepa- rate State by a cession of a part of Massaciiusetts. The legislature of Maine promptly acceded to the measure recommended by their Governor, but the lei;islature of Massachusetts declined to co-operate, as the Governor of Maine refused to communicate some confidential letters received from their agent at Washington. When further explanation was required of the arrangement alluded to with Maine, the answer was in Mr. Livington's note of tlie 2l8t July, 1832, that the anticipation entertained of that arrangement had not been realized. The American Govermncnt did not consider it iiopeless to discover the boundar)' intended by the Treaty of 178.'J, and it was proposed to avoid the diffi- culties arising from the prejudices of negotiators in favour of the construction put upon the Treaty by their respective Governments, and the want of local knowledge which may have countervailed the advantage which was to be derived from a sovereign arbiter, by appointing a new commission consisting of an equal number of commissioners, with an umpire, selected by some friendly sovereign, from amongst the most skilful men in Kurope, to decide, on all points, on which they disagree ; or by a commission entirely composed of such men, so elected, to be attended in the survey and view of the country, by agents appointed by the parties. " Impartiality, local knowledge, and high profcssiimal skill would thus be employed, which, though, heretofore separately called into the service have never l)efore been combined for the solution of the question." In a note from Mr. Livingston, dated 28th May, 1833, it is stated in further developement of his proposal, that the President is willing that the commission ahall l>e restricted to the sim|)le question of determining the point designated by the Treaty, where highlands divide the rivers menti(med in the Treaty, to which point wherever it may be found, a straight line shall be drawn from the monument at the source of the St. Croix, and that this line, as far as it extends, tibull from part of the boundary in ([uestion : tiiat they shall then trace the line nloiv; the highlands and fix on the |H)int designated as the north-western-most lu'ad of (b ■ Connecticut River. At liii' snmc time tiiat it was thus proposed that the new commission should authorized to discard the due nortli line from the St. Croix River of tiie Treaty, any deviation from it eastward, or on the side of New Brunswick, was provided against. In u note troin the successor ot Mr. Livingston, as Secretary of State, Mr. McLaiie, dated ath June, 1^33, it is stated no limitations were to be put ujioii the coursi" to be |)ursued by the new commission, but such as are re<|uired by a liiitliCiil adiien-nce to the description of boundary in the T'caty of 1783. The Couiinissioncrs are to seek for and find, in the first jilace, the biglilands which divide tiiose rivers that empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence, from tlio-e which tall into the Atlantic Ocean, and when these shall be found in any part of the disputed territory, north or south of the St. John River, a line is to lie drawn I'roni the monui leiit to that point of the said higiilands which •hall be ncari st to the due north line. Alter an attentive and deliberate consideration of the communications on the subject of i)ouiiilary made by the Government of the United States, the British Minister was in-itrmted, in a despatch dated 21st Ueccmber, 1833, received at Washington on the Ultli February following, to draw the attention of the (Jo- vcrniiicnt of the United States, to some considerations, before adverting to the proposition for a new commisBion of survey, Nothing, it was stated, but a sincere spirit of conciliation could have induced Ilis Maji'sly's (iovi'rninent to ado|it the arrangement recommended by the King of the Netherlands, because the boundary he proposed would assign tx) the United K2 I I 08 if I i r I States more than three-fifths of that disputed territory, to the whole of whicli, according to the terms of the award itself, the title of the United States is defec- tive in the same degree as that of (Jreat Britain. The first jwint submitted to the arbiter was, which is the spot designated in the Treaty as the north-west angle of Nova Scotia ; und which are the highlan reasoning upon these points, His Majesty's (iovernment were of opiniim that the arbiter had decided several cpicstions upon which the two parties entertained diflerent views, and that the spirit of the agree- ment, to make the reference, rcijuires, tluit they should ae(|uicsce in these decisions, their doing which will cleiir away several points of dillerence and facilitate the amicable adjustment of the remaining. 1st. The arbiter is of opinion that the term " highlands" may be applied to a tract of land, which, without being hilly, divides waters flowing iu ditferent directions. 2nd. The arbiter has expres.sed his o])inion that it is of no use to encpiire what were the ancient boundaries of tlie North American i'rovinces, whiili were not maintained by the Treaty of 1 78.3, and had never been distinctly ascertained. .'Jrd. The north-west angle of Nova Scotia had not been ascertained, nor was it known in I7IS3 ; it is an angle still to be found. 4th. No argununt can be adduicd from the exercise of the rights of sover- eignty, over the fief and over the settlements of .Madawaska. Ml. The highlands should divide immediiitcly and not mediately, rivers flowing into the St. Lawrence from rivers fiowiiig into the Atlantic. (jth. Rivers falling into the liay of Ciialeurs, as the Restigouche does, or into the Hay of Fundy, as does the .'^t. John, cannot Ik- considered as rivers flowing into the Atlantic. 7tb. Neither the line of boundary claimed by (Jreat Britain, nortliat claimed by the I'liited States, can be adjudged as the true line. His Majesty's (iovernment were willing lo restore Rouse's Point, but they conceived that it would be necessary to adopt the decision of the arbiter upon the aI)ove-emnnerated seven points, betore any satisfa(;tory or useful result could be obtained from the local survey |)roposed by the .\meriean (iovernment. Mis Majesty's (iovernment lboui;lit that tliey were entitled to claim from the (iovernment ol the United Stales an ae<|uiesience in these decisions, asthev areenumir.iled, of the arbiter ; and tiial as a preliiiiinary to any attempt to settle the remaining points by negotiation, they ought to lie satisfied that the General (jovermnent is possesed of the jiowers necessary for carrying into efl'ect anv ar- rangement upon which the two parties nii^lit agree. The dilhculty which prevente.l the United Stales lorm m(|uiesciiig in tlu' delermiMalion of the King of the Netherlands, namely, that His Nelherland Majesty's pro]K)sed line of bounilaiA did not agree with that which is descriiied in the Treaty, would ecpially apply to a line drawn, as .Mr. Livingston has proposed, to the westward of the line men- tioned in the 'I'reaty us to be drawn due north from the source of the River St. Croix. The l'resiinion of the arbiter is obligatory upon either party- The only proposition in which the United States was disposed to acquiesce, was the adoption of the stream decided by the arbiter to be the north-westernmost head of the Connecticut River ; and this only on condition that His Majesty's (Jovcrnment should accede to Mr. Livingston's proposal for a new commission of survey. With regard to the third point, which His Majesty's Government thought suflicit'iitlv decided by the arbiter, who recommended that the parallel of the 4r>th dei^ree, north latitude should be re-surveyed, the United States insist upon adhering to the survey of Valentine and Collins, because grajits of land have been made by the respective Governments on both sides up to that line. That line, of Valentine and Collins, the president would consent to adopt, if his proposition should be embraced for a new survey. To acquiesce in the seven subordinate points would be, in the opinion of Mr. McLane, to defeat the ascertainment of the boundary, according to the Treaty of 178.3, which was the object of the president's proposition, and would confine the negotiations, in limine, to a conventional tine, for which the institutions of the United States would not permit the president to treat, and which cannot be resorted to until it is found impracticable by the proposed com- mission of survey to trace the boundary according to the Treaty of 1783, and then it is a measure which can only be adopted with the special assent of the State of Maine. No notice is taken of His Majesty's willingness to cede Rouse's Point as one of the preliminaries. Mr. McLane observes in his note, that the arbiter has expressed his o])inion " that it will be suitable to ])roceed to fresh operations to "(ineasure tiic observed latitude ; but in such a manner that the fort at Rouse's " Point shall be included in the territory of the United States." No satisfactory answer was given in Mr. McLane's note, to the enquiries of tlie British Govcrnuient, respecting the power of the ])resideiit to make a final arrangement. It is stated only that, should the nt-.v commission succeed in finding highlands separating rivers according to the Treaty, the president can agree to make the line drawn to them the boundary, witiiout reference to the State of Maine, because it will be a line traced sutlicicntlv, according to the Treaty of 1 7H3. The president of the United States having in a message, July 1834, to Congress, characterised the correspondence which iiad been carried on under the instructions of Lord I'almcrston, since tiie month of April 1833, res[)ecting the boundary, as a negotiation which had been in progress ever since ; the Uritish Minister at Washington was instructed to be prc])ared, should any communication be made to him from tiie President on the <|uestiou of boundary, todeclare that His Majesty's (loverninent considered the communications which they have made to the American (lovernment, as having turned entirely upon preliminary points, and as iiaving left the two parties e(|uully free, as to the (luestion whetiier fresh negotiations shall now be entered into lor the settlement of the matters in dispute, and also as to the choice of place where such negotiations are to be held. The jjrecediiijj summary of the proceedings for settling the north-eastern boimdary of the United States, clearly shows that the delay in adjusting the diflerenccs between (ireat Britain and the United States is not attributable to the former, but to the determination of the United States to adhere to an imprac- ticable mode of settling it, namely, the tracing of the line of boundary, according to the description laid down in the Treaty of 1 783. This was the only basis of the now negotiation otlered by the President, to be oi)eiied at Washington, after the rejection by the Senate of the line of boundary proposed in the award of the King of the Netherlands, as a suitable coniprumise, and whidi Great Britain had annouiurd her willingness to adopt, tlioii.li it would sacririce part of her just claims. To this inadriiissible basis of a luw negotiation, a new iiretcnsion was added, as e(iunlly conducive to the preservation ot the good understanding between the two nations, namely, the navigation of the river St. John and its tributary Strean\s, though the whole course of tlial river trotn itssoiureto its month, Hows tlirouirb a count.'-y hitherto in the exclusive jjossession of (ireal Britain. As Great Britain retused to admit the princijile of treating about the navigation of the St. Jolnij as necessarily cotmected witli the question of boundar\, that pre- 70 h tension was withdrawn, iind the proposal subsequently made to constitute a commission of survey to search after highlands and the north-west an^lc of No a Scotia ; with this only deviation from the description in the Treaty of 1783, that the commissioners should not be restricted to the due north line, as is stated iu the Treaty, but should be allowed to explore the country anywhere westward of that line. This is not such a deviation from the strict terms of the Treaty as can lead to a hope, after all that has passed, that a new commisHiun will discover the features of tlie boundary, as they are describod in the Treaty of 1783. The dehneation of the limits of the ancient and original settlements of European States in North America, was necessarily vague and obscure. Tlie British settlements at first were divided into North and South Virginia. That part of New Brunswick involved in the (luestion of the north-eastern boundary of the United States, was formerly the French I'rovince of Acadie, which was ceded to Great Britain by the 12th article of the Treaty of Utrecht ; and the limits of that province were a source of controversy between Great Britain and France, until the cession of the remaining French North American possessions by the Treaty of 1 763. Afterwads the uncertainty of the delimitations of the North American settlements was a constant source of altercation between their provincial Govern- ments. In this state of uncertainty of the colonial limits, and no actual survey of the country having taken place, the commissioners who framed the Treaty of 1 7H3, were called upon to trace a boundary between provinces wiiich wure to roujain in possession of Great Britain, and provinces which were constituted by that Treaty into independent states, with no better map of the country before them than the one published in 17J5, by Mitchell, under the protectiuu of General I'ownel, governor of New Kni^lund. One of the thirteen colonics acknowledged by the Treaty of 1 783, by (ireat Britain, to be independent, was that of Massachusetts Bay. It would be reason- able to conclude that the chartered limits of Massuciiusetts would ut once deline the intended north-eastern boundary of the United States, but the limits between Nova Scotia and Massachusetts had never been established, and wliun the Treaty of 1783 was made, the ciiarter of William and Mary, of IG'Jl, was in force, which incorporated into one province by the name of the province of Massachusetts Bay in New England, the old colony of Massachusetts Bay — -the colony of New I'lymouth — the province of Maine — the territory called .Vcadie, or Nova Scotia — and all the lauds lying between Nova Scotia and Maine. According to the interpretation ol this charter by the United States, the river St. Lawrence was the northern boundary of the United States. But it never could be the intention of the frarners of the Treaty to confer upon the United States all the territory included in the charter of KiiM. Their object was to draw a new line, and the arbiter, the King of the Netherlands, after a dutt consideration of the statements submitted to liim, declared in iiis award that the arguments drawn from the ancient delimitation of tiic provinces wer< inconchisivc. With regard to the accuracy with which the boundary was described in ths Treaty of 1783, no less tliaii four articles of the Treaty of (Jlieiit contain jiro- visions for ascertaining and tracing, by special coniiuissioiis, as nianv portions of the line of boundary intended in the former. Witii regard to the north-eastern boundary of the United States, still dis|)uted by the respective parties, tlie point of dc|)arture was contidently laid down in tiic Treaty as at tiie source of i lie St. Croix river, but the river wliicli was to be couiidered as the St. Croix river of the Treaty was not ascertained until 17D8, by a coimnission constituted iimler a Treaty concluded in 1794. The defective description of the boundary in the Treaty has been acknow- ledged by both parties. The north-eastern boundary of tlie United States, dci>ends upon ascertaining the position of highlands, dividing rivers which empty themselves into the river St. I^iwrence from rivers which fall into lh» Atlantic Ocean. Upon such highlands the north-west angle of Nova icotia, according to the Treaty, is to be (bund. In the year 1802, Mr. Madison, at that time Secretary of State for the United States, in his instructions to Mr Rufus King, who signed a Convention with Lord llawkesbury, in London (which was never ratified by the United Ukates) observed, that the dilficulty in fixing the north west angle of Nova Scotia 71 " arises from a reference in the Treaty of 1783, to highlands which it is now found have no definite existence." In a message to Congress, dated October 17, 1803, the President of the United States, Mr. Jefferson stated, that " a further knowledge of the ground in the north-eastern and north-western angles of the United States, has evinced that the boundaries established by the Treaty of Paris, between the British territories and ours, in those points, were too imperfectly described to be susceptible of execution." Commissioners of boundary, under the fifth article of the Treaty of Ghent, in the month of September, I81G, assembled to explore the due north-line from the source of the St. Croix, and when they finally adjourned their meetings on the 13th of April, 1822, they could not agree upon the jmsition of the highlands, and of the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, of the Treaty of 1 783. Since the reports of the commissioners were delivered to their respective Governments, the King of the Netherlands has declared it to be his opinion, after a due consideration of the statements submitted to His Majesty, that the north-west angle of Nova Scotia was unknown when the Treaty of 1783 was concluded. Thus it appea.fl, that after upwards of fifty years of controversy, the point of the highlands due north of the source of the St. Croix River, designated in the Treaty of 1783, as the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, has not yet been ascertained. Yet after all that has passed, the United States persist in restricting any negotiation between the two countries for settling the boundary to a renewed cflbrt to trace their north-eastern boundary according to the description of it lai Ixiundary ([ueHtion received from the (iovernment of the United SlatcH within the last two yearK are full of profcHNionit of a oincere desire to remove the jiossihility of the relatiom* hetween the two (iovernnients hein^ iturl)ed hy leaving the houndary (pieNtion uns<>ttled, yet, after all that has passed, the Americans |iersist in restricting any negotiation for the settlement of ho important a question, to a renewed etlort to trace their north-eastern hoimdary strictly according to the description of it laid down in the Tn-aty, which His Majesty's (iovernment have declared to them to lie ho|H'less. (ireat Britain is entirely released fmm nny ohligations coi\tracted under the seventh article of the ("onventiiin of Arliilration, to abide hereafter by the line of boundary jiroposed by the King of the Netherlands. It has been rejected by the United Stales, and can no longer be considered as the least measure of concession, which (ireat Britain will grant for the sake of adjusting this ditlcrence between the two nations. The line of the King of the Netherlands curries the boundary of (he United States beyond the .St.,)iihn, and into the ncighliourlKKid of the .St. Liwrcnce, and it has been clearly shewn in the British statements, that the United Stutes cannot have a claim to any territory north of that river. (.Signed) ('HAS. R. VAUdllAN. No. 41. Sir C. R. Vauijhnn to Viicount Pulmrrston. — {Rrcrived January 12, \H'M.) (Kxtract.) Washtmjton, nrcewlirr 2, IH.H. ALTIK^UGII n regular packet will not leave New York for Liverpool before the Hth instant , I shall send this des|)atch to .New York this day that it may be forwanled to your Uirdsbip by the first vessel which nniy leave that port for England, in order to transmit to your l.ordshi|) a copy of the animal message of the I'resident of the United States, which was this day delivered to Congress. The notice taken in the message of the relations with (ireat Britain, consists in stating that the (piestion of the northeastern boundary is still |Heen accepted by that (Iovernment. Believing that every dis|)osition is felt on Itoth sides to adjust this perplexing (piestion to the satisl'aclion of all the parties interested in it, the hoj)e is yet indulged that it may be ullictcd on the basis ul that proposition. l,v/ December, 1834. 73 No. 42. Sir C. R. Vaughan to Vincount Palmer»lon.—CReceiuedJanmry 14, 1835J My I»nl, FFoj(Ain(;n)i)erty by the British authorities of New Bnmswick. Mr. lincoln ended with (toctaring that if the controversy was not soon ended " the States will re-assert their iH>sse8sive rights, and collisions will ensue." The resolution was carried on the 27th December by 88 votes to 79 ; five out of eight representatives of the State of Maine voting against it. They declared, that they considered it to be an otiicious interference with their duties ; that the granting of the correspondence nnght do harm, " while a hope remains of a " peaceable adjustment ;" and they arknowledpd that in the State of Maine there was an " apathy" on this subject, which was in the hands of the executive, and they did not desire to intcqrase obstacles to its progress and termination. On the (ith instant the President communicated his answer to the House of Representatives, and I have the honor to enclose a copy of it. He ac(|uainted the House, that it would be incompatible with the public interest to lay before them any communication between the two Governments, negotiations for the settlement of the north-eastern boundary being now in progress. Your Grace will find the speech of Mr. Lincoln full of exaggerated preten- sions which never fail to nccompany any allusion to the question of boundary. As no part of the disputed territory has ever been withdrawn from the sovereignty of Great Britain, in consequence of the defective description of tin' line of boundary in the Treaty of 17H3, American citizens cannot have acquired, justly, a title to any lands, from the State of Maine, orof Massachusetts, as asserted by iClr. I..incoln ; and there cannot be any pretence for disputing the unin- terrupted exercise of jurisdiction over that territory by the British authorities of New Brunswick. I am sorry to ol)serve in speeches in Congress, and in the newspapers of all parties published at Washington, a dis|H)8ition to excite resentment, by representing Great Britain as in forcible possession of territory belonging to the United States, and that American citizens have been imprisoned by British authorities, because they obeyed the laws of their own Government. Mr. Lincoln declared that the States of Maine and Massachusetts will never consent to any line of boundary, but that which is laid down in the Treaty of 17«.'i; and so long as the basis of that Treaty is arlhered to rigidly by the Americans, the greatest ditiiculty will attend every attempt to adjust this pcrj)lexing controversy. Mr. Forsyth, the Secretary of State, was in the Senate in \K\2, and voted for the acceptance of the line of boundary suggested by the Kiisg of the Nether- lands, and I am convinced that he sincerely regrets the rejection of it by the Senate. The decision of the King of the Netherlands, and the willingness of His Majesty's Government to acquiesce in it, seem likely to embarrass any future negotiation. When I urge the necessity of abandoning the terms of the Treaty, and I venture to suggest a conventional line of boundary, I am met with the objection that it is not eijual to the terms pmposed by the arbiter. Now, the decision of the arbiter was aci|uiescc(l in by His Majesty's Government, in fulfilment of the obligations contracted under the Vllth Article of the Convention of Arbitration, and the United States having rejected the decision, Great Britain is entirely released from any reference in a future adjustment to that measure of reconciliation. A sulficicnt manifestation of an earnest dispo- sition on the part of His Majesty's Government to bring to a satisfactory adjustment the dispute about boundary, has been made by a declaration of 75 willinKiirHH to ncmit the vi-ry (lidmlvnntiiscoim line jirnpoMcd liy the KiiiK of the Nethrrhmdii ; l»y the i)io|i(miil tor nccmieHconcc, |>rfvioui(|y tu Ciitiire |irfKre(liiigii, ill certain piiliiiiiiiiiry pnintH in which the United Statrii retiiHcd to iici|iiieHce ; nnd in the hitc propoHid for ii^reeiiient on Home piiintit, Htill under the coimidcr- iilion of the (lovcrninent of the United StntcM, mm |ireliniiniuy to iicent(ilivFs of the United States. IN answer to a resolution of the House of Ke|)resentntives, passed on the 27th ultimo, I transmit a report made to me hy the Secretary of State on the Hubject, and I have to accpiaint the House that the negotiation for the settle- ment of the north-eastern houndary heinf; now in progress, it would, in my opinion, he incoinpatihle with the public interests to lay before the House any communications which have been had between the two Ciovernments siiicu the period alluded to in tlie resolution. (Signed) ANDRKW JACKSON. Wathinijton, January G, 1835. Report to the President of the United States. Depart ntenl of IStatr, Wushimjton, January .'), IR.'V'). THK Secretary of State, to whom was referred a resolution of the House of Hepresentatives of the '27th ultimo, reiiuesting the President to lay before the House, if ill bis opinion it is not incompatible with the jmblic interest, any communicalion.s which may have been had between the (Jovernment of the United States, and that of (neat JJritain, since the rejection by the former of the advisory opinion of the Kin^ of the Netherlands, in reference to the esta- blishnicnt and linal settlement of the north-eastern boundary of the Ihiited States, licretot'ore in controversy between the two (Jovernments, and also reiiuest- ing the President to communicate any information he may possess of the exercise of practical jurisdiction by the authorities of the IJritisli Province of New IJrunswicli over the disputed territory within the limits of the State of Maine, accordinj; to the true line of boundary as claimed by the United States, and especially upon that part of the territory which has been incorporated by the Ciovernmeiu of Maine into the town of Madawaska, together with such representations and corresitondence (if any) as have been had by the exeeutivc of that State with the (jovernment of the United States on the subject, has the honor to re|ioi't, that the Department has no inl'ormation which has not already been laid before the House, of the exercise of practical jurisdiction by the authorities of tiie British Province of New IJrunswick over the disputed territory within the limits of the State of Maine, nor any other representation or correspondence had hy the executive of that State with the Government of the United States on that subject. Uepresentations were made to this Depart- ment in the latter part of the year IS.'KJ, by the Uritish Minister at Washington, on the i)art of the authorities of New Prunswick, complaining of infractions of the uiulerstaiuling subsisting between the two Governments in regard to the disputed territory. These complaints, however, on being referred to the Governors of Maine and Massachusetts for explanation, were believed to be without just grounds. There was no complaint on the part of Maine, and the correspondence which took place on the occasion, is not supposed to be within the scope of the resolution of the House. M I i 76 As the negotiation between the United States and Groat Britain, wliicli was eomnienced in accordance witii a resolution of the Senate after tiie rejection of the advisory o|)inion of tlie King of tlie Netlierlands, for the estahhsiiiiHiit of tiie north-eastern boundary, is new in progress, it is submitted to the I'resi- dent wiietljer it would be compatible with the public interest to lay before the House any con .nunications which have passed between the two Governments on the subject. All which is respectfully submitted. (Signed) JOHN FORSYTH. Ill' n I' I W ''(. w No. 44. Sir C. R. Vauahuti to the Duke of Wellinijton, — fReceived May 20.) CE.\trart.") Waxhington, April 20, 18.?j. I HAVE been for some 'iine in daily expectation of receiving from Mr. Forsyth, an answer to my note, presented at the beginning of the month of December last, calling upon the Government of the United States as a necessary preliminary to further proceedings resjicefing the proposal of the President for a new survey, that they should aeciuiesee in the o|)inionof the King ol the Nether- lands, that the Hestigouche River, which em|)lies itself into the Hay ot Chaleurii, and the River St. .'olui, which empties itseH into the Hay of Funily, ought not to be considered as rivers I'.esi^-nated in tlie Treaty of 1783, as tailing into the Atlantic Ocean. I "lU given to uni'ersta.id by Mr. Forcytl., thai the Govcrriment of the Uiiited Stales will not iic(|uiesce in that opinion, though 1 have endeavoured to impress u|)on him that the ]>r( ijosition of the I'resicknt eamiot be adopted by His^lajesty'sCjovernment \\.:lioi'c tliatpoini, as well astlie priticipleaupon which the new survey is to be conihu ; . d, being settled in a s|)eeial t'onvention. (ireat Britain had justly reijuired ac((uie: cenee in several points which tliu arbiter bad decided in the spirit of the agrevnunt to a reference. It remains to he seen on ■what groun('.'. .Mr. Forsyth will place the refusal of the United States in his note, which I trust that 1 shall receive before the next i)aeket will sail from New York. It is to i)0 regretted, upon a i*cview of the proceedings to settle the boundary, tliat eveiy etfort hitherto made to bring tlie(|U'.'s'ion to a conelu.sion, lii)s had the effect of throwing fresh diHiculties in the vay of a final settlement. I allude to the result of the commissions of I "!)4 in l"i)M, the result of the conunissions under the 'I'rer.ty of Ghent, concluded in 1n14, and the result of the reference to arbitration in Is.'H. The s the St. Groix of th'.' Treaty, a line drawn due north would not intersect the highland,-, at .Mars Hill, bui pass to tee eiisnvard of It, and behic it cmdd reach any land marked hy a division of rivers, they carried it. beyond the rivi r St. John, und to ihe north of it sixty-six miles. Many rivers in British North A.nerica, %hen they were first discovered, were ( hristened St. Groix, by tiving lipon a conspicuo'j> point on the banks the sign o! a cross. It is ditficult io be!icve th;;t tl" St. (,'roix agreed upon in 1798, was the St. Groix river of the Treaty jf \7K\\ the latter was named beenuse such a r:»er was thought to be the eastern boundary of the colony of .\/ajf the St. John, and the river St. Francis, wliich iirevented the (ieneraKiovcrnmcnt from acccptiii'.' tin line of the arbiter. .Maine attempted in Xx'.VJ,, when the President was disposed to aci|uiesce in the award, to negotiate with the General (io.-ermnent tor such an e(|iiivalent as the jjrice to he [laid to that Stale, l()r wa'iiig the consti- tutional ilirti( idfics. 1 informed the Secretary of State that if such was the object. I coulil not belies" it possible i'.if llis .Majesty's- jovcnment (o coiis.'iit to purchase the acceptance of the State of Maine, of a line of bomulary, wiiieh entaile«i upon (ireat . 'tain so great a sacrifice of her just claii ;s. and to which His .Mai<'stv's (Jovcrnmcnt never could have consented, but m fulfilment of th»' obhgation ointractcd under the Vlltli Article of the Coitvention of .Arbitration. M2 I '^ t u ' •8 Mr. Forsytlj insisted that Maine could not be ex|)ertc(l to iic(C|)t any line of boundary, wliicli should not be belter than tiiat wliicli she rejected under the award ; and 1 protest'd, as the award had been rejected, ajraiiist tiial concession being ever considered as tiie least sacrifice Great Hritain was to make, in order to conciliate Maine. I have seen a disposition in I'onner despatches from His .Majesty's Clovcrn- ment to consent still to acquiesce in the line ol' tiie Kini; of the Netherlands, which was so manifestly advantajteous to tiie United States, and I am surprised that a proposal has not b'.en nuule in tlie .icnate, by this time, to revoke thtir decision. I have the honour to be, &c. (Signed) CM AS. U. VAUGIIAN. His Grace the DuI.e of Welltnyton, K.G. &iC. »fC. «fC. Mi I Inelosure 1 in No. -l."). Tlir Hon. John Forsyth to Sir C. R. Vauijhnn. Department of Sidle, Wanhinijton, April 28, 1835. THE observations of the Hth Decendier, submitted imder instructions from the British Government, by Sir Charles R. N'aughan, &c. &e., on tiie proposition made by the United Slates, for the settlement of the disputed boundary, between the United States and His Hritaiinic Majesty's North American Possessions, have been laid before the President, and by his direction the undersigned Secretary of State of the United States, has now the honor to reply. Tiie President reciprocates, most fully, the spirit of cordial friendship towards the Government of the United States and himself, by which Sir Charles R.Vaughan is jileased to assure the Undersigned, that HisMajesty's (ioveniment is actuated, and sees, with satisfaction, the ''newed assurances of its desire to arrive at a settlement of the (iiie>tion of boundary, by any means, not incon- sistent with the luiiior and essential interests of Great Britain. The Under- signed is instructed to repeat, on the part of the President, the expression of bis determination lo efrectuate this object, by all the means \sitliin bis con-tilntioiud competency, which are reconcileablc to his views, of what are justly due to the character and interests of the United States. The President has derived a satisfaction pn.portionate to his deep sense of its in;portaiice, from the success v.hiih has attended the past etlorts of the two Governments, iu removing existing, and |iieventiiig ilie recurrence ol new, obstacles, to the most libenil and friendly intiTcourse between them; and it would be a sourci' of unalloyed pleasure to be able, during the short period which he may remain at the head of the Cio\erninent, to bring to a conchiMon, satis- factory to both i)arties, a controversy which has bcii justly described as the only matter of serimis dithiully, which is still in contestation between Great Britain and the United States. The Convention authorizing and regulating tlr.' rcferenci of the points of (lillercnceCo a friendlv S<)\i'reign,andtlK selection of that Sovereign, had been made l.'cfore the President » iiterc own hiyh iharacte.r ah lo the parties, lo proless to have (h)ne. what lu" tound lumself unable to accoui|ilish. Believing siiKcrely, liiil, as the President cannot but think, ei'roricou>l\ , that he could not di.schargc the iunctons of arbitrator, he, from utu|uestioned motives of fcieiidly regard to the parlies respectiveh , acted in the character ol mediator, 'i'liat the act^ or Miggcstioiis of the selected Soxcreign in the character of mediator, were not binding upon tin- partii^, further timu tliey should, sul>s(;<|nently, resjicctively agree to adojil them, was a fjoini too dear to lunii."?h ground of dispute between the two GovernnH'nts, r.or was it less 79 clearly the duty of tlie President to submit the whole matter ag presented by ths arbiter, to the Senate of the United States, for its constitutional advice and co-operation. The rccomuicndations of tiie arbitrator were rejected by a large majority of tiiat body, and a resolution passed advising the President " to o|)ena " new negotiation with His iJritannic Majesty's Government for the ascertainment " of the boundary between the jiossessionsof tlie United States, and those of the " King of Great Rritaiu on the north-eastern frontier of the United States, " acconhng to the Treaty of Peace of 1783." The parties were thus placed, in respect to the disputed boundary in tlie situation respectively occupied by Ihem iiefore the conclusion of the Convention of the 24th December, 1814, in virtue of which, the various measures that had been successively adopted to bring this controversy to a satisfactory termination were commenced, leaving the PresitUnt with no other rightful authority for its adjustti\ent than that of opening anew negotiations tor tlie settlement of the question according to the terms and u])on the principles of the Treaty of 1 783. The Undersigned is specially instructed to assure Sir Charles 11. Vaughan, that the President duly appreciates the prompt suggestion made by him, as His Hritiinnic .Majesty's Minister, that a new negotiation should be 0[>ened, for the establisiiment ot a conventional boundary, between the two countries, which, while it respected, as far as practicable, their existing pretensions, should secure the best interests of each. Possessing full power over the subject. His Britannic Majesty's Government might, very projierly, consult what was due to its uiiifomi professions; and Sir Charles U. Vaughan may assure his Government, that if the President iiad like powers, he would have met the suggestion in as favorable a spirit as that by which it was prompted. His limited power has been heretofore stated, and the reasons why, under the peculiar structure of our political system, the Federal Govenunent cannot aleniate any portion of the territory of a State, without its consent, have been given at large to Sir Charles R. Vaughan, as well as the reasons why, under existing circumstances, and while a hope remains of arriving at a settlevient of the v]uestion, as originally presented under the Treaty, there is hut little [irospect that the State of Maine would agree to the establishment of a new line. Thus restricted in the exercise of his discretion, and embarrassed l;y the dilHculties, arising from tiie failure of anterior effort;;, the President ha:; nevertheless given his constant attention to the subject, in the hope of still being able io Hnd some njode by which- the protracted controversy may be terminated satisfactorily. The submission of the whole subject, or any part of it, to a new arbitrator, l^romised too little to attract the favorable consideration of either party. The desired adjustmept was, therefore, to be sought for, in the api)lieation, to the controverted (piestion of some new principle, not heretofore acted upon ; and the conse(iuent prosecution of investigations hitherto unaltempted, because regarded tis irrevelant and inapplicable. He thought, and, with respectful on a line running directly north ; and it has therefore been insisted that the due north line shall be deemed to terminate to the southward of that river, and at a place called Mars Hill. The President is advised, that it is u rule in practical surveying, which prevailed in this country before the revolution, and iias since been, and still is, considered obligatory, that when there is found in the location of the premises described in a deed or any other instrument, a disagreement in the course of a given line, and the bearing of a natural object called for, as its termination, the given course nmst be made to yield to the given object, and the line closed at the object, in a direction corre8|)onding, as nearly as practicable, to the course prescribed ; upon the principle, that the natural object furnishes evidence of the true intention of the parties, which may be relied u|K)n, with more safety than tiie course, errors in which constantly occur, from the imperfection of the instruments used, or the want of knowledge of those, in whose hands they may have been placed. He has thought this rule might be rightfully and properly applied to the matter now in controversy, and is willing to agree, that if, upon a thorough examina- tion, it shall appear to those appointed by the |)arties, to make it, that His Majesty's Government is correct in its assumption, that the highlands hitherto claimed by the United States, as those designated by the Treaty, do not answer that description, but that those highlands are to be found, to the west of the due north hne, that the boundary hne should be closed according to the estabhshed rule in practical surveying. Whether thiere are highlands to be found in a north-westerly course, from the source of the St. Croix, answerinjf better to the description given in the Treaty of 1783, than those heretofore claimed, by the United States, and so clearly identified as to remove all reasonable doubt, remains to be ascertained. No inquiry into this fact, with a view to apj)ly it to the resjjcctive and conflicting pretensions of the parties, has hitherto been made. It was under these circumstances, and with such impressions, that Mr. Living.ston was authorised to propose to Sir Charles R. Vaughan, for the consideration of his Government, that a new commission siiould be appointed, consisting of an cijual nuuiber of conunissioners, with an umpire, selected by some friendly Sovereign, from among the most skillul men in Kurope, to decide on all points, in wliich they might disagree ; or a commission entirely composed of scientific Europeans, selected by a Iriendly Sovereij,'n, to be attended in the survey and exanunation of the country, by agents appointed by the piTties. The adoption of this course would, it was urged, have the benefit of strict impartiality in tiie commissioners' local knowledge and high |)rotessioiial skill, which though, hero'ofore, separately called into action, have never before been combined for the solution of the (piestion. In conre(juence of a wish expressed by Sir C'larles 11. Vaughan, to he more fully advised of the views of the I'rcsideiit, upon the subject ol this proixi- sition, he was furnished with a diagram, by which the manner, in wbicii it was intended the line should be run, in liie event of hiiihlaiids being discovered lutter answering the description of the Treaty than tiiose claimed by the United States, was pointed out distinctly ; while to relieve His Majesty's (iovernment from all apprehension of a more extended claim of territory on our part, Mr. Liviii^^ton WHS a uthori/ed to disclaim, and diil disclaim, all prelciisions on the part >il the United States, to the territory east of the line, which had been previously run directly north iVum the sou;ce of the St. Croix. Actuated by that sincere desire to effect, in some proper way, the settlement of the bonnd.iry in (|Uc«tion, by which he had been governed, Mr. McL-me was, siibse(!uently, autho.i/cd by the President, to propose to Sir C. R. N'aughan, fur the consideration of His Majesiv's tjoverniiient, that, if the proposition made by Mr. Livingston, for the adjustment of one of the three points of difference was acce|)te(l, the United States would, on their p.irt, consent to adopt the jilace designated by (Jreat Britain, as the north-westernmost head of the Connecticut river ; an.d would also, as to the renmining |K)inl, the line frr)in the Connecticut river to the 81 St. Lawrence, adopt that which was run by Valentine and Collins, which, it was believed, would not be unacceptable to Great Britain. The Undersigned does not learn from the communication of Sir C. R. V'aughan, that the justice and reasonableness of the rule of practical surveying, offered, as the basis of Mr. Livingston's proposition, is now disputed, although not considered by His Majesty's CJovernment so generally established and rccogui/cd, as was su|)posed by the predecessor of the Undersigned. If it should become material to do so, which is not from the present aspect of the <|uestion to be anticij)ated, the Undersigned would find no difficulty either in fortifying the ground occupied by his Government in this regard, or in satis- fying Sir Charles II. Vaughan that the instance of a supposed departure from the rule brought into notice by His Britannic Majesty's Government, is not at variance with the assertion of Mr. Livingston, repeated by Mr. McLane. For the present, therefore, he limits himself to this single remark — that the line of demarcation between the United States and the possessions of Great Britain, referred to by Sir Charles 11. Vaughan, was not established as the true boundary prescribed by tiie Treaty of 1783, but was a conventional substitute for it of a parallel of latitude, the result of a new negotiation, controlled by other con- siderations than those which were to be drawn from that instrument only. Under these circumstances it is, with unfeigned regret, the President learns the decision of His Majesty's Government not to agree to the proposition, made in that spirit of accommodation by which the Urited States have, throughout, been influenced, without a precedent compliance, on their part, with inadmissible con- ditions. These conditions were first brought to the consideration of the Go- vcrrmient of the United .States by .Sir C. R. Vaughun's letter to Mr. McLane of the 10th Februan*', 1834, in which it was stated that as the arbiter in the course of his reasoning on the main point, had expressed his opinion upon several subordinate questions having a direct bearing thereon, these opinions regarded by His Ma- jesty's Ciovernment as decisions, ought to be acijuiesced in by the parties, before any steps are taken to carry the President's proposition into effect. These opinions, as stated by Sir C. R. Vaughan, were found to be seven in number, em- bracing, .substantially, every suggestion of the difficulties the arbitrator had found and expressed in yielding his assent to the American location of the disputed Une. Sir C. R. Vaughan has .ilready been put in possession of the President's \ lews upon the proposal of His Majesty's Government. The President sincerely believes that the new process of investigation proposed by him, might under the control of the principle of practical surveying developed, lead to a settlement of this agitating (lueslion, which, as it would be legally and fairly made according to a long estabiisiied and well known rule, prevalent equally among the citizens of the United States and the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, ought to be, and he confidently trusted would be, satisfactory to dU parties. L'uder this con- viction, and being moreover most solicitous that no mear.s by which so desirable an object might be facilitated should be left untried, he consulted alike his inclination and bis duty, by making the proposal in question. If His Majesty's Government are so (irm In the belief that a satisfactory settlement of the dis- puted line of boundary according to the Treaty of 1783, is so clearly impracti- c'lble as to render all future efforts to that end unavailing, and had, on that account, declined the offer made by the President, he might not have had cause to complain. But it appeared to him to be exceedingly unreason- able tiiiit he shouhl be asked to adopt, in the prosecution, of a proposed plan for the ascertiiinment of the true boundary as prescribed by the Treaty, those suggestions and opinions of the arbiter by which alone he had brought his mind to the extraordinary conclusion that the boundaries prescribed could not be located ; more especially so when the President sincerely dissented from the correctness of those opinions, and when in addition thereto the admission of some of them might, as understood by and follow- ing the previous j)retensions of ilis Majesty's Government, establish, as the true boundary of the Treaty of 1 783, the line claimed by Great Britain, yet declared by the arbiter himself, the adoption of whose opinions was thiw asked, to be towards the United States, unjust and inequitable, and not com- porting with the obligations and intentions of the parties to that inslrumcnt. Sir Chas. R. Vaughim was informed by Mr. McLane, of the reasons upon which this opinion of the President was founded, and His Majesty's Government invoked, not to persist in requiring conditions, to which the President could not assent. '11 fi ■i^l . m 82 Tlic President is plcuscd to find, that ti>c frank and conciliatory spirit, in wliicli this was (h)iio, lias been ot designated in the Treaty as the north-wc>t angle of Nova .Scotia, and where the highlands dividing the rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, from those falling into the Atlantic ()( can, along which highlands is to be drawn the liiu' of boundary from that angle to the north-westernmost head of the C'onnccticulriver? ilieari)itcr considered " that the nature of the ditlcrence, " and the vague and not sulJicicntly determinate stipuhitions of the 'i'reaty of " 17S.'<, do not permit to adjudge either of the lines to one of the said parties " without wounding the priiu-iples of law and eijuity, with regard to the other." It is imleed true, that in .support of this view of the subject it was observed by the arbitrator, " that if in contradistinction to the rivers that em|)ty themselves " into the St. I^iwrence it had been proper, ;igreeably to the language ordinarily " usid ill geography, to com|)rcliend the rivers falliiifj into the ha\s o( Kundy " and Des Chalcurs, with those cniplying them-clves directly into the .At- " lantic Ocean, in the generical denoimuation of rivers falling into the Atlantic " Ocean, it would he hazardous to include into the species belonging to that " class, the rivers .St. .John and Restigouche, \\\mU the Une claimed at the " north of the river .*^t. .lohn, divides immediattly iVoni rivers enipt\ oil: tliem- " selves into the river St. Lawrence, not witli other rivers falling into the " Atlantic Oc( ail, but alone ; and thus to appK in interpreting the delineation " established by tlieTreatv, where eadi word iiia>t havi' a meaning to twoexdu- " sively special cases, and where no mention i.i made of the genus (genre), a " generical expression which would ascribe to them a broader nieuning," &c. 83 It cannot but nppear, upon further reflection to Sir Charles R. Vaughan, tlutt tiiis (icciaration that the rivers St. John and Restigouclie coulJ not be aloiii' taken into view witliout ha/.ard in determining tlie disputed boundary, is not the ex|)re8sion of an opinion that they should be altogether exeliided in determining that {|ue8tion, or in other words, that the opinion of the Arbitrator is, that the •St. John and Restigouehe cannot be looked ujjon as rivers emptying into the Atlantic. The Undersigned has examined the award in vain to discover any otiicr dechiration of the Arbiter, from which sup|)ort could be derived for the assump- tion under consideration, and he finds nothing to sustain it in the general con- clusions, which tiie Arbiter has allowed himself to reach On the contrary, he insists that, independently of the strong inference to be drawn from the whole tenor of the Award, that it was not his intention to express the opinion imputed to him. The Arbitrator has in terms protected himself, as well as the United States against such an assumption by the following explicit declaration, almost immediately succeeding that which can only be relied on to support the opposite conclusion : " Ami on the other hand, that it cannot be sufilcieritly explained " how, if the high contracting parties intended in 1783 to establish the boun- " dary at the south of the river St. .loini, that river to which the territory in " dispute is, in a great measure, indebted for its distinctive character, has been " neutralized and set aside." Entertaining these views, the President has made it the duty of the Under- signed to ajiprize Sir C. R. N'aughan, that he cannot agree to clog the submission with the condition proiwsed by His Majesty's Government. A thorough and most careful re-examination of the subject, in all its relations, has but served to confirm his previous imjiressions, that a just regard for the rights of the parties, and a pro|)er consideration of his own duty, recpiirc that the new submission, if nuide, should be made without restriction or ((ualitication upon the discretion of the commissioners, other than such as result from established facts, and the just interpretation of the Treuty of 178.'J, and such as have been heretofore, and are hereby now again tendered by him to His Britannic Majesty's (lovernment. He despairs of obtaining a better constituted tribunal than the one proposed. He sees nothing uiiHt or impr()i)er in submitting the (piestion as to the character in which the St John and Restigouehe are to be ri .'arded, to the decision of impar- tial commissioners. The j)arties have heretofore thought it |)roper so to submit it, and it by no means follows, that because conunissioners chosen by the parties themselves without an umi)ire, have not been able to come to an agreement in respect to it, that the same unfortunate result would attend eH'orts of commis- sioners ditlerently selected. The President is not, at present, advised of any other proposition that it is in his power to make, in furtherance of that object, which is alone within his constitutional competency, the settlement of the boundary, according to the Treaty of 1 783. The Undersigned is, however, instructed to say, that he will be most happy to receive such projiosition as His Britamiic Majesty's (jovern- ment may think it expedient to make, and will not fail to consider it in a just and conciliatoiy >i)irit. He has also been authorized by the Picsident to confer with Sir Charles R N'aughan, whenever it may suit his convenience, and comport with the instructions of his Government, as well in respect to any suggestion which he may have to make upon the subject of the 'Ircaty Boundary, as to any proposition His Majesty's (lOvernnHiit may be disposeil to ort'i. for a conventional substitut' for it. The Undersigned deems it, however, recjuired by frankness,, to say to !>ir Charles R. N'aughan, that as tlie President does iu)t possess the power to t stablish a conventional boundary without the consent of the State of Maine, it will he greatly conilueive to tlu' preservation of that harmony tietween the two countries, both are so desirous to cherish, and which is so liable to be impaired by unavailing negotiation, that whatever proposition His Majesty's Government luay feel dis[)osed to riiake, should, bet'ore its submission to the avithoritie.-- of that State receixe a form sulliciently definite to eiiahli' the President to take their vense upon it without embarrassment, and with the least )K)ssible delay. The Undersigned avails himself, &c. lit. Hon. Sir C. It Vaughan, (Signed) JOHN Ft)RSYTH. i(c. 6(c. &c. :.l 1*1 ' I i 84 ■i' I \m Indosurc 2 in No. 4.'). Sir C. H. r(W(jhaii In Ihr Hon. John Msrjiy/A. lyiishiii'iton, Minj 4, 18.15. TIIK l'iulorsi|;iu'(l, His llritaiiiiic- Majesty's Kiivoy Kxtiaordinnry and MiiiisItT I'lonipoU-ntimy, lias tlin honor to iR'kiu)\vU'(l;;i' tiiu roci'i|it of tlie note of tlie Si'cri'tary of State of tin' I'nitcd States, in answer to tiie oliservationfi wliieli he presented, aeeordint: to the instruetioi\s from His Majesty's (iovern- incnt, resocctinj; the jToposal t)f ti>e I'resident of the United States, to endeavour to settle the honndary hy establishing; a new eonnnission of survey. It is with f;reat reijret that the I'ndersijjned finds, that a condition which His Majesty's (iovernnient stated to he an essential preliminary, to the adoption of the proposal of the President, is declared to he inadmissible by theCJovernment of the United States. The .Secretary of State, in his note, not only (piestions, l)ut positively denies, that the view taken by His Majesty's (iovernnunt of that point in tlie dispute, which respects the rivers which are to be considered as fallim; din itlv into the Atlantic, has received any contirmation, as allei'cti in the note ol tiic Under- siiined, from the terms of the award of the arbiter. Without attempting to irivc a clear exposition of the mciinin[; of that passiii,'e in the award, where it is stated, that it would be hazaidous to comjirehend the rivers llestiijouche and St. John, in those which fall directly into the Atlantic Ocean ; the very passaije cited hy Mr. Forsyth, in his note, forms a part of the reasonin;; of the arbiter, founded on the words of the Treaty, aiiainst admitting; the American Line, north of the St. .lohn, because that river and the Kcstigouche, which that north line separates I'rom rivers, emptying, themselves into the St. I^iwrence, are not to he considered as the rivers of the Treaty which fall into the Atl.intic Ocean. The Undcrsi{;ned therefore appeals, with tonrtdence to the tenor of the laiifiuape of the award, to justify the inference wlii h has been drawn from it by Mis Majesty's (lovernment. The ac(piiescenee of the Government of the United States, in that wliich was understood to he the opinion of the arbiter, was invited by His Majesty's Govermnent, because the new eonnnission could not enter upon their suivey of the disputed 'I'erritory in search of hiiihlands to be distinguished by the sepa- ration ot' rivers, witiiout a j)revious afrreement between the respective (lovern- mcnts, what rivers ouirhf to be lonsidered as rivers fallinuinto the Atlantic. Mr. Forsyth obserNcs, that the new sidjuiission should be left to the discre- tion of the coMiinis''ioners without restriction, but it appears to the Under- sifrncd, that if tlie character in wiiicli the rivers Hestii;()uche and ^t. John are to be regarded, is a (juestion to be submitted to them, tbi' pruposal of the President would assume the character of a renewed arbitration, which, as Mr. Fcjrsyth observes, "promises too little to attract the favourable c'onside- '• ration of either party." While His Majesty's (iovermnent has been disposed to maintain the validity of the decisions (if the ariiiter on subordinate points, their mention has not been confined cxclu>ively to those decided in favour of British claims. An attentive consideration of the whole of the decisi' iis in the award will shew that they are nearly balanced in favour of either party, while the f^eneral result of the arbitration to which His Majestv's (lovernment expressed a willin;ine^s to adhere, was ^o manit'estlv in favour of the United States, that to them were assij:ni(l tlnve-tilths of the territory in dispute, and House's Point, in Lake Cliamplain, to which the American Covernment had voluntardy resigned all claim. The Undersi(:ncd betrs leave to ofl'er some explanation ol the suiif^cstion which he ventured to nuike without instructions from iiis {iovernnient, which is alluded in the note of the Secretary of State. In a note addressed to Mr. .SliLane, and dated the .'J 1st May. 18.'}.'), the Undersi-^ned benif; convinced of the insuperable ditKculties, in the way of tracing the line of the Treaty, notwitbstandiii}: the proposal of the President to deviate from the due north line tVom the St. Croix river in search of the hitch- lands, ventured to observe, that the <|uesti()n of boundary could only be set at rest by the abandtwiment of the defective description of it in the Treaty, and by the Goveruinents mutually agreeing upon a conventional line more convenient SI to liotli parties than either of the lines insisted upon by the ronnniHsionern unth'r tile Treaty of'Ohcnt, ortlieliiie recommended l)y tlie King of t lie Nether- lands. The answer to that suggestion, in o note dated the Sth of June, 183'), from Mr. Methane was, that it would rather add to than ul)viate the constitu* tional (litHeiilties already insuperalile. The I'lulersigned acknowledges, with great Batisfootion, the assurante wiiiih he has now received, that if the President possessed the same full f)ower as liin Majesty's (iovernmcnt over the question of boihulary, so long in dis- cusnioii, he would have met the suggesticm in ns favourable a s|)irit as that by which it was prompted. His Majesty's (lovermncnt must acknowledge, and will duly appreciate the friendly spirit and the imwearied endeavours of the I'resi- denl to remove the only dilficidty which remains in the relations with the United States ; and it is to he liunented, that the two Governments cannot coincide in the opinion, that the object is attainable by the proposal of the President, as it is all that it is in his power to otter, in alleviation of the hojieless task of tracing the line of the Treaty, to which the Senate has advised, that any future negotiation with the Hritish (Joverument for settling the boundary, should be restricted. The Undersigned will transmit without delay to Mis Majesty's Oovern- ment a copy of the note, which he has received from the Secretary of .State of the United States, and he is ready to meet the wishes of the President, and to confer wiili the Secretary of State, whenever it may he convenient to receive him. As to any proposition, which it may be the wish of the Government of the United States to receive from His Majesty's Government respecting a conven- tional substitute for the line of the Treaty of 17M'J, the constant allusion in the corresponatice, which has taken place to constitutional difficulties in the way of the execative treating for any other line, than one conformable with that of the Treaty, until the consent of the State of Maine is obtained, seems to point out the necessity, in the first instance, of attaining that object, which must be undertaken exclusively by the General Government of the United States. Ah to the other difficulties which present themselves to the Undersigned, they will more properly form the subject of a conference with the Secretary of State. 'J'lie Undersigned &c. Thi Hon. John Forsyth. (Signed) CHAS. 11. VAUGHAN. Sfc. i(c. Jffc. No. 40. V'incount Pulmrrston to Charles Bankhend, Em/. Sir, Forei(jn Office, Ortohn 30, 183.1. HIS Majesty's Government have taken into their most deliberate considera- tion the note presented by Mr. l-'orsytli to Sir ("harles Vauglian on the "JSth April last, upon the boundary (piestioii, and 1 have now to give you instruc- tions for a rc|ily to the (iovernment of the United States. His Majesty's (Jovernment have observed with the greatest pleasure, during tbewliole of the communications which of late have taken jjlace on this (|uestioii, the friendly and conciliatory spirit which has been manifested by the President of the I'liited States ; and they are themselves ecpially animated by tlie siiicirest (lc>ire to settle this matter by an arrangement just and lionor;ible lor both parties. His Majesty's (iiAernment arc fully convinced that if the repeated attempts which tliey have made to come to an understanding on this subjeit with the Government of the United Slates, have not been attended with success, the failure of their endeavours has been owing to no want of a corresjionding disposition on the part of the President, but has arisen from difficulties on his side, over whieli he has had no control. His .Majesty's Government, however, do not the less lament that the advances which they have made have been fruitless ; but with their regret is mingled the satislaifory conseiousne.e necessary that the fwo (lovernmeiits, and hy consc(|iience their respective c();nmi>>ioiiers, should he agreed as to the detiiiition hy whicli any given hills were to he identified as hein;.; the hi(;hlands intended hy the Treaty. That, according to the words of the Treaty these hizhlinds were to he known hy the circuinstarict; of their dividing rivers flowing into the St. Lawrence from rivers tlowinu: mto the .Atl.intic ; that with reganl to rivers flowing into the St. Lawrence, no (l.)ubt could possibly exist as to which those rivers were; hut that with regard to rivers falling into the Atlantic ()ee;m, a tion has hecn mooted as to tiiem, and this (juestion is, whcthi'r the hay of Funily should, for tin- purposes of ihe Treaty, he considered as part of the Atlantic, and w hether rivers How ing into that h.'iy should he deemed to he Atlantic rivers. His Majesty's (Iovernment stated the reasons which in their opinion render i'. dear and certain that the TrtMty of l"*^'* ct.ihlislitfs a distinction between the ilay of I'nudy and the .Atlantic ()cean, anil therefore exelmles from the class of Atlantic rivers, rivers which discharge fliemselves into that bay. Ills Majesty's (jovcrnment farther (pioted in confirmation of this their (jl)init'n, the decision whicli, as they contend, the King of the Netherlands 87 incidentally pnvc upon this (luestion in the coiirne of his nwnrd ; nn.l they exprcKsc'd thoir hope that the (Jovernment of the United States would he pre- pared to Hj^ree with them and with the King of the Netherlaiids on tluH par- ticular point. It appears, however, hy Mr. Forsyth'f note of the 2Sth April, that this hope has i)eeii disa|)p(>inted, an(! that the I'rcsident tinds hiinHclfunahle to admit the distinction drawn in this respect hetween the Hay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean. Under these circumstances. Mis Majesty's (jovcrnment cannot see how any useful result could arise out of the pro|K)sed survey ; and it appears to them, on the contrary, that if such survey did not furnish fresh subjects of ditfcrence hetween the two (lovernuients, it could at hcst only bring the ciuestion back to the same point at which it now stands. For it is to be |>rcsume(l that the commissioners would begin by exploring the due north line mentioned in the Treaty, and it is obvious that in pursuing that line they could not, imtil they had crossed over to the northward of the river St. John, tind any hiiililancis Iroin which rivers flow into the St. Lawrence, while it is e(|ually clear that after they had crossed over to the northward of the river St. .lohn, they could fuid no Iiij^hlands iVoni which any rivers flow into the Atlantic accordin;; to the strict interpretation of the Treaty. Hut they inif;ht tind, northward of the St. .John, highlands separating rivers which How into the St. Lawrence, from rivers which flow into the bay of Fundy; and, in that case, what wo\d(l the Conimissioners have to do? The American coirnnissioiH'rs would say, they had t'ound the highlands of the Treaty ; the Hritish contmissioners would declare that those were not the highlands which the Treaty describes. Would the commissioners then come back to their respective Governments for that decision on the Kivet Question, which ought to have been nuule before they set out i* or, failing to come to an agreement amongst themselves, while pursuing the due north line, would they at once, and without further reference to their (loveriunents, endeavour to find to the westward of that line some other bigbliinds, which the ••vo (iovcrnnu-nls might agree to accept as separating rivers which tlow into the t. J^awrcnce, from rivers, which, by the consent of both parties. How into the Atlantic Ocean? His Majesty's (Joveriunent have not yet understood that this latter course of iirocceding is intended by the President ; but if his proposal is to he so inter- preted, much of the dithculty attending its execution would undoubtedly be removed. The President, however, has suggcsti'd another way of getting over the em- barrassment of the river (|uestion ; urul to this plan His Majesty's Government regret that it is not in their power to assent. The I'resident suggests, that the conunission of survey should be empowered to decide this point of difl'ercnce. Hut His Majesty's Government cannot admit that this point could properly be referred to such a conunission. 'J'lie river cpiestion is one which turns upon no local survey, and tor the decision ot which no farther ircographical or topogra- |)hical infoiiuation can he rci|uire(l. It turns upon the interpretation to be put upon the words of tic Treaty of I7n.'{, au'l upon the application of that inter- pretation to geograpliiial fads, already well known and ascertained. A ("om- inission of siu'vey therefore has nn peculiar comi)cten(y to decide such a cpiestion. But to refer that (pidion to any autiiority would be to submit it to a fresh arbi- tration ; and if His .Majesty's (iuveriimenl were prepared to agree to a fresh arbitration, which is by no means tlu case, siuii ailiitratiou ought necessarily to include ail the points in dispute Intwecn the two (jovernments, and not to be confined to one parlicul.ir point alone. With respect then to the President's proposal tor a commission of explora- tion and survey, His Majesty's (lovernment could only agree to such a commission provided there were a previous understanding between the two Ciovernments ; that although m-ithcr should be rciiuircd to give up its own interpretation of the river (picstion, yet as the commission of survey would be intended for purposes of conciliation, and with a view of putting an end to discussions on controverted )M)ints, the (^'onunissioners should he instructed to search tor highlands, upon the character of which no doubt could exist on either side. Hut if this modification of the President's proposal should not prove ac- n ->. .■< > IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) /y 1.0 I.I 1^ 1^ 12.2 :^ 1^ 12.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 o M 6" - ^ Photographic Sciences Corporation 2;* WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ^ ^^> ^\<* 6 ce])table to the Government of the United States, the only remaining way of arriving; at an ndjuatment of the difference would be to abiu\don altogetiier the attempt to draw a line in conformity with the words of the Treaty of 1 783 ; and to fix upon a conventional line, to be drawn according to equitable principles and with a view to the respective interests and convenience of the two parties. His Majesty's (Jovernmeut are perfectly ready to treat for such a line, and they conceive that the natural features of the disputed territory would atlord peculiar facilities for drawing it. When a tract of country is claimed by cafli of two States, and when each party is equally convinced of the justice of its own claim to the whole of the district in iiuestion, the fairest way of settling the controversy would seem to be to divide in equal portions between the two claimants the territory in dispute. Such a mode of arrangement appears to be consistent with the natural principles of ecjuity. His Majesty's Government would therefore propose to that of the Unitctl States, to adjust the present diflercncc, by dividing equally between Great Britain and the United States the territory in disjjute ; allotting to each jiarty that portion which, from contiguity or other circumstances, would be most desirable as a possession for each. The general outUnc of such a division would be, that the boundary between the two states should be drawn as required by the Treaty, due north, from the head of the St. Croix river, and should \k carried straight on till it inter- sected the St. John ; from thence it should run up the St. John, to the southernmost source of that river ; and from that jwint it should be drawn to the head of the Connecticut river, in such manner as to make the northern and southern allottnents of tlie divided territory as nearly as possible equal to each other in extent ; the northern iillotment to renmin with Great Britain, the southern allotment to belong to the United States. You are therefore instructed to present to Mr. Forsyth a note, of which 1 enclose you a copy,* for the puq)ose of enabling him to bring distinctly before the Government of the United States, the propositions now made by His Ma- jv^ ty's (lovernment. I am, &c. (Signed) PALMERSTON. VkarUt liunkhtad, E»q. &c. &c. he. k No. 47. Charles Bankhead, Etq. to Viscount Palmerston. — f Received January 13, 1836.^ My Lord, Washington, December S, lH.35. 1 HAVE the Itonor to transmit to your Ijordship a copy of the nicssagt communicated by the President of the United Slates, this day, to both Houses of Congress. I have the honor to be, &c. (Signed) CHARLES BANKHEAP. Vincount Pntmerslon, G. C li. *>r. Nc. t^c. Inclosure in No. 47. Extract of Mei>sage from the President nf the United States to Congress. IN the settlement of tlic (|iustion of the north-eastern boundary little progress has been made. (Ircal I'.rilain declined acceding to the ]in)pt)sili()n of the United States, presented in acconlaiicc with the resolution of tlic Senate, unless certain preliminary conditions were admitted, which I dcenicd incom- jiatititc with a satisfactory and rigbtlul adjustment of the controversy. Waitinij; * The iinic IteinR (mylaiu muluiutit) in ike wonit of lliil dripitcli, it ii not llioti|;lit necewniy lu (iriiit It III tliii plttcr. 89 for some distinct proposal from the Government of Great Britain, which has !)ccii invited, I can only repeat the expression of my confidence that with the strong mutual disposition which I believe exists, to make a just arrangement, this perplexing i{uestion can be settled with a due regard to the well founded pretensions and pacific policy of all the parties to it. Events arc frequently occurring on the north-eastcru frontier, of a character to impress upon all the necessity of a speedy and definitive termination of the dispute. This consider- ation, added to the desire, common to both, to relieve the liberal and friendly relations so hap|)ily existing between the two countries, from all embarrassment, will no doubt have its just influence upon both. 7th December, 183,5. No. 48 t Charles linnkhend, Esq. to VUcount Palnierston. — ("Received January 2'), 1836.^ (Extract) Washington, December 29, 1835. I HAD the honor to receive on the 27th instant, your Lordship's despatch of the MOth October, inclosing a note, which you have instructed me to present to the Secretary of State, containing the views of His Majesty's Govern- ment upon the questioii of a north-east boundary, between the province of \cw Hrunswick and the United States. I lost no time in submitting this paper to Mr. Forsyth, and I accompanied its piosentation with the expression of a strong hope, that the liberal and reason- able propositio.is which it contained would be viewed by the President as an earnest of the friendly feelings manifested by His Majesty, to settle this impor- tai (lucstion, upon a basis of reciprocal advantage ; and I added that we looked forward -.vith confidence to a corresponding sentiment on the part of the Ame- rican (iovernment. Mr. Forsyth declined to make any observations upon the "ontents of my note, farther than to express his decided opinion, that the proposal made by your Lor(lshi[) for a conventional line of boundary, could i\ever he adopted, inasmuch as the State of Maine would not agree to accept a smaller jiortion of the territory than that given to her by the King of the Netlicrlaiuls, whose award she thought tit to refuse. With respect to the other proposal mentioned by your Lordship, Mr. For- syth stated to me, that he slioulil enter into the discussion of it with the IVesidi'iit, without loss of time, and with every wish, if possible, to avail himself of its object. !;j No. 49. Chdrlrs liankhead, Ksij. to I'iticount Palmemton. — (Received March 20.) .My IvonI, Wa.tldiKjtnn, yiitrrh l^>, 1836. I ll.WK the honour to transmit to your Lordship, the co|)y ol a note, which I received on the second instant, from the Secretary t)f State of the United States, in answer to the one, aihliessed by me to this Government on the 28th December last, on the question of the north-east boundary between His .Majesty's north .\mericar. provinces and the United States. Your Lordsbip will observe that Mr. Forsyth endeavours to combat the construction [lut u[>on that part of the subject, called " the River Question ;" he adluTcs to the opinion already advanced by the Governmc'it of the United States upon that point of (lirt'crence; and he ([uotes the public Acts of (ireat Britain, in delining the boundary between Canada and Nova Scotia, as estabhsh- ing the .\nierican position of the nortf west angle of the latter province. This is ground, however, which has trei|uenlly been dis|>uted ; and I do not perceive that Mr. Forsyth has brought any new feature forward, in attempting to refute your Lordship's clear interpretation of" the River Question." Tlie conventional line, proposed by His Majesty's Government, is pronounced !» !r 90 to be such, as the State of Maine would never consent to adopt, inasmuch as it gives to that State, a far less accession of territory, than the King of the Netherlands awarded to her, and which she refused. The offer isagain put forward to make the river St. John the boundary between the two countries, although I have repeatedly stated tiie impossibility, on the part of the Hritish Government, of agreeing to such a proposition. The recent proceedings in that portion of tiie territory in dispute, called the Indian Stream settlement, have induced the President to propose an immcdiat« arrangement of that i)art of the boundary, leaving to ulterior negotiation, the other points of difference. In a conversation with Mr. Forsyth upon the contents of his note, I men- tioned to him, that he did not suthciently weigh that part of my comnnuiication of December last, in which a modification of the President's proposition wai conditionally acceded to by the British Government. I ought here to stat; to your Lordship, that on presenting my note in December last to Mr. Forsyth, he objected to the moditied pro|)osal of His Majesty's Government, as precluding the possibility of the (juestion being terminated during the Presidency of General Jackson, as he knew the President was most anxious to retire from hio present situation, after having settled every point of difference existing between the United States and foreign Powers, and especially the question of boundary with Great Hritain. On my calling his attention again to this point, he said that he had taken your Lonl.shi|>'s modified proposition to be nothing more than a civil way of getting rid of the (piestion of commission altogether. I immediately referred him to that part of my note, and after reading it over attentively, he said, that if my Government really wished for the formation of a commission of exploration and survey, whose labours were to be aftervs-ards submitted to their respective Governments, and whose decisions or opinions were not to be final, he thought that the President, would have no objection in acceding to such a jiroposal. He asked me of what materials the commission to be appointed, were likely to be composed, and whether the composition of either of the two, named by the I'resident, wa» intended to be taken. I told him that I had no definite instructions upon that point ; but I presumed that some agreement or convention would be necessary, oefore the commissioners were named, in order to regulate the course of proceed- ing, and to jtrovide for, and give effect to its results. 1 have the honour to transmit to your Lordship the copy of a note, which I thought it my duty to present to the Secretary of State, founded upon the above view of the preliminary measure projioscd by your I»rth December last, on the snhjcct of the north-eastern boundary of the United States. 'Hie President sees, with great satisfaction, the continued assurances of the British (iovernnient of its earnest desire s]K'cdily and justly to settle the matter in controvtTsy by an arraiiiicment honorable to both parties, and believes that his own conciliatory disposition will be best manifested by a direct attention to the |)oints now prt;- seiited by His Britannic Majesty'i* Government, with a view to some detuiite uudcrstunding on the subject. The award of the arbiter having l)een now abandoned by both parties to the arbitration, the whole subject is o|K'ii as if there nevir had been a submissiou of It. The President perceivev in Mr. Baukhead'a note no oliuiiiou to any portiuB ! 91 of the line, except that bcginninf; at the source of the St. Croix, and terminating at tlic head of tlie Connecticut River. Supjiosing this omission to bring into view the residue of the boundary hne between the United States, and the dominions of His Britannic Majesty, has been the result ol a conviction that the parties so far understood each other, as to be satisfied that on that part of the vubject a settlement could be made without difficulty or delay, whenever it was important to them to make it, the President has instructed the Undersigned to confine himself to the points touched by Mr. Hankhead's note with this single suggestion — that events of a very grave character have lately occurred, which im()ress upon his mind a conviction that an cstablisiimeut of that part of the line as to which the parties are nearly of accord, had better be made at once, uidcss the efi'orts now making should promise an immediate adjustment of the whole controversy. The President finds, with great regret, that His Britannic Mfijesty's Govern- ment adheres to its objection to the appointment of a conmiission to be chosen in either of the modes proposed in former communications on the part of the United States. This regret is heightened by the conviction that the proposition upon which it is founded, " that the river question," as it is called, " is a question of construction only," although re|)cated on various occasions by Great Britain, is demonstrably untenab'.e. Indeed, it is plausible only, when material and most important words of description in the Treaty are omitted in quoting from that instrument. The Treaty marks the two determining points of the line in dispute — the source of the St. Croix and the north-west angle of Nova Scotia. Is it a question of Treaty constructiim only where the north-westa ngle of Nova Scotia is ? A survey of Nova Scotia, as known at the date of the Treaty of Peace, necessarily establishes that point. Where is it to be found according to the public acts of (ireat Britain ? Is it to be found on a line beginning on the westernmost bend of the Baydes Chaleurs, and thence passing nlong the highlands dividing the wa(ers falling into the St. Lawrence, from the waters falling into the sea? Can His Majesty's Govcnmient expect the (n)venunent of the United States to consent before the selection of a com- mission of examination and survey, and the appointment of an umjiire to decide on the contingency of their disagreement, that the terminating point of the line running due north from the source of the St. Croix, is to be alone looked for on liigidands, whith caiuiot be reached from the westernmost bend of the Bay (!>s Chaleurs, hut by running directly across high mountains, deep valleys, and the large livers that flow through them? Agreement between the United States and (ireat Britain on this point is impossible, while His Majesty's Government continues to maintain this position. The President, therefore, as at present iiilbnncd, is under the necessity of looking to the new and conven- tional line offered in .Mr. Bankhead's note. That etjuity in disputes about territorx , when both parties are satisfied of the justice of their respective pre- tensions, re(|uires a fair divi.^ion of the disputed property, is a truth the Presi- dent I'reely admits ; but the Undersigned is instructed to remind Mr. Bankhead of what has bi'cn heretofore stated, that in a conventional line the wishes and interests of the State of Maine were to be consulted, and that the President lannot, in justice to himself, or to that State, make any proposition utterly irreioiuileahle with her previously well known o|)iiiioi\s on the subject. His Majesty's tiovernment will not have forgotten, that the principle of compro- mise and e(|uitai)le division, was adopted by the King of the Netherlands, in the line recomnicniled by him to the parties, a line rejected by the United States, because luijust to .Maine ; and yet the line proposed by the King of the Nether- lands, gave to (ireat Britain little more than two millions, while the proposition now made by His Britai\nic Majesty's (lovermnent secures to Great Britain, of the disputed land, uu)re than four niiliions of acres. The division oHerid by Mr. Bankhead's note is not in harmony with the ecjuitalilf rule Irom wliich it is said to spring; and if it were i'l conformity with it, could nut be luiepted without disrespect to the previous decisions aiul just ex|)ectatii)ns of Maine. The President is far from !.U|)posing this proposition is founded upon a desire of His Majesty's (lovermnent to actpiire territory, or that the ipiantity ol land secured to Great Britain, in the pro|)osed compromise, was the leading motive to the ofl'er made. His Majesty's Government have no doubt inaile the oH'er without regaid to the extent of the territory falling to the uorth ur south of the St. John, Iruui u belief that u change in the character of the O f)2 P * boundary line, substituting a river for a highland boundary, would he useful in preventing territorial disputes in future. Coinciding in this view of the subject, the President is nevertheless com|)ellcd to decline the boundary proposed, an inconsistent with the known wishes, rights and derisions of the State. With a view however, to terminate at once all controversy, and satisfactorily, without regard to the extent of territory lost by one party or accpiired by the other, to establish an unchangeable and definite and indisputable houndar)-, the President will, if His Majesty's Government consent to it, a|)ply to the State of Maine for its assent to make tlie river St. John from its source to its mouth, the boundary between Maine and His liritanuic Majesty's dominions in that part of North America. The Undersigned avails himself, &c. (Signed) JOHN FORSYTH. Charles Bankhead, Es({. iiC. &jC. «)C. Inclosure 2 in No. 49. Charles Bankhead, Esq. to the Hon. John Forsyth. Wa.shinyton, March 4, 18.%. THE Undersigned, &c., has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the note, which Mr. Forsyth, &c., addressed to him on the 2'Jth ultimo, upon the subject of the north-east boundary between His Majesty's North American possessions and tlie United States. Tlie rejection on the part of the President of the conventional line, which the Undersigned had the honor to propose in his note of the "JSth December, cannot but cause great regret to His Majesty's Government, inasmuch as it was proposed with a view to settle this protracted cpiestion of boundary, and as offering as fair and eijual a division of the territory, as they cuuld po.ssibly be required to subscribe to. The Undersigned, however, thinks it right to refer Mr. Forsyth to that pari of his note of the 2Hth December, wherein tiie proposition of the President for a conunission of exploration ami survey is fully discussed, it is there utatcd that His Majesty's (Joveriinienl could only agree to sucii a commission, provided there was a previous understanding bi'tveen the two (iovermnents that, although neither shoidd lie recpiired to give up its own interpretation of " the river question," yet as the commission of survey would be intended for purjKJses of conciliation, and with a view of |)utting an end lo discussions on controverted points, the commissioners siiouhl be instructed to search for highlands upon the character of which no doubt could exist on either side. It appears to the Undersignetl, tliat the Secretary of State in his answer of the 2yth ultinu), has not given this nioditication on the part of His Majesty's Government of the President's proposition, tlie full weight to which it was entitled. Indeed, it was otfered with a view of meeting as far as practicable, the wishes of the President, and of endeavouring by such a preliminary measure, to bring about a settlement of the boundary, u|)on a basis satisfactory to both parties. With this view, the Undersigned has the honour again to submit to the Secretary of Slate, the modified proposal of Ills Majesty's (iovernnu'nt, bearing in initid that the connuissioners who may be ajipointed, are not to decide u|H>n points of difference, but arc nu-rely to present to the res|)eetive Governments the result of their labours, whieli it is hoped and believed will pave the wav tor an ultnnate sitilcment of tin' (jueslion. The Undersuiied eonsideis it due to the c(jnei!iat()ry marnier in which the President bus acted ihioii^luiut this diM'ussion, to state tranl\ly and cleiuiv, that the proposition oliered in .\Ir. For>yth'> note, to make thi' river ."^t. John, from its source to it.s nuuith, the boundarv between the United States and \\\> Majesty's province of New l?runs\si(k, is one to which he is convinced His .Ma- jesty's (jovernment will never agri'c ; and hi- •ilistained in his note ol the 'Jxth December, from any allii>ion to it, as the best proof he could give of it> utter inadmissibility. The Undersigned has the lioiionr, &c, The lion. John Forsyth. iSigucd/ CIl.MlUiS IIANKIIK.VD. &c. &c. if.'c. 93 Inclosure 3 in No. 49. 7%ff Hon. John Forsyth to Vhurlen Bankhead, Esq. Drpnrtinent of State, IVashimjton, March 5, 1836. THK Undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, has the honor to acknowledge tiie receipt of the note of Mr. Bankhead, &c., dated the 4tii instant, in answer to that addressed to him by the Undersigned on the 29tij ultimo, u|K)n tlie subject of tiie north-eastern boundary, between the United States and I lis Majesty's possessions in Nortli America. Mr. Bunkliead's communication having been submitted to the consideration of the President, the Undersigned is instructed to express the regret which is felt, that iiis proposition to make the river St. John the boundary between the State of Maim; and His Majesty's province of New Brunswick, the acceptance of which, it is believed would have removed a fruitful source of vexatious difficulties, will, in the opinion of Mr. Bankhead, be declined by His Majesty's (jovernment. The Government of the United States cannot, however, relinquish the hope, that tiiis proposal, when brought before His Majesty's Cabinet, and considered with the attention and deliberation due to its merits, as well as to the important nature of the ending ; but that as the negotiation was undertaken under the special advice of the Senate, he deemed it improper to withhold from them the infonnation required, submitting it to them to decide whether it would be exiwdient to publish the documents before the negotiation was closed. O 2 m ■t- M Notwithstanding this clear indication by the I'residcnt of his wishes upon the Huhjcot, aitd his opinion that the documents ought not, at the present moment, to be nmde public, the Senate passed a further resolution on the 23rd of June, upon the motion of Mr. Clay, Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Uelations, ordenng the publication of the corres|)ondence. I have the lu)i\or herewith to enclose a printed copy of this publication. The whole of the documents, however, which it contains, consisting of corres- Imndence between the American Secretaries of State and His Majesty's x.>gation in this country, are, of course, in the possession of His Majesty's Government. As it was the Senate, in its executive capacity, that decided upon reject- ing the award of the arbitrator, the Government could not withhold from that body the information retpiired, but Mr. Forsyth does not conceal front me that both the President and hiniRclf are greatly annoyed at this forced and premature publication, as they consider it, of a diplomatic correspondence ; and Mr. Forsytlj has seemed anxious to ex])lain to me, for the satisfaction of your Lonlship, the j)eculiar circumstances under which the publication has taken place. I must observe that I do not myself perceive in the documents which are published, any thing that is calculated to impede or embarrass the future conduct of the negotiation. I have the honor to be, &c. I'ucount Palmerston, G.C.B. (Signed) H S. FOX. S(c. £)'c. ^c. I lii No. .11. Henry S. For, Est], to Viscount Palmemtim. — (Received January 5, 1M.'J7.) My Lord, Waxhinijton, December V), IS.'lfi. I HAVE the honour to transmit to your I-ordship a copy of the message of the President of the United States, which was communicated this day to both Houses of Congress. I have the honour to be, &c. lucount Palmer>:ton, G. C. B. (Signed) U. S. FOX. &c Ikv. &'. Inclosurc in No. 51. Extract from the Message of the President of the I'nited States to Conijress. BUT although thepresent state of our foreign atl'uirs, standing without im- portant change as they did when you separated in .luly lust, is flattering in th« extreme, I regret to say, that many (juestions of an interesting character, at issue with other powers, are yet unadjusted. Amongst the most prominent of these, is that of our north-eastern boundary. With an undiminished confidence in the sincere desire of His Hritaiinic Majesty's (iovernment to adjust that question, I am not yet in |)ossession of the |)recise grounds upon which it pro- poses a satisfactory adjustment. December G, 1 H'M. ^i No. [,2. Henry IS. Fox, Ksij. to I'iscount Palmerxlon. — ( Rereived April 21.) (Extract ) yyaxhimjlon, March 21), 1H37. I LOSE no time in conveying to your lordship's knowledge the enclosed official note, addressed to me by the United Stales' Secretary of State, Mr. Forsyth, upon several important subjects connected with the ijuestion of the boundary line between the United States and His Majesty's possessions in North America. Your Lordship will jierceivc that Mr. Forsyth'.*; i'.dIc cc'uhidi'.-^ with strongly urging the wishes of the President's Ciovcrnment for an early settlement of the 95 important question of the boundary line, recurring to the proposals transmitted home t(i your Lordship through His Majesty's Charg^ d'Afl'aires, Mr. Bankheud, in the early part of last year. Inclosure in No. 52. The Hon. John Forsyth to Henry 8. Fox, Esq. (Extract.) Depirlment of State, Wa«hington, March 23, 1837. THE proceedings above alluded * to considered, in connection with incidents on other parts of the boundary line, we'l known to His Majesty's Ministers, would seem to render it indispensable to the maintenance of those liberal and friendly relations between the two countries, which both Governments are so sincerely anxious to preserve, that they should come to a speedy adjustment ou the aubject. The recent .esolulions of the State of Maine, to which the pro- jected railroad from St. Andrews to Quebec gave rise, requesting the President of the United States to cause the line established by the Treaty of 1783 to be run, and monuments to be established thereon ; and the appropriation of twenty thousand dollars by Congress at their late session to enable the executive to carry that re(|uest into effect, with a subsequent earnest application from the Representatives of Maine for an immediate compliance with it, afford additional incentives to exertion to bring this controversy to a conclusion, not to be disre- garded by the President of the United States. The President, therefore, awaits with great anxiety the decision of His Majesty's Government on the proposition made by the Undersigned to His Majesty's Cliarge d'Affaires at Wasliington, in February 1836, suggesting the Uiver St. John, from its mouth to its source, as an eligible and convenient line of boundary. No small degree of disappointment has been felt, that this decision, already long expected, has not been given; but the hope is entertained, that the result of this protracted deliberation will prove favourable to the wishes of the I'resident, and that, even if that proposition be not acceded to by His Britannic Majesty, some (ierinitivc offer, looking to a prompt termination of the controversy, will be made without further delay. No. 53. Viscount Palmerston to Henry S. Fox, Esq. Sir, Foreign Office, November 19, 1837. VARIOUS circumstances have hitherto prevented HerMajesty's Government from giving you instructions with reference to the negotiation with the United States, upon the subject of the north-eastern boundary. Those instructions it is now my duty to convey to you. I have accordingly to retjuest that you will express to the Government of the United States the sincere regret of that of (Jrcat Britain, that the long continued endeavours of botl; jwrties to come to a settlement of this im|)ortant matter, have hitherto been vuiavailing ; but you will assure Mr. Forsyth Miat the British Government feel an undiminished desire to co-operate with the Cabinet of Washington for the attainment of this object of mutual interest ; and that they have learned with great satisfaction that their sentiments on this point are fully shared by tiie existing President. The comnmr.ications which during the last few years have taken place u|)on this subject between the two Ciovernments, if they have not led to a solution of the (juestions at issue, have at least narrowed the Hehl of future discussion. Both Governments have agreed to consider the award of the King of the Netherlands as binding upon neither party ; and the two Governments therefore arc as free in this respect as they were before the reference to that Sovereign was made. * Relating to dir proji cteil railwuy through the iliipuleti territory. See Class B. w\ Il « !|i 06 The British Government dcspnirinK of tlie posBibiHty of drawing a line tliat llmll be in Htt-ral ronforniity with the wurdH ot'tlie Trentyuf 17^1'), hiu suggested that u conventional boundary' tihould be Hulistituted for the line dcHcribed in tlio Treaty; ami has projMJsed that, in aceordunce with the i)rinciph'H of ei|uity, and in pursuance of the general |)ractice uf mankind in itimilar cases, the object of ditl'crcnce sliouUl be e<|ually divi(k>d between tlie two differing parties, each of whom is ahke convinced of the justice of its own claim. The United States' Government has replied, that to such an arrangement it has no power to agree ; that until the line of the Treaty xliail have been other- wise determined, the State of Maine will continue to assume, that the line which it claims is the true line of I'Ki, and will assert, that ail the land up to that line is territory of Maine ; that con.se(|uently such a division of the disputed territory as is pro()osed by Great Britain, would be considered by Maine as tantamount to a cession of what that State regaixls as part of its own territory, and that the central Government has no power to agree to such an arrangement without the consent of the State concerned. Her Majesty's Government exciwlingly regret that such an obstacle should exist, to prevent that settlement, which, under all the circumstances of the case, ai)|)ears to be the simplest, tlic readiest, the most satisfact( ry and the most just. Nor can Her Majesty's Goyernmeut admit that the objf.tlion of the State of Maine is well founded. For the princi]>le on which that objection rests is as good for (ireat Hritain as it is for Maine. If Maine think.s itself entitled to contend, that until the true line described in the Treaty is determined, the boundary claimed by Maine must be regarded as the right one. Great Britain is Burcly still more intitled to insist upon a similar pretension ; and to assert, that until the line of the Treaty shall be established to the satisfaction of both parties, the whole of the dis|(uted territory ought to be considered aj belonging to the British Crown, because Great Britain is the original possessor; ami all the territory which has not been proved to have been by Treaty ceded by her, nmst be looked upon as belonging to her still. Hut the very existence of such conflicting pretensions seems to point out the expediency of a compromise ; imd what compromise can be more fair, than that, which would give to each party one half ot the subject matter of dispute i" A conventional line different Irom that describcommission, if the principle upon which it was to be formed, and the manner in which if was to be proceed, could be satisfactorily settled. The U' 'ted States' Ciovernment have proposed two modes in which such a commission might be constituted ; first, that it might consist of commissioners named in equal nund)ers by each of the two Governments, with an umpire, to be selected by some friendly European Power ; secondly, that it might be entirely composed of scientific Europeans, to be selected by a friendly Sovereign ; and might be accompanied in its operations by agents of the two different parties, in orderthatsuch agents might give to the conmiissioners assistance and information. If such a commission were to be appointed. Her Majesty's Government think that the tirsi of these two modes of construe ting it would be the best, and that it should consist of members chosen in e(|ual numbers by eacii of the two Governnicnts. It might, however, be better that the umpire should be selected by the mendjcrs of the commission themselves, rather than that the two Govern- ments should apply to a third Power to make such a choice. The object of this commission, as understood by Her Majesty's Govern- ment, would be to explore the disputed territory, in order to find within its limits, dividing highlands, which may answer the description of the Treaty ; tlii' search being first to be made in the due north line, from the monument at the head of the St. Croix; and if no such highlands should be found in that meri- dian, the search to be then continued to the westwiml thereof; and Her Majesty's Government have stated their opinion, that in order to avoid all fruitless dis- putes, as to the character of such highlands, the commissioners should be instructed to look for highlands which both parties might acknowledge as fulfilling the conditions required by the Treaty. Mr. Korsyth, in his note of the ')th March, 183(), express'"' a wish to know how the report of the commission would, according to the views uf Her Majesty's (iovernment, be likely, when rendered, to lead to an ullimute settlement of the (]uestion of boundary between the two Governnicnts. In reply to this enc|uiry Her Majesty's (ioveniment would beg to observe, that the j)roposal to appoint a conunission originated nut with them, but witli the (jovernment of the United States ; and that it is therefore rather for the (Government of the United States than tor that of Great Ihitain, to answer this <]uestion. Her Majesty's Government have themselves already stateil that they have little exi)ectation that such a coinniissioii could had to any useful result, and that they would on that account be disposed to object to it; and if Her Majesty's lioveriunent were lunv to agree to appoint such a tonnnission, it would be oidy in compliance with the desire so strongly ex|)rcsseil by the (iovermncnt of the United States, and in spite of doubts which Her Majesty's (iovernment still con- tinue to entertain of the ellicacy of the nu'asure. But with respect to the way in which the report of the conunission might be likely to lead ;o an ultimate sitthMuent of the (juestion, Her Majesty's Goveniment, in the first place, coiu'cive that it was meant by the (jovcrnment uf the United States, that if the commission should discover hii^hlandf OS I answering to tlie doncription of the Treaty, n connecting line Hrnwn from tlioiie higlilunda to tlic hcnd of the St. Croix, dhould l)e deemed to be a portion of the boiindnry line lietwcen tlie two countries. Hut Her Majesty's riovernnient would further heg to refer Mr. Kornyth to the notes of .Mr. Mcl^ne of the ."ilh .June, \HX\, and of the Nth and' 2HtU March, \M\, on this sulijcct ; in whicii it will be seen that the (Jovernnient of the United Slates appears to have contemplated as one of the possible results of the proposed commission of exploration, that such additional infornuition might |>088ibly be obtained respecting tlie features of the country in the district to which the 'J'reaty relates, as might remove all doubt as to the impracticability of laying down a boundary in strict accordance with the letter of the Treaty. And if the investigations of the jiroposed commission should shew that there is no reasonable prospect of tiiuliug a line strictly conformable with the description contained in the Treaty of 17h;1, the constitutional ditficulties which now prevent the United .States from agreeing to a conventional line, may possibly be removed, and the way may thus be prepared for the satisfacUiry settlement of the dirt'erencc by an e(|nitable division of the disputed territory. Hut if the two (Jovernments should agree to the a|)pointmcnt of such n commission, it would be necessary that their agreement should be first recorded in a Convention, and it would obviously be indispensable that the State of Maine should be an assenting party to the arrangement. I am, Sic, (Signed) I'ALMKR.STON. Henry S. Fox, Esq. Ac. Sfc. 8(r. Sir, No. .')4. Viscount Palmertton to Henry S. Fox, E.iq. Fnrfiijn Officr, S'orember 10, 1^:^37. IN looking hack to the correspondence which has jjassed between tlve British and American (iovernments upon the boundary (juestion, I observe, that there is one point, with n-spect to which it seems lu'ccssary to reply to some observatifins contained in one of the notes of Mr. Forsyth. Her Majesty's Ciovernment with a view to prevail upon that of the United .States to come to an understanding with (Jreat Mritain upon the river (|ucsti()n, had stated, that the King of the Netherlands, in his award, bad osition. Hut it ajtpears to Her .Majesty's (Jovernmcnt, that Mr. Forsyth has not correctly a|)prcbtnde(l the meaning of the passage which he cpiotcs ; for in the passage in (piestion Mr. Forsyth suppo.scs that the word " alnne" n govcrnecl bv the verb '■ include," whereas an attentive examination of the context will shew, that the word "alone" is governed by the verb " diiirle," and that the real meaning of the jiassage is, that the rivers flowing north and south from the highlands claiiiicd by the United States, may be arranged in two genera ; the first genus cunqircbending the rivers which tall into the .St. Ivjiwrence ; the second genus conipreliending those whose waters, in some manner or other, find their way into the . Atlantic ; but that even if according to this general classification, and in contradistinction, from rivers flowing into the St. ijawrence, the rivers which fall into the bays of Chaleurs and Fundy, might be com|)riscd in the siinie genus with the rivers which fall y prcilccessor pave the strongest proof of the earnest denirc of the I'liited States to terniinati', satisfactorily, this dispute, hy proposing the suhstitiition of a conventional line, if the consent of the States interested in tlic (juestion (;oiiM be obtained. To this proposition no answer has as yet been received. The atten- tion of the British (Jovernnient has, however, been urgently invited to the subject, and its reply cannot, 1 am confident, be much l;)nger delayed. The ger.eral relations between CJreat Hritain and the United States are of the most friendly character, and I am well satisfied of the sincere disposition of that (Jo- verniuent to maintain them upon their present footing. This disposition has also, I am jiersuaded, become more general with the people of England than at any jirevious period. It is scarcely necessary to say to you how cordially it is reciprocated by the (iovemnifnt and j)eoj)le of the *Jnited .States. The conviction, which must be connuon to all, of the injurious consequences that result from keeping open this irritating question, and the certainty that its final settlement cannot be much longer deferred, will, I trust, lead to an early and satisfactory adjustment. At your last session I laid before you the recent communications betwetn tlie two Governments, and iKtween this Government and that of the State of M'ine, in whose solicitude, concerning a subject in which she has so deep an interest, every jwrtion of the Union participates. No. 56. Henry S. Fox, Esq. to Vacounl Palmerston. — CReceiied Ftbruury 14 J My Lord, IVashingtoti, January 10, 1H3W. I HAVE liad the honour to receive, by the messenger Kraus, your lord- ship's two despatches of the 1 9th of Novemlwr, conveying to me instnictions upon the (juestion of the north-eastern Injundar)'. I have this day presented two official notes to the Secretary of Slate of the United States, in conformity with your Lordshiji's instructions. 1 shall lose no time in acquainting your Lordship with the earliest intimation which I may receive of the answer likely to l)e returned to the above communications by the Government of the United States. 1 have the honour to be, &c. Viscount Pdlmirston, (r.C.Ii. (Signed) H. S. FOX. &c. &e. &c Jilli APPENDIX. I. 1 Definitive Treaty of Peace and Friendship between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America. Signed at Paris, App«ndii. 3rd September, 1783. J! Ill the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity. Treaty of 1733. ' having pleased the Divine providence to dispose the heart of the Most Serene and otentPnncc, George tlie II Ird, by " -- . - _ . . _ IT 1 , Most Potent Prince, George tlie Ilird, by the grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunenburgh, Arch-Treasurer, and Prince Elector of the holy llomnii Kmpire, Ac, and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good aurespondencc and friendship which they mutually wish to restore; and to estabHsh such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse between the two countries, upon the ground of rociproi-al advantages and mutual convenience, as may promote and secure to both per- petual peace and hanntiny ; and having for tl.is desirabh^ end already laid tlic foundation of peace and reconciliation, by tlie provisional Articles signed at Paris, on the 30th of Novem- ner, l?*^?. by the C'ommissioncrs emjK)wered on each part; which Articles were agreed to be inserted in, and to constitute, the Treaty of Peace, pro|)oBed to be concluded oetween the Cmwn of Great Britain and tlie said United States, but which Treaty was not to be concluded until terms of peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain and France, and His Britaiuiick Majesty should be reaily to^conclude such Treaty accordingly ; and the Treaty between (treat Britain and France ha\'ing since been concluded. His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, in order to carry into full effect tlie provisional Articles above mentioned, according to the tenor thereof, have constituted and appointed, that is to say, His Britamiick Majesty on his part, David Hartley, Esq., Member of the Parliament of Great Britain; and the said United States, in their part, Jolin .Vdams, P'sq., late a Crminissioncr of the United States of America at the Coua of Versailles, late Dele- gate in <"i ingress from the State of Miissaeliu-setts, and Chief .Justice of the said State, and Minister PleniiHiteiiliary of the said United States to their High Mightinesses the StJiti-s (Jorieral of the United Netlierlands ; Henjaniiii Fnuiklin, Ksq., late Delegate in Congress from the .State of Pennsylvania, President of the Convention of the said State, and Minister PliMiipoteiiliary from the United States uf .\merica at the Court of Versailles; John Jay F.M(j.. late Pre>ident of Congress, and Chief Justice of the State of New York, and Minister Pleni|)<>tcntiary fnini the said United States, at the Court of Madrid ; to Ih' the Plonipo- tentiuries for tlie coneliuiiiii; and signing the present Definitive Treaty : Who, after havinj' reciprui'aily eonimunieateil their respective full (Kjwers. have agreed upon and confirmed the following Articles : ARTICLF, I. His Britamiick Majesty acknowledges the said United States, vir.. New Hampshire, Massailuisetts Hay. Rhode Ishiml, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut. New York, Now Jersey, IVnnsylvuuui, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Curolinii, South Carolina, ■ Appendix. I. Treaty of 1783. and Georgia, to be free, Sovereign, and Independent States ; that he treats with them aa such ; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the Oovemment, propriety and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof. ARTICLE II. .\nd that all diMjtutes which might arise in future on the subject of the boundaries of the said United .States may lie prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the follow- ing are and shall l>e their boundaries, vix. From the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, vix. that angle which is formed by a line drawn due north, from the source of St. Croix River to the highlands, along the said highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Law rence, from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the north-westernmost head of Connecticut river; thence down along the middle of that river, to the forty-tifth degree of north latitude ; from thence by a line due west on said latitude until it strikes the river Iroquois or Cataraquy ; thence along the middle of said river, into Lake Ontario ; through the middle of said I^ake, until it strikes the communica- tion by water between that Lake and Lake Erie ; thence along the middle of said com- munication into Lake Erie ; through the middle of said Lake, until it arrives at the water- communication between that Lake and Lake Huron ; thence along the middle of said water* communication into the Lake Huron ; thence through the middle of said Lake to the water- communication l>etween that Lake and Lake Superior ; thence tlirough I>iike Superior, north- ward of the Isles Royal and Phelipeaux, to the Long Lake ; thence through the middle of said Long I^ke, and tiie water-communication l)etween itand the Lake of the Woods, to thesaid Lake of the Woods : tlieiicc through the said Luke to the niort north-western point thereof, and from thence <>n a due west course to the river Mississippi; thence by a line to be drawn along the middle of the said river Vlisaiaaippi, until it shall intersect the northemrooit part of the thirty-first degree of north latitude : — South, by a line to be drawn due east from the determination of the line Inst 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 strait to the head of St. Mary's river, and thence down along tlie middle of St, Mary's river tu 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 it* source ; and from its source directly north to the aforesaid highlands, which divide the rivers tliat full into the Atlantic Ocean, from those which fall into the river St. I^w- rencc : comprehending all Klands within twenty leagues of any part of the shores of the United States, and lying l)etween lines to be drawn due East from the points where the aforesaid Imundaries between Nova Scotia on tlie one part, and east Florida on the otheT, shall respectively touch the Bav of Fundy, and the Atlantic Ocean ; excepting such Islands •a now are, or Iwretofore have Wii, within the limits of the said province of Nova Scotia. ARTICLE IIL It is agreed, that the people of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the ri(5ht to take fish of every kind on tlie grand bank and on all the other banks of New- foundland : also in the gul|ih of St. Lawn-Mce, and nt nil other places in the sen, where the inhabitants of both countries UNcd at any time heretofore to fiNh. And also that the inhabi- tants of the United States shall liuvr lil>erty to take fish of every kind on such i>art of the coast of Newfoiuidland, as British Fishermen shall use, (but not to dry or cure the same on that Island) and also on the consts, bays and creeks of all other of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America; and that the American fishermen shall have lil)erty to dry ann us the same or eitho- of thcni shall be settled, it shall not l)c lawful for the said tishcrincii to dry or cure fish at such setfleinetit, without a previous agreement for that puqiosc with the inhabi- tants, proprit^ors or |H«sessors of the gniund. ARTICLE IV. It is agreed, that creditors on cither side shall meet with no lawful impcdiniei't to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bondjide debts heretofore contracted. ARTICLE V. It is agreed that the Congress shall earnestly recommend it to tlie Legislatures of the ri'S]»cc»ive States. to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights and properties which have JH'eii confiscated, lieloiiging to real British subjects: and also of the estates, riylits urid properties of |)ersons resident in districts in the possession of His M^esty's arms, and who have not Ijoiie arms against the said United States: and that |HTsons of any other description ihall have free liberty to go to any part or parta of any of th» t^irtaeiv United. Appendii. States, and therein to remain twelve monthi umnoletted in their endeavora to obtain- the — — — — restitution of such of their estates, riehta and properties as may have been confiscated: '- and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several States, a reconsideration _ TTna-t and revision of all acts or laws regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws, or acts '"**? "^ ^'''^' perfectly consistent, not only with justice and eauity, but with that spirit of conciliation, which, on the return of the blessings of peace, snoiUd universally prevail. And that Con- gress shall also earnestly recommend to the several States that the estates, rights, and pro- perties of such last-mentioned persons shall be restored to them, they refunding to any persons who may be now in possession the bond fide price (where any has been given) whicfi such persons may have paid on purchasing any of the said lands, rights or properties since the confiscation. And it is agreed, that nil persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage settlements, or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the pro- secution of their just rights. ARTICLE VI. That there shall be no future confiscations made, nor any prosecutions commenced- a^nst any person or ])ersonB, for or by reason of the part which he or they may have taken in the present war ; and that no person sliall on that account suffer any fiitiure loss or damage either m his person, lil>erty or property ; and that those who may be in confinement on such chants at the time of the ratitimtion of the Treaty in America, shall be immediately set at liliert y, and the prosecutions so commenced be discontinued. ARTICLE VII. There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between His Britannick Majesty and the said States, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore all hostilities lioth by sea and land, shall from henceforth cease : all prisoners on both sides shall be set at bberty, and His Britannic Majesty shall, with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any Negroes, or other property of the American Inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garr-ions and fleets, from the said United. States, and from every port, place and harbour within the same ; leaving in all fortifications the American artillery tnat may be therein : and shall also order and cause all archives, re- cords, deeds and papers belonging to any of the said States, or their citisenu, which in the course of the war, may have fallen into the hamls of his oiT'cers, to be forthwith restored and delivered to the proper States and persons to whom they belong. ARTICLE VIII. The navigation of the river Mississippi, fsom its source to the ocean, shall for ever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain, and the citizens of the United States. ARTICLE IX. In case it should so happen that any place or territory belonging to Great Britain, or to the United States, should have beone ot Paris, this third clay of Scjrtember, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, (L.S.) I). HARTLEY. (L.S.) JOHN ADAMS. (hM.) B. KUANKLIN. (L.S.) JOHN JAY. The Fifth Article of the Treaty signed at Ghent, December 84, 1814, ARTICLE V, Amcndix. WHEREAS neither that point of the highlands lying due north from the Source of the !__ River St. Croix, desigiiated in the former Treaty of I'eace between the two powers, aH the II. north-west angle of Nuva Scotia, nor the north-westernmost head of Coni.'«:ticut River have yet been ascertained ; and whereas that part of the boundary line L 'ttween the Fifth Article of the dominions of the two powers, which extends from the source of the River St. Croix, directly Treaty of Ghent, north to the above mentioned north-west angle of Nova Scotia, thence 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 north-westernmost head of Connecticut River, thence down along the middle of that river to the 4&tli degree of north latitude, thence by a line due west on said latitude, until it strikes the river Iroquois, or Cataraguy, has not yet been surveyed, it is agreed that for these several purposes, two commissioners shall l>e appoMited, sworn and authonsed, to act exactly in the manner directed with respect to those mentioned in the next preceding Article, unless otherwise specilied in the present Article. The said commissioners shall meet at St. Andrew's, in the province of New Brunswick, and shall have power to adjourn to such other place or places as they shall think 6t. llie said commissioners shall have power to ascertain and determine the points above- mentioned, in conformity with tlie provision! of tlie said Treaty of Peace of I7H3; oiid shall cause the liouiidary aforesaid, from the source of the river St. Croix, to tlie river Iroquois, or Cataraguy, to be surveyed and marked according to the said provisions; the ■aid commissioners shall make a map of the said boundary, and annex to it a declaration under their hands and seals, certifying it to be the true niau of the said boundary, and par- ticularizing the latitude and longitude of the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, of Uie north- westernmost head of Connecticut River, and of such other points of the said boundary aa they may deem pro|)cr. And both parties agree to consider fuch map and declaration aa finally and conclusively fixing the said boundary. And in t'.ic event of the said two com- missioners diffenng, or Ixitli, or either of them, refusing, declining or wilfully omitting to act, such re|)orts, declarations or statements shall l)e made by them, or cither of them, and such reference to a F'riendly Sever or State shall l>e made in all respects, as in the latter |)art of the fourth Article ia oo id, and in as full a manner as ii' the same was herein repeated. in. Convention bt'twocn His Majesty and the United Statos of America, rehitive to the reference to Arbitration of tiio disputed points under the Fiftii Article of the Treaty of (ihent. Signed at London, September 29, 1827. ID* .ention of A' < (ration. WHEREAS it in provilc Privy Council, and __ President of the Committee of the PrivyCouncilforAffwrs of Trade and Foreign Plantations; III. and Henry Unwin Addington, Esquire : — And the President of the United States has appointed All>ert Gallatin, their Envoy Convention of Ar- Extraordinary, and Minister Pleninotentiary at the Court of His Britannic Majesty : — bitration. Who, after having exchanged their respective Full Powers, found to be in due and proper form, have agreed to and concluded the following Articles : ARTICLE I. It is agreed that the pointa of difference which have arisen in the settlement of the boundary between the British and American Dominions, as descril)ed in the fifth Article of the Treaty of Ghent, shall lie referred, as therein provided, to some friendly Sovereign or State, who shall be invited to investigate, and make a decision upon such pointa of difference. The two Contracting Powers engage to proceed in concert to the choice of such friendlv Sovereign or State, as soon as the ratifications of this Convention shall have been exchanged, and to use their best endeavours to obtain a decision, if practicable, within two years after the Arbiter shall have signified His consent to act as such. ARTICLE II. The reporta, and docuraenta thereunto annexed, df the commissioners appointed to carry into execution the fifth Article of the Treaty of Ghent, being so voluminous and oomplicated, as to render it improbable that any Sovereign or State should be willing or able to undertake the office of investigating and arbitrating upon them, it is hereby agreed to substitute fur those reporta new and separate statementa of the respective cases, severally drawn up by each of the Contracting Parties, in such form and terms as each may think fit. The said statementa, when prepared, shall be mutually communicated to each other by the Contracting Parties; that is to say, by Great Britain to the Minister, or Charg6 d' Affaires, of the United States at London ; and by the United States to His Britermic Majesty's Minister, or Charg^ d' Affaires, at Washington, within fifteen months after the exchange of the ratifications of the present Convention. After such communication shall have taken place, each party shall have the power of drawing up a second and definitive statement, if^ it thinks fit so to do, in reply to the statement of the other party so communicated, which definitive statement shall also be mutually communicated, m the same manner as aforesaid, to each other, by the Contracting Parties, within twenty-one months after the exchange of the ratifications of the present Convention. ARTICLE III. Each of the Contracting Parties shall, witliin nine months after the exchange of ratifi- cations of this Convention, communicate to the other, in the same manner as iJoresaid, all the evidence intended to be brought in supiKirt of its claim, beyond thut which is con- tained in the report of the commissioners, or papers thereunto annexed, and other written documcnt.-i laid lu-fore the oonimission under the fifth Article of the Treaty of Ghent, Encli of the Coiif ractiuK Parties shall Ik- hound, on the application of the other party, made within six months aft«'r the exchange of the ratifications of this Convention, to i;ive authentic copies of such individually s|)ecificd Acts of a public nature, relating to the territor)' in question, ii\tcndcd to ho laid as endcnre before the arbiter, as have been issued uiulcr the authority, or are in the exclusive possession, of each party. No maps, Suncys, or to|M)gra])hical evidence of any description, shall be adduced by either party bcyonil that which is hereinafter stipulated ; nor shall any fresh evidence, of any doseriptioii, lie adduced or adverted to, by either party, other than that mutually commuiiicatcartv to annex to its respective first statement, for the purposes of general illustration, any of the maps, surveys, or tttpographical delinea- tions which were filwl with the commissioners under the fifth Article of tlie Treaty of Ghent, any engraved map heretofore puhiished, and also a transcript of the above-mentioned map A, or of a section thereof, in which transcript each party may lay down the highlands, or other features of the country, as it shall think fit, the water courses, and the boundary lines, as claimed hy each party, remaining as laid down in the said map A. But this transcript, as well as all the other maps, surveys, or topographical delineations, other than the map A, and Mitchell's map, intended to be thus annexed by either party to the respective statements, shall be communicated to the other party, in the same manner as aforesaid, within nine months after the exchange of the ratifications of this Convention, and shall be subject to such objections and observations as the other Contracting Party may deem it expedient to make thereto, and shall annex to his first statement, either m the margin of such transcript, map or maps, or otherwise. ARTICLE V. t AU the statements, papers, maps, and documents above-mentioned, and which shall have been mutually communicated as aforesaid, shall without any addition, subtraction, or alteration whatsoever, be jointly and simidtaneously dehvered in to the Arbitrating Sovereign or State, within two years after the exchange of nitifications of this Convention, unless the arbiter, should not, within that time, have consented to act as such ; in which case all the said statements, papeis, maps, and documents shall be laid liefore him within six months after the time when he shall have consented so to act. No other statements, papers, maps, or documents shall ever be laid before the arbiter, except as hereinafter provided. ARTICLE VI. In onler to facilitate the attainment of a just and sound decision on the part of the arbiter, it is agreed that, in rose the said arbiter should desire further elucidation or evidence, in regard to any specific point contained in any of the said statements submitted to liim, the requisition for such elucidation or evidence, shall be simultaneously made to both parties, who shall thereupon be |)ennitted to bring further evidence, if required, and to make each a written reply to the specific questions submitted by the said ,\rbiter, hut no further ; and such evidence and replies shall l)e immediately communicated by each party t» the otlier. And in case the arbiter should find the topographical evidence laid, as aforesaid, befbre him, insufficient for the purposes of a sound and just decision, he shall have the power of ordering additional surveys to be made of any portions of the disputed boundary line or territory, as he may think fit ; which surveys shall l)e made at the joint expence of the Contracting Parties, and be considered as conclusive by them. ARTICLE VII. The decision of the arbiter, when (fiven, sliall Im? taken as final and conclusive ; and it shall Im! carried, without reserve, into immediate effect, by commissioners appointed, for that purpose, by the Contracting Parties. ARTICLE VIII. This Convention slmll be ratified, and the ratifications siiall l)c cxcliangcd in nine months from tlic date liercof, or sooner, if jiossiblc. In witness whereof, wo, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed the same, and have affixed thereto the Seals of our Anns. Done at I^jmloii, the twenty-ninth day of September, in the year of our Lord, one thousand ciLrlit hundred and twenty-seven. (L.S.) CIIA. GRANT. {L.S.) HK.NKY UNVVIN ADDINGTON. (L.S.) ALBERT GALLATIN, IV. Decision of His Majesty the King of the Netherlanda, upon the Dis- puted Points of Boundary under the Fifth Article of tne Treaty of Ghent, between Great Britain and the United States of America. IV. Decision of the King of the Netherlands. NouH, Guii.LAUME, par la Gr4ce de Dieu Roi des Pays-Bas, Prince d'Orange-Nassau, Appendix. Grand Due de Luxembourg, &c. &c. &c. _— — — — Ayant accept^ les futietions d'Arbitrateur, qui Nous ont ete confer^s par la note de rAmbasiiadeur Kxtraordinairc et Pleniputentiaire de la Grande Bretagne, et par celle du Chargd d' Affaires des Etats Unis d'Ani^rique, a Nutre Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres, en date du 12 Janvier, 1829, d'apris TArticlc V. du Traite de Gand du 24 D^cembre, 1814, et 1' Article I. de la Convention conclue entre ces Puissances a Londres le 29 Septembre, 1H27, dans le dilKrend qui s'est €lev6 entre EUles au sujet des liinites de leurs possessioRs respective* ! Animd du desir sincere de repondre par une decision scrupuleuse et inipartiale, a la Oonfiance qu'elle Nous ont t^moignt^, et de leur donner ainsi un nouveau gage du haut prix que nous y attachons : Ayant a cet cffet diiment examine et mikrement pese le contenu du premier expose ainsi que de I'expos^ detiiiitif du dit diffdrend, que nuus ont respectivement remis, le 1 Avril de lann6e 1830, 1'Anibassadcur Extraordinaire et Pl^nipotentiaire de Sa Majeste Britannique, et l'Envoy6 (Extraordinaire et Ministre Pl^nipotentiaire des Etata Unis d'Am^rique, avec toutea les pieces qui y ont ^t^ jointes a I'appui : Voulant ncroiiiplir aujourd'hui les obligations que nous venons de contracter par i'ac- ceptation des fonetions d'Arbitrateur dans le susdit diiferend, en portant a la connaissance des deux Hautcs Parties iiitcressees le re^ultat de Notre examen et Notre opinion sur les trois points dans lesqucls se divise de leur commun accord la contestation : Considcrant que los trois points precites doivent fitre jugds d'aprls les Trait^s, Actes et Conventions conclus entre les deux Puissances, savoir, le Traite de I'aix de 1 jHi, le Traits d'Amitifi, dc (-mnmcrce ot de Navigation de 17'.'1, la Dcrlnration relative a la Riviere Saint Croix de 179H, le Tmit6 de Paix sign^ a Gand en 1H14, la Convention du 29 Septembre, 182", et la Carte de Mitchell, et la Carte (A.) citces dans cette Convention : Di'durous quo, — Uuant au premier {K)int, savoir, la question, Quel est I'cndroit ddsign€ dans les Traites comme Tangle nord-oucst dc la Niiuvelle Ecosse, ct quels sont lea Highlai'ds separant les Rivieres qui sc dechargent dans le Fleuve St. Laurent, de celles tombant dans I'Ocean At- lantiquo, Ic Unv^ ilesqucU doit (ftre tirec la Ligne dc Limites depuis cet angle jusqu'a le source nord-ouest dc la Riviere Connecticut ? Considurant, — Que les Uniitcs Parties int^ress^s r^clament respectivement cette Ligne de Limites au midi et au nord dc la Riviere St. John, et ont indique chacune sur la Carte (A.) la ligne qu'cUes demaiident : Consid(?rnnt, — Uuc s6\tm les excmplcs alleguds le terme Highlands s'appliquc non seulement a un pays montucux ou clev^, mais encore a un terrain, qui, sans Strc moutucux, separe des eaux B II Appnidii. IV. Deriaion of the King of the NrtherUnds. 11 ih i ooulant cUiM une Jirectinn diff^rente, et au'ainsi Ic caractira plus ou mnins montueux et ^lev^, du pays a trayera lequel aont tir^fea lea deux lignea respectivement r^clam^a au nord et au midi do la Riviere St. John, ne laurait faire la liase d'une option entr'ellea i Que le tezte du second Article du Tntit^ de Paix de l^HH, r^produit en partie lei ex- prexiions dont on I'est ant^ricurement senri duns la I'roclamation de \^G3, eb aans I'Actede Quebec de IJJi, pour indiquer les limites m^ridionales du Gouvemement de Quebec, de- puis le Lac Champlain, " in forty-live degrees of north latitude, along the highlands which " divide the riven that empty themselves into the Kiver St. Lawrence from those which " fall into the sea, and also along the north coast of the Bay des Chaleurs :" Qu'en 1763, 1765, 1773, et 17H2, il a 6ti ^tabli, que la Nouvelle Ecosse serait bom3, et i I'Acte dc Quebec de 1774 : Que la Grande Bretagnc proiKisa d'alrard la Riviire Piscataqua pour limite a I'est des Etats Unis, et ensuitc n'nrcopta jms la iiri)|x>sition dc faire fixer plus tard la Limite du Maine, ou de Massacliuxsett's Bay : Que le Traits de (laiiil stipula un nouvcl examcn sur les lieux le quel ne pouvait s'ap- nliquer a une limite historiquc ou administrative; ct que d^s-lors I'ancienne d^mitation des IVuvinces .Viiglaiscs n'ufire poa nun plus une base de ddcisiim : Que la longitude de I'angle nord-ar la Declaration dc 17!)H, qui iiidiqua cette riviere: Que le Traite d'Amitid, de Commerce et de Navigation de 1 791 mentionne le doute qui s'^tait dievd a I'dgard de la Riviore St. ('rs8ihlc que la limite du Nouveau Brunswick tiree de-lu au norrin('ipc, qui no pri'scntc aucunc base dc decision; tandis que ci on I'euvisnge cnnimc un point topograpliique, eu e!;ard a la detiiiilioii. viz. " that allele which is fonned " liy a line drawn due north from the source of the St. ("roix River to the Highlands," il fornic siin|ileiueiit rextreniite de la li^iu' '• ahmi; the said Hisjhlaiuls, whieh divide those " rivers that eniptv theniwlves into tin' River St. Lawrence, from llios*- whiih fall into the " Atlantic Ocean,' cxtreniite que la mention de raiiyle nnrd-ouest dc la Nouvelle K.eosse ne (xjiitriliuc jias ii eoiistatcr, et qui, etaiit ii trouvcrellc-nuwne, ne saurait mencr a la dccuuvcrte de la lignc qu'ellc tcrniinc : Knlin, que les arguinens tires des droits 'L- Souveraintc cxcnds sur Ic fief de Mad»- waaka, et sur le Madawaska Settlement, admis nienic que cet exercice fiH suffisanmient pruuve, ne peuvent point decider la question, par lu raison, que ces deux etablissemens 9 n'embrasMnt qu'un terrain partiel de nelui en litige ; que 1m Haute* Parties int^reiii^ ont reconnu Ic ))ay« n\t\i6 entre Icr ligties reipectivement rcclaiii^ei par elles, commc faisant un obiet de contestation, et aa'ainii la poMoiiion ne laurait £trc rcns^ ddroeer au droit ; et que •i I'on ^cartc I'ancienne delimitation des Provinces all^gude en faveur de la ligne r^clam^e au nord de la Riviere St. John, et sp^ialement celle mentionntSe dans la Proclamation de 1763 et dans I'Acte de Quebec de 1774, I'on ne saurait admettre k I'appui de la \ignt demand^ au Midi de la Kivifere St. John, des areuniens tcndant i prouver que telle partie du terrain litigieux apiwrtient au Canada ou au Nouveau Brunswick : Consid^raiit, — Que la question, depouill^ des arnimens non d^isifs tirdes du caractire plus ou moina montueux de terrain de rancienne delimitation des Provinces de I'angle nord-ouest de la Nouvelle Ecosse, et de \'6tat de possession, se r^duit en demi^re analyse i celles-ci. Quelle est la ligne tir^ droit au nord depuis la source de la Riviire St. Croix, et quel est le terrain, n'importe qu'il soit montueux et 6\ey6 ou non, qui, depuis cette ligne jusqu'i la source nord- ouest de la Rivi&re Connecticut, s^pare les riviires se ddchargeant dans le Fleuve St. Lau- rent, de celles qui tomhent dans l'Ocaration immediate entre la Riviere Mcttjnrmette et If source luird-ouest de Penobscott, et ne separe que nu'diatcmont les rivieres se dechargeant dniis le Fleuve St. Laurent, des eaux du Kennebec, du Ppnoiiscott et des Scoudinc Lakes ; tandis que la limite reclamee au nord de la Rinere St. John »e|>are imin('dir.temcnt les eaux des Rivieres Ristigouche ct St. John, et mediate- ment li's Sc'ciudiac Lakes, ct les ciiux lM, Oreen, du Loup, Kumounuka, C)uelle, Rnu, Rt. NirhoUi, du Sud, U Fmnine ct ChuudiiTT : Uiie m^nif en mcttnnt hors de cnuv Im Rivi^rp^l Ri»fi«oiirlio ct St, John pnr Ip motif ijuVIK'n no pouimipnt ^trr rens^mi tiiiTikxr dMin rOr^'nn Atlnntiqur, In ligne Hfptcntrionale w troiiTornit rncorf i»uii»i prt>s (\en Sou dmr Ijakrs, et dm pbux du I'cnobscott i-t du Ken- eparntion mediate iieber quo la litfOP mrriditinalr dm Uivu rex Rrnvrr, Mptix, Hiinouxky, Pt autrps, xe d^har- f;rant nnnn Ip Fleuvp St. Luuit' nt, et foniipniit nuasi bipn que I'autre une separation i •Mitrp (Tlli'H-ci, et le» Rivieres totnliant ssessions depuis la source de la Rivi^re St. Croix, jusqu'a la source nord-ouest de la Riviere Connecticut ; et (|ue la nature du differrnd, et les stipulntioiiH vngue.Hct iioii sulfisnmrnent deterniiiiees du Trnitc de 1 7^.1, n'adnicttent paa d'adjuger I'une nu I'nvitre de ees Lignes i i'une des dites Parties, sans blesser les principesdu dniit et de I'equite envers I'autre : Cuiiside'rant, — due la question se reent dans rOcenn Atlantique, que 'es hautes parties interpssees se sont entendues & I'^-gard du cours des caux, itidique de commun accord sur la Carte (.\.) et presentant le seul element do decision ; ct que des-lors let circonstances dont fleiiend cette decision, ne sauraient i^tre eiaircies d'ndvnntage, au moyen de nouvclles rechercnes topographiques, ni (Mr la production de pieces iiouvelies : Nous Kiimmes d'avis, — Uu'il conviendrn d'adopter pour limite des deux etats une ligne tir^e droit au nord depuis la source de la Riviere St. Croix jusqu'au noint ou elle cnuiie le milieu du thalweg de In Riviere St. John ; de-lii le milieu du thalweg de cette nviJre, en la remontant jusqu'nu |)oint oil la Riviere St. Francis so declmrge dans la Rivi^^e 8t. John ; de-la le milieu du thiilwei; de la Riviere St. Francis, en la remontant jusqu'4 la source de sa branche la plus sud-oupsti laquelle source nous iiidiquons sur la ("arte (A) par la lettrc (.\.) authentiquee par la signature de iiotre Ministre des .Vffnircs Ktnmgcres ; de-la une ligne tiree droit a I'ouest jusqu'nu point ou elle se reunit a la ligne rorlanu'e paries Ktats Unis d'Amerique, ct trace* sur la Carte (A.) ; de-la cette hgne jusqu'au point ou. d'apr^s cette carte, elle coincide avec celle demai.dee pnr In Omnde liretagne ; et dc-14 la ligne indiquee sur la difc carte par les deux Puissances, jusqu'a la source In plus nord-ouest de la Riviere Conneelirut : Uunnt au vecond point, su\oir, la question, quelle est la source la plun nord-ouest (norlh-westerninost head) de la Riviere Connecticut? Cunsiderant, — due pour resoudre cette question, il s'ngit d'opter entre la Riviere du Connecticut Lake, Perry's Stream, Indiiui Stream, ct Hall's Stream : Considernnt, — Uue d'upres I'usage ndopte en geographic, la source et le lit d'une riviere sont indiques parle mom de la riviere attache ii cette source et a ce lit, ct purlcur plusgrande ini]Hirtaiice reliitive, coinpareca celle d'autrcs eaux, communiquant avec cette riviere: Considerniit, — Qu'uTie lettrc officielle de 17"2 mentioiine d^jii le nom de Hull's Bmok, et que dans une lettrc officielle |Misterieurc de la mt^me uiinee, du meme Insj)ecteur, on trouve Hall's Brook reprcsente comme une petite riviere tombaiit dons le Connecticut : Uui- hi riviere (inns Inquelle se trouve Coiinecfii-ut L:\kv purnit plus considerable que Hnil's. liidi.iii. oil Perry's .Stream ; que le Connecticut I>akc et les deux lacs silues uu nord de leliii-i'i seiiiblent lui assigncr un plus gmiul volume d'enu. qu'niix trois mitres rivieres; et (lu'cii rndmettntit comme le lit du Connecticut, on prolonge d nvniitiige ce Fleuve, que si rondonnnit In |)reference a une de cestniis autres rivieres: Enfin que la Carte (A.) nyaiit etc recorinue duns la Convcntiim de 1827 C( nimc indi- qiiuiit le cours des caux, I'nutorite de cette Carte semhie s'etendre egalcmeiit n leur deiiomi- natioii, vu qu'eii ens de contestation tel nom de riviere, ou de lac, sur lequel on ii'eut |)aH etc d'accurii, eut pu avoir ct6 omis, que la dite carte mentiunne Connecticut Luke, et (|ue n le mini do Connecticut Lake iinplique t'a|i|iliratiiiii du iioni Connecticut i la riviere qui traver«) de dit lac : Noui «oinme» d'avis, — Uiic Ic ruiiiNCUu Nituv Ic pluii au nord-oueat de ceux qui coulcnt danit Ic plu.i avptcii- triiHiHl lU'H tniin Ihch, dunt Ic n the 12th of January 1S29, according to the 5th Article of the Treaty of Ghent, of the 2Uh December Iflll, and the first Article of the Convention concluded between those Powers at London on the 29th of Scptemlier 1H27, in the difference which ha.s arisen l>etwecn them on the subject of the Boundaries of their respective Pos.scssions : Animated by n sincere desire to make, by a scrupulous und impartial decision, n suitable return for the contidence which they have showni us, and thus to afford them a new pledge of the liii{h value which we set u|Mm it : Having for this pur|)o.se duly examined and maturely weighed the contents of the first statement as well as uf the defimtN'e statement of the .said difference, which the Ambassa- dor Extruiirdinary and Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty and the Envoy Extraor- dinurv' iiiul Minister Plcni|M)teiitiary of the ('nitcd States of America respectively delivered to us on the 1st of April of the year IH.M), together with all the documents thereunto anrcxed in supiMirt of the same : Desiring now to fulfil the obligations which we have contractetl, by the acceptance of the functions of arbitrator in the nbove-mentinncd differeiu-e, by conmiunicating to the two high parties concerned the result of our fxainination.aml our opinion upon the three points into which, by their common agreement, the question in dispute is divided : Considering that the three jioints above referred to are to Ih' (letcrtiiined according to the Treaties. Acts and Conventions concluded between the two Powers, tliat is to say, the h IV. DMTliion of the Kinv of iha NctbtrUuuli. ■ 1 M 7 19 Treaty of Prace of 1 78.1, the Treaty uf Amity, Commerce and Navigation of 1794, the De- rlaratiun relative to the Kiver St. Croix of I70H, the Treaty of I'care Ri)(ned at (ihent in IHU, the Convention of the 2tnh of September 1H37, anu Mitchell'i mapi and the map (A.) referred to in that Convention i We declare, That with regard to the firrtt (Miint, that it to aav, Which i« the Rpot deiiifi^iated in the Treatiei aa the north-wcit nngie of Nova Scotia, and which are the IliKhlaiidt (hviding the the riven that empty theniielvei into the river Ht, Lawrence from thtmr falhtifi into the AtUntic Ocean, along which llighlandi ii to he drawn the line of Boundary fnini that angle to the iiorth-weit head of the Connecticut river : Considering, — That the high |>artiet concerned re»i)ertively claim thi« line of Boundary, the one to the south and the other Ut the north of the Kivcr St. Jolin, and have each marked upon the map (A.) the line which they demand t Considering, — That nccording to the instances which are adduced, the tern> ilighlnnds is np^>lird not only to a hilly or elevated country, hut likewi.sc to ii tract of land which, without Iwnig hilly, divides waters flowing in dirtcrciit direction)!, and that tlius the more or less hilly nod ele- vated character of the country, ucross which are drawn the two lines rcs|H!ctively claimed tu the north and to the south of the Kiver St. John, could not form the grouncl of n choice between them : Tliat the text of the second .Vrticle of the Treaty of Peace of 17m reiieats in |)art the expressions which were previously employed in the Proclanintiiin of 17f>'<,and in theUuehec Actof I77'i '" denote the Southeni Lnnits of the (jovcrnnient of (4uel>ec, commencing from LakefMiamplain, "in forty-live degrees of north latitude along the ilighlands which "divide the rive.-s that empty themselves into the Hivor St. Lawrence from those which fall "into the sea, and also along the north const of the Bay dcs I'lialeurs." That in I'VtA, ^'Cii, 177'Kand l'iH2, it was laid down that Nova Scotia should be bounded to the north, as far as the western extremity of the Bay of Chaleurs, liy the •outhen' Boundary of the Province of Uurliec ; tlint this detinition of Boundary is found ■([•in for the I*nivmce of UucIkt in tl.; commission of the Oovcnior General of Uucl>cc of I7H6, in which the terms of the Proclamation of 17')J, and of the Uuehcc Act of 177'1> are employed ; and for the Province of New Brunswick, in the commissions of the Uo%'ernor« of that IVovince of 1 7N(i, and of n later period, as also in a great numlHT of maps antecedent and subsequent to the Treaty of l7H.t,and that the first .Vrticle of the said Treaty reciteaby name the States, of which the iiide])endencv is recogniied : But that this mention thereof does not imply that the Bounilnrics between the two Powers, which were settled by the succeeding .Article, entirely coincide with the ancient definition of iiouiidary of the Knglish Pro%inccs, the niiiititcnnnce of which is not men- tioned in the Treaty of \'JH.i, and which, by its continual variations, anil by the uncertainty which continueil to exist with resm-ct to it, gave rise from time to time to diti'ercncea between the Provincial authorities : That the line drawni by the Treaty of 17'<.1 across the Great Ijikcs to the west of tlie Kiver St. Lawrence, jjokIuccs a deviation from tlic ancient I'rovini'iul charters in regard to Boundaries : That it would lie vain to attempt to explain why. if it were inteiideil to n)uintain the ancient I'rovincial Bouiidii'-y. Mitchell's map, which was published in l/.^.l. and which was therefore antecedent to the Proclamation of I'JIi.i, ami tw the tiuebec .Vet of 177L should exactly have been chosen for use in the ne!{otiatioii of I'^s.i : That (Jrcat Britain, in the tint instance, proposed the Kiver Piscatnqua for the eastern Boundiu-y of the I'liited States, and subsequently did not aceeiit the propiisitiim for the post|)OTienient of the tixing of the Boundary of Maine, or of Alu.s.sacnussct's Bay to a later period : That the Treaty of Ghent stipulati'd a new Sur^•ey on the spot, which could not apply to a Boundary recorded in history, or detinee drawn fur laying it down in one place rather than in another : That, l)eiidei, if it were thought neceaury to bringi it nearer to the lource of the River ~Iill, it. would he l)y I poMihIe that the Boundary of New Bruniiwirk, drawn from thence to the north-eait, would St. Croix, and to look for it, for instance, at Mam llnl, it. would he l)y lo much the more give to that IVovince irvrral north-weit angleii, fiituate more to the north and to the eaat, according to their greater distance from Mar* Hill, iiince the numl>er of degree* of the angle mentioned in the Treaty Iibr Ih-cu pansed over in silence : Tliat, consequently, the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, which is here in ouestion, having lieen unknown ui 17^'!, and the Treaty of (Jhent having declared it to he still unaa- certained, the mention of this angle in the Treaty of 1 7H.I, as a kiinwii |>oint, is to lie consi- dered as an assumption of a fact which iIik-s not atford any ground for decision ; whilst, if it be considered as u to()ographical iHiint, with reference to the detinition, viz. " that angle " which '\H formed hy a line drawn uuc north from the lource of the St. Croix Kivrr to the " Highlands," it merely forms the extreme point of the line " nhing the said Highlands, " which divide those rivers which empty themselves into the Uiver St. I^wrence from those " which fall into the Atlantic," an extreme p be set aside, there cannot be admitted, in support of the line claimed to the south of the River St. John, arj^u- nieiita tending to prove that such or such ])ortioii of the disputed territory belongs to Canada or to New Brunswick : Considering, — That the question, stripped of the inconclusive arguments derived from the more or less hilly character of the tract of country, from the ancient Bor.ndary line of the Provinces, from the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, and from the state of possession, is reduced at last to these questions. Which is the line drawn due north from the source of the River St. Croix, and which is the tract «if country, no motter whether it be hilly oiid elevated or not, which, from that line to the nortli-west head of the Connecticut River, divides the rivers emptying themselves into the River .St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean ; that the High Parties conccnied arc only agreed as to the circumstance that the Boundary to be found is to be settled by some such line and by some such tract of country ; that they have further agreed, since the Declaration of I"!"^, as to the answer to be given to the tirst (|uestion, except with regaril to the latitude at which the line drawn due north from the source of the River St. t'roix is to terminate ; that this latitude coin- cides with the extremity of the tract of country which, from that line to the north-west head of the Connecticut River, divides the rivers emptying themselves into the River St. Luw- reiiee, from those whii-h fall into the Atlantic Ocean, and that, consequently, it unlyrciuuins to determine which is that tract of country : 'Hiat on entering u|ion this o|x-ration, it is found on the one hand, — First, Tliat if by the adoption of the line claimed to the north of the River St. John, Greot Britain could not be deemed to obtain a tract of country of less value than if she had accepted in i'x.\ the River St. John for a Boundary, regard being had to the situation of tlie country between the Rivers .St. John and St. Croix in the vicinity of the sea, and to the |HisHcssion of lioth banks of the River St. John in the latter part of its course; that com|MMisatioii would nevertheless be destroyed by the interruption of the communication between Lower Canada and New Brunswick, especially between Quebec and Frcdericton, and that the motives would in vain he sought for which could have determined the Court of London to consent to such an interruption : That, in the second place, if, according to the language usually employed in geography, the generic term of rivers falling into the Atlantic Ocean, could witli propriety he applied to the rivers falling into the Bays of Fundy and Chaleurs. us well as to those wliicli dis- charge tlieniselves directly into the .Vtlantic Ocean, still it would be hazardous to class under this denominatiim the Rivers St. John and Ristigouchc, which the line claimed to the north of the River St. John divides iininediately from the rivers discharging themselves into I lie St. Ijiwrence, not in company witli other rivers flowing into the .\tlantic Ocean, but bv themselves alone; and thus in interpreting a detinition of Boundary tixcd hy Treaty, in which every expression ought to be taken into account, to apply to two cases which are exclusively specific, and which there is no question as to genus, a generic expression which would give to tlicni a wider signification, or which, if extended to the Scondiac Lakes, the Penobscott ami the Kennebec which discharge themselves directly into the Appaodll. IV. Uocifion of the King of the Netherlandi. •V ^ m jifj I ; ill ill , Appendix. IV. Deeuion of the Kins of the Neuter lanilii. !i I 14 AUantir Ut'uaii, would establish the principlp, that the Treaty of 17f)3 oontciiiplated High- laiuts dividing mediately as well as ininiediately tin- rivers diNchargiii); themselves into the St. Lawrence, fruni those wliitli fall into the .Vtlantie Ocean, a principle equally rcft- liced l)y hotli lino : Thirdly, that the line claimed tu the mirtli of the River St. John does not, except in its latter (lart, near the souri'es of the St. .Fohn, divide the riven Uiat empty themselves into the St. Lawrcniv, inuiiedintely fnmi the Uivers St. John and Uistigouclie, but only from tlie rivers which fall into the St. John and Ki.sti);ouche : and thus, that the rivers which this line dividcN from those discharging themselves into the St. Lawrence, require, all of them, in order to reach the .Vtlantie Ocean, two intcrniedinte aids — the one set at the Uiver St. John and the Bay of Fundy ; the other set, tlie River Uistigouche and the Bay of Chaleurs : And, on the other iiaiul, — That it cannot Ih? sufKciently explaineil how, if the High Contracting Parties intended in 17S.J to establish the Boundary to the south of the River St. John, that river, to which the te' -tory in dispute owes in ii int-at degree its distinguishing character, was neutralized and pi. out of the question : That the verb '• divide" ap|K'ars to require contiguity in the objects which are to be « divideossession>i, fnmi^he source of the River St.CVoix to the north-west head of the Connecticut River ; and that the nature of the dift'erence, and the vague and insuthciently detined stipulations of the Treaty of i^'^i, do not allow the adjudi- cation of one or the other ' > ' it river: Considering, — That in an official letter, so early as 1/72, mention is made • iln- iianic i.) Ilnll'g Brook, and in an official letter of a later date in the same year froi.i tin' same Sur\i \i,r. Hall's Brook is described as a little river falling into the Connecticut: Tliat the river in which Connecticut Lake is found appears to be ni'irc rouRiderahle ;h.\n II.. I'b. Indian, or Perry's Stream; that Connecticut Lake, and the t ^o hikes »'t\iat<' to tlie ir.>ith .it I - .;,iiH — *'i give to it a greater volume of water than M.lciigs in the three other rivi.N, .uu'. 'liai I'v . . nitting it to he the bed of the Connecticu that river is proL.nged to a (rrejiti^r exlirit '! an if the preference were given to either ol tin- otlier thicc t..^. . Finally, tliat the map (A.) iiaxing been recognized in the Convention of 182? fa- indi- cating the course of the waters, the aulliority of that map ajipears to extend equally to iliiir names; seeing tliat in ciise of dispute, any name of river or lake respecting which the (>ar- ties had not been agreed, might have been omitted : that the said map mentions Connectit • T/.ikc .11. fl thr.t ttir nn'c .f f '.,... .Hctii'iit I.sike implies the application of the name Connec- ticut to the riv,:r which puMes tiiiuujih tlie said lake: We are of ojiinion, — Tliat the nvulet Hituate farthest to the north-west of those which flow into the most northern ot the llore l.iki..-., i,:«, I.kI. tht; last bears the name of Connecticut Lake, is to be considered as the north-westernmost head arallel of the l.'ith degree of north latitude to the River St. Lawrence, called in tlic Treaties Iroquois or Cataraguy ? Considering. — That the Iligli Parties concerned ditfcr in opinion upon the question. Whether the Treaties re(|uire a new survey of the whole Line of Boundary from the River Connecticut to the River St. Lawrence, laiU'd in the Treaties, Iroquois or C.itaragiiy, or only the com- pletion of the ancient provincial surveys: Considering, — That the fifth .Vrticle of the Treaty of filient of Hll does not stipidate that such porti.iii of the Boundaries as has not been surveyed already, shall be surveyed, but declares, that the Boundaries have not been surveyed, and determines that they shall be so: Thai in fact that survey from the Connectiiut to the River St. Lawrence, called in the Treaties. Iroquois or Catar.i;;uy, is to he considered as not having taken place between the two I'owers ; seeing that the ancient survey is found to be inaccurate, and that it had been ordered, not bv the two I'owers by common agreenient. hut by the ancient provincial authorities: That in fixini; a latitude, it is usual to follow the principle of observed latitude : .\nd that the (lovernmcnt of the United States of .Vmeriea has raised certain fortitica- tions iit a spot called Rouse's Point, under the persuasion that the ground formed a portion of their territorv, a licrsuasion sulhcienlly juslitied by the line reputed up to that time to correspond witii the parallel of the IJth degree of north latitude: We are of opinion. — That 11 will be proper I.) proeced to new operations for the measurement of the oliservcd latitude, in order to trace the Boundary of the Connecticut River along the ])arallcl of the Ijtii degri'e of north latitude, to the River St. Lawrence, called in the Treaties, Iroquois or Cataraguv ; in such manner, however, as that in anv case, at the sjiot called Rouse's Point, the territory of the I'liited States of Aiuerica shall extend to the fort there raised, and shall comprise that fort, and a circle round it of one kilonietcr radius {sun riiijDii kil(inii'/rii/iif.) Thus dime, and '.jivi-n under our Roval Seal, at the llanuc.this tenth day of .lamiary, in the year of mir Lord Oiw'Thousanil ICiglit lliindrcd and Thirty-one, and the Kiglileentli of our Reign. ^Signed) WILLIAM. The Minister for Foreign .Vlaiis, iSigiied) VKRSTOLK DE SOELEX. Appendix. IV. Decision of the King of the Netherlands.