IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 4< z K. 1.0 I.I |2j8 1^ 1^ US 1^ li£ 12.0 1.8 L25 III 1.4 ill 1.6 W ^ W ^ V /A Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. MS80 (716) 873-4503 * ^1% ^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiquas Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notes tachniquas at bibliographiquaa Tha instituta has anamptad to obtain tha bast original copy availabia for filming. Faaturas of this copy which may ba bibliographicsilly uniqua. which may altar any of tha imagas in tha raproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. □ Coloured covan/ Couverture de couleur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagAe □ Covers restart^ and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^ et/ou pellicula □ Cover title missing/ La titre de couverture manque ["^ Coloured maps/ Cartea giographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) □ Coloured pJates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations tn couleur r~71 Bound with other material/ 1^ Helii avec d'autres documents D D Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liura serrAe peut causer de I'ombre vtu de la distorsion la long da la marge intiriaura 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 ajouttes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dana la texte. mais, lorsqua cela Atait possible, ces pagea n'ont pas «ti film*es. L'Institut a riucrofilm* la mailleur exemplaira qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Las details de cet exemplaira qui sont paut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger una modification dans la mithoda normale de filmage sont indiqute ci*dcssous. pn Coloured pages/ D D Pagea da couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restauries et/ou peiliculAes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ \/i Pages dicolortes, tachetiti\^ ou piquies Pages ditach^es Showthrrugh/ Transparence Quality of prir Qualiti inAgala de ('impression Includes supplementary matarii Comprend du metiriel suppiimentaira r~~] Pagea detached/ rri Showthrrugh/ rn Quality of print varies/ |~n Includes supplementary material/ Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Lea pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'orrata, una pelure, etc.. ont iti filmtes A nouveau da faqon d obtanir la meilleure image possible. El Additional comments:/ Commentairas supplAmantaires: Wrinkl«d pages may film slightly out of focus. This item is filmed at tha reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de rMuction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X , 14X leX 22X MX IDX y 12X 1IX »x 24X 28X 32X Th« copy filmed hare has baan raproducad thanks to tha ganarosity of: New Bruniwick Museum Saint John Tha imagaa appearing hare are the best quelity possible considering the condition end legibility of the.originel copy and in icaeping with the filming contrect specifications. Original eopiee in printed peper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or ths becic cover when appropriate. All other original cor»'as are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, end ending an the lest pege with e printed or illustrated impression. The leet recorded frame on eech microfiche shell contain the symbol — ^ (meening "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meening "END"), whichever sppliee. IMaps, plates, charts, etc., mey be filmed et different reduction ratioa. Those too lerge to be entirely included in one exposure ere filmed beginning in the upper left hand comer, left to right end top to bottom, ea many framea aa required. The following diegrems illustrste the method: L'exempieire filmA f ut reproduit grice A la g*n4rositi de: New Brunswicic Mluseum Saint John Les imeges suivantea ont 4t* reproduites svec ie plus grand soin, compta tenu de Ie condition et de Ie nettetA de I'exemplaire filmA, et en conformiti evec lea conditions du contrat de filmege. 1.08 axempiairea originaux dont la couvarture en pepier eat imprimte sont filmte en commen^ant par la premier plet et en terminent soit per la derniAre pege qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, oit par la second plat, selcn Ie ces. Tous les eutres exempieires originsux sont film4e en commen9ant par la pramiAre pege qui comporte une empreinte d'impreasion ou d'illustration at en terminent per Ie derniire pege qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un dee symbolae suivants apperattra sur la darnlAre imege de cheque microfiche, selon ie cea: (a symbole -*> signifie "A SUIVRE", Ie symbols ▼ signifie "FIN". Les csrtee. plenchee. tableeux, etc., peuvent Atre filmie A dee taux da rMuction diff^rants. Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clich*, 11 est film* A psrtlr de I'engle supArieur geuche, de geuche k droite, et de heut en bee, en prenent Ie nombre d'Imeges nAcesseire. Les disgrammes suivants illustrant Ie mAthode. 1 2 3 4 S 6 i.iiiiin^* iiiii«,»ji.«^iL Jill 'vi.«i" ■'!, .^■i'^.ii , 1 r,!^i^^f^iwtfrWf^l^fr^!'''qff^KllK l'.l'*?«!«W,'»«""-!."i T.*' 1 %; i \i I ♦ ' \ I ■?»^ '\. 1 ! * «i » • t E J ■i*ii;«^?HJ ft . ■ , , tf-V- i' "j_ ■;^^^'^A)C^f X :;■ •'■■■•■■:..^ /,■ ■-.■!■;-'- :^: ^^^ 'r- ■i.,fi>^.fl---:'^^^: \J< . my *" r I i$^:-i^: mi ^ ?l^..^^^< mm:h m^iim i '. ''it: "" ■ ^■.^^^Ay^^.- I ■■■4m' I tl '>^1 .■■*. / p. ^IN ■ I MH I1 ■. i WM Ul f l " m II I I '%_ '■-' I y//////sr^^,,//, Br Jn? Mitt hell. />»«> .V,y, «.„,, /„,/„r^i„, ^„^ ,^^ ^,„/*^/,„^ ««,/„//<♦. -»/-•*/ ,rf,^;^, ..■«//.«W/;,.,« />V.„,v/}/:„ ,A.,rti „„./. f.tu.,/.\u.. i'l.hrimM. f-'mit /Urf ,f „•/,,,* /,„„ /,„» /„f^„ f.,jtr„ /(,//„■„ I'/ fA' tiiii/ Ir/ftufs ii/i,/ ,tAi-rs. , . J k 1 , ),»«.» sm)^,'.,,\»,>. (..4.. •> Sv «:^K;H'^N^'n .•^^•"' i 'j'^yWTi'rT'fH^ '. ■■i 'I ^ ( n .1 '.PF'Tj i in M First Statement on the part of Great Britain, according to the pro- visions of the Conventioo concluded between Great Britam and the United States, on the 29th September, 1827, for ''<3gulating the reference to Arbitration of the disputed pomts of Boun> dary under the 5th Article of the Treaty of Ghent (Signed,) ABERDEEN. FOREIO^' OFFICE, » July i, lWi9. S . I \ (9 ■ ■- - '- i^..; ^K!IOT**?!*n\»fwi»p- ; .•;■' -m >.>jip.«l(8)PW|l»|fi!yjUi, -w *S>S*^ FIRST STATBMBXrr ON THE PART OF (i^mmn^ mm:i^£i:im ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF •mm^- CONCLUDED BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES, 0^r THE 29th SEPTEMBER, 1837. FOR REGULATING THE RBrBRBirOB TO ARBZTRAIXOW op TIIE DISPUTED POlvrs OF BOinTOARY UNDER THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE TREATY OF GHENT. i^ "^"W . ??r'»S!!r^^'^ 5. >- \. 1.. "V^v s^ii^2&x)a::si^^g •I WITH a view to the full comprehension of the causes which have given rise to the |^c°/"E7poIii"'!r present reference to foreign arbitration of the diflerences which exist between Great Britain and the United States, relative to that portion of the boundaries of their respective territories, which lies between the British Provinces of Lower Canada and New Brunswick, and the United States, it will be expedient, before the substance of those differences is entered upon, to give a brief historical sketch of the proceedings which have already taken place between the parties themselves respecting them. Without such preliminary explanation, the references to many portions of those proceedings, which will be occasionally made in the course of this statement, would be scarcely intelligible. In 1783, Great Britain recognized the independence of the thirteen United States, by a formal treaty, in one article of which the boundaries of the whole country so recognized were intended and believed to be accurately described and defined. In the course of the execution of that article, however, the defuiition of boundaries therein contained was found, in some essential parts, to be imperfect, and differences accordingly arose as to the real intent of some of the terms employed in it. Some of these differences were adjusted by mep is of a subsequent Treaty concluded between the two Powers in 1794; and some at other tiiiK's. Those respecting the Boundary from the source of the River St. Croix to the intersection of the parallel of 45'' north latitude with the River St. Lawrence, were still unsettled at the period of the breaking out of the war between Great Britain and the United States in 1812. By the Treaty of peace which terminated that war in 1814, new provisions respecting the disputed Boundaries were agreed upon between the parties. By one of those provisions it was stipulated that Commissioners should be respectively appointed by the Contracting Parties, for the purpose of ascertaining, surveying, and tinally determining that part of the Boundary above described; and the decision of those Commissioners thereu])on, when given, was to be taken as final and conclusive. In ca.se, however, they were unable to come to such decision between themselves, it was further provided, that they should make reports, either joint or separate, of tliiir pro- ceedings to the two Governments ; and that those reports should be referred to the arbitra- tion of some friendly sovereign or State. Commissioners wen; accordingly conjointly appointed by the two Powers in 1815-16, who proceeded during several years to survey the disputed country, and to eiidt^avour to arrange the business entrusted to them. Finding themselves, however, after long discussion and consideration of the case, unable to agree upon many essential points, they inaiie, in 182i, scparote re|>orts of their proceedings to both Governments, as enjoined by the Treaty. 2 Prafatorf^ IIUto< rictl KlpotHiM. AtiMndix No. 1, P.t Those reports, togetlier with the pajjers appended to them, being found so volumi- nous and involved as to allbrd but little prospect of arriving at a satisfactory issue, if submitted in their actual shape to an arbiter, a new arrangement was entered into by the two Powers, and sanctioned by a Convention concluded between them on the 29th of September, 1 827, for regulating that reference to arbitration. By that Convention it was agreed to substitute for the existing reports of the Com- miKsionei-s, fresh respective statements of the entire case, and to annex to those statcnu-nts such of the existing documents or portions thereof, written or topographical, as each parly might think lit; and also to adduce such new evidence as was by the said Convention mutu- ally agreed upon. The Convention in question is hereto annexed.* Having thus premised in brief historical outline the general circumstances which, from 1783, down to the jiresent period, have marked the progress of this (|uestion, the question itself may now be entered upon. p.* frovi.iomof In statinc the matters of difl'erencc between Great Hritain and the I'nited Statct.. which form the subject of the present reference to arbitration, it will be advisable, in the outset, to recite all those portions of Treaties on which the points for reference hang, or to which they have immediate relation. Appmdii No. a, The Treaty of 1783 being the ground-work of the whole question, the i)reamble, together with the 1st and 2d articles of that Treaty, claim the first mention. They run and ]irovide as follows : " It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the Mo.st Serene "and Most Potent Prince George III, by the Grace of God, King of Great Hritain, France, "and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brun.swiek and Lunenburgh, Areh-Treas- "urer an A, «ml Milrlirll'" M.iii, fiiruiiilly aniiPitrDUon. B !>c|inrHtp and dttailct) transcript of tlip Map A«(Mar1rp(i A u,) iici-uratply cuuipilait from ttiptturvpyH tna'lp by orilrrof thr ('•mmiMiuueni, uniltr tlip .'itli Articlp of the Trpaty ol fihpiit, i« aiinpXPil l»rplo oa tlii' pari of Grciit UriUui, lor [lurposc? of gincrul iUiMratiuB of Itip nutijectf treated ol m the lli itisli Slulimentn. ^mm "of the Parliament of Great Britain; and tlic said United States on their part — John rtoviiiont oi Trotttioa- "Adamw, Esq. late a Commissioner of the United States of America at tlie Court of "Versailles, late Delegate in Congress from the State of Massachusetts, and Chief Justice "of the said State, and Minister Plenipotentiary of the daid United States to their High "Mightinesses the States- Civ,;,.; il of tlie United Netherlands; Benjamin Franklin, Esq. "late Delegate in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, President of the Convention of "the said State, and Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States of America at the "Court of Versailles; John Jay, Esij. late President of Congres.s, and Chief Justine of the "State of New York, and Minister Plenipotentiary from the said Ifnited States at the Court "of Madrid; to he the Plenipotentiaries for the concluding and signing the present definitive "Treaty: who, after having reciprocally cninmunicated their respective full powers, have "agreed upon and confirmed the following articles: ARTICLE I. " Flis Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz : AVio Ifamp- " shire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, JVeto- " York, JVew Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, J^Torth Carolina, South " Carolina, and Georgia, to be Free, Sovereign, and Independent States ; that He treats " tcilh them as such ; and for Himself, His Heirs and Successors, relinquishes all claims to " the government, propriety an dterritorial rights of the same, and every part thereof." ARTICLE II. " And that all disputes whicli might arise in future on the subject of the Boundaries " of tlie said United States may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the *'■ fullomng are and shall he their Boundaries, viz : from the north-tcest angle of JS'ova .Vco- " tia, viz : that angle uhich 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 eiuply " themselves into the River St. l^awrence, from those which fall into the Jltlantic Ocean, to " the tmrth westernmost head of Conneclient River ; thenee down along the middle of thai " rirer to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude ; from thence by a line due west on snid " latitude, until il strikes the River Iroquois or Cataraquy ; thy a line drawn due north iVom the source of the St. Cioi.x Bivrr (o the hitchlands, and the line as niiiniiig ^' along the said highlands " which divide those Rivers that emjilij themselves into the River St. iMwrenee from llws. wliirh "fall into the .Itlanlic 0(enn, to the north-ivestirnmosl hiad oj Connecticut River." Great Britain conii nils that the point thus de>cribed is found at or near an elevation, called Mars Hill, wtiirh is situ;ited in a due north line drawn tioin the source of the St. Croix Biver, and south of the River St. .Inlm; that the highlamls intemlrd by the Treaty are those extending from that point to tin' Cmineetient Biver; and tliiit the Bivcrs l»(nol)S"o(, Kennebec, and Androscoggin, are the rivers falling into the Atlantic Ocean, whieli are * As in ttip course of Ihr iiutwti^-iition ni the prrxcnt iinrxtiou liv thfi Arlutfr, it may lie rmmil )'itp''Oi«'nt to mulcn ocL'usioiiiil reference tii llii' hialiinral I'lrcuiii'taiii'i's wtiu'li iiiKrUcl ilii' (•iiiiti'«l lictwi'rii (JronI Hrtiiiii uii HI. by tm hierteil in the Appemlix tliat ihaptot of the work whicli rclatea to tiic period wliirli more immeiiiRtely preecUeil the rlo nected, what the Bay of Fuiuly is to the Atlantic Ocean. Therefore, as all those bays and giilphs are taken as distinct from the seas and oceans with which they are respectively connected, so must the Bay of Fundy be token as distinct from the Atlantic Ocean. In the above application of the terms bay and gulf, we refer only to such as are real branches of the sea, into which rivers may or may not discharge themselves. There is another class of bays, so called by geographers, which are merely the expansions of the mouthb of rivers, of which they bear the name, such as the Penobscot, the Sagadahock, the Delaware, and others of a similar character, which can be regarded in no other light than as portions of the rivers themselves. The above reference to universal geographical practice is made, not as the sole, or even the principal, ground on which Great Britain rests the distinction which she claims for the Boy of Fundy, as separate from the Atlantic Ocean, but to shew that geo- graphical practice, so far from being at variance with that claim, most strongly upholds and confirms it. When the terms used by geogroplwrs to designote dilTerent portions ol the sea ore contained in Tnotii'S and other solemn documents, especially when the very object is to define with precision the limits of conterminous States, the appropriate signification of such terms should be still more strictly adhered to. In further corroboration of the same claim, it can be shown that the distinction between the Bay of Fundy, and the Atlantic Ocean, as well as between otlwr bays and gulfs and the same ocean, has been constantly observed in public documents, having rciVrence to the countries and districts Iwrdering on such bays and gulls, and the Atlantic Ocean, respectively. 4 14 dufuJf.WAi. ■^' *•" '**'^ *»*" ♦''*"' documents must be placed Mitchell's Map,* annexed to the i«u. OC.U. Convention of the 29th September, 1 827, as an authentic document of reference. That Map displays, broadly and clearly, the deeply-indented Bay of Fundy, as well as the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in large and conspicuous characters, each under its proper title, and totally distinct from the Mmlic Ocean. We abstain from citing other maps in confirmation of the same fact, because, although other maps may have been consulted in private by the Britinh and Amtrican negotiators, it is on record that that of Mitchell alone regulated their puhlic and joint proceedings, and is, therefore, alone available as authentic evidence. Ap^Kit, N.. i, 8dly. In the grant of Nova Scotia, by James I. to Sir William Alexander, the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of St. Lawrence are specifically described and distinguished ; the former from the adjacent parU of the sea, and the latter, as well Irom the sea as from the River St. Lawrence. ApjHKUiNkt, Sdly. Governor Pownall, in his Topographical Description of the middle British American Colonies, published in 1776, expressly describes the Iliveis having thcii souices in the ridges of highlands, and running southerly, " as falling into the Bay of Fundy, or " into the main ocean." His description is of peculiar force, and entitled to especial consideration, since, independently of the high reputation of the author, it was published hut six yciirs hefove the opening of the negotiations in 1782, and was consequently most fresh in the niiiuis of persons connected with the countries described. «PM4ii KfcT, 4thly. In the Royal Proclamation, issued in 1763, the Gulf of i^f. Lawrence is c-rsig- nated by its appropriate title, and distinguished Irom the River St. Lawiencr, and from the adjacent parts of the sea. Moreover, in the same document, a broad iii^rriiiii,,ation is, in other parts, made between the Atlantic and the gulfs and bays along the coast, as terms containing an entirely dilTerer sense, the one from the other. Witnissthc lollow. ing clause: "The Government of East Florida is bounded to the westward by (he (iulf " of Mexico, • • ♦ * and to the east and south by the Atlantic Ocean ano the Gulf of " Florida." Thus, as in the Treaty of 1783, the Boundary Line of the United S^laics is described as respectively touching " the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean," ,..i here we find the government of East Florida described as bounded by "the Atlantic Ucpiin and "the Gulf of Florida." What more conclusive proof of the reality of the distinction of terms insisted on by Great Britain can be required 1 Sthly. As another instance of geographical practice in distinguishing bays and gulfs from the ocean, we refer to the following Artielef in " a plan of a Treaty with France, agreed " ujwn by the Congn;ss of the Unhcd States on the 17th Septen.ber, 1776, to be proposed " to His Most Christian Majesty : " Art. IX. The Most Christian King shall i.rver invade, nor, under any pretence, " attempt to possess himself of Labrador, New Britain, Nova Scotia, Acadia. Cannda, Flor- " ida, nor any of the Countries, Cities or Towns on the Continent of North America, nor " of the Islands of New Foundland, Cape Breton, St. John's, Anticosti, nor of any other " Island lying near to the said Continent, in the seat, or in any g\ilf, hay, or river." It is to be observed, that of the islands above specilied, Newfoundland an.'. Cape Breton are bounded on one side by the broad ocean, and in another quarter by the Gulf • Mitchell's Mop R. t See » Secret Juurn«l< of Ui* Old Cr •gnsa," Vol. II. p. M. 19 If of St. I^awrenrs. S(. John's, (now Prince Edward's Island) and Anticosfi, lie altogether niw m. John, ... «lrt.iili'r inultuU eonv€Hiutf»- ; it would, on the contrary, have tenilid to create a constant source of discord and contention between both panics, which could have bcon teriiiiiialed only liy one or the other oblaininn possessiiui o( the whole liver so obslnietcd and nmlilaled. We do not dwell on an anomaly which ttlleiids the line destined to divide the St. John, if ail .'Itlantic Rii'tr, (nm\ the St. Lawrence llivcvs ; namely, //i(i< Ihiil linr would be iibsoliUflij obliirfd lit cross Ihe St. John In thr middle of its vovrsf, in order ta arriir nt iU sourer, for (Ac ^>i»r/)os« oj dividing it from thr rivers Jhiirins! into the St. Iwiinrncc. We will iiicirly observe, that neither in the Titiiiy itnrll', nor in any iiccoimt extiiiit of the neifotiations which led to it, is any mention made of such intersection ; a silence, if not fatal, at least very adverse, to the supposition of the iii'eiition. Had it been intended that th(^ line of Bouiulary >liou!(i eioss so niaiked, and, as it will pi-cscntly appear, so wt II known, a lealiire of the country nstlie lliver St. John, their can be no doubt that such a peculiarity would have been spfiifit'ally adverted to. It is obvious that all the arguments ilcrivcd from jceograpliical practice and from locality, which have been employed to iipbnid the claim of (iieat Kritain to exemption for tli<' Hay of Kiimly and the lliver St. .I.din lioiii the conditions of the Treaty, niusi apply with still greater force to the Hay of Cbuleurs and the Hiver Ke.stigoiiche ; tivst, because that Hay docs not even open tlirectly into the Atlantic, but into a second bay, namely, the (Julf ofSt. Lawrence; ami, secondly, because both the bay and the river arc Still t'uilbcr removed I'rom the extreme eastern limit of the ( iiited States. ^^(!, there- fore, abstain from lien; alludinu; more at large to that bay and river. Wo now proceed to show, by irrefragiblc evidence, that both liclbm and at the period of the negotiations in ITN^, the authors and comluetors of those iirgoliatioiifi, especially the .Vmericans, never had a ihoiigbt of incitidiiig the Kiver St. John amongst those rivers wliicluire designated in the Treat) as laliiiig into tlie Atlantic Ocean. In a work annexed to this statement, entitled, " The Sicret .lounials of (he Act* " and Proceedings of I'Oiigress," publisheil in Ihe I'liited Statr.i in |m21, under llie author- ity of ("oiigres.s, a full account is given of the proceediiius n( the American Coiigres* relative to the negotiations wliicli preceded anil iiilroduced the preliminary articles of 17H2, subseipicntly embodied in the deliiiitive Treaty of 17.HJ. This account throwt great light on ihat most important transaction. Amongst t!ie doeiiuients nuvst worthy of attention contained in that work, are the original instructions given by ('oiigiess to their ('omiiii<.^ti»l UIkIm tliit TM'niliM ftiilll Ul> AllWIM " of Instructions to tlu> Commissioner to bo appointed to negotiate a Treaty of Tcacp '',','",!!fi' il'jj •• will) (iruat Hritniii. "Von will lifi-cwitli iTcoivc a commisNidii, KiviiiR you lull power to ncftotiatc a ^I'l""'"'. i':!"- • '< Ti'iniy ol I't'iu-c will) (inMit Kiitiiiti, in tioiiig which, yuu will cuiilurm to the lollowinK " iiil'ni'mittion anil inHtrurtioiiH." Altci' rtciting thi' lirst iiiiil stnind niticlcs of the inxtructionti, the thirtl is a» fol- lows ; — " 3(1. The Hounilnriea of tlirsc States are as follows, viz : — " 'riicsc States arc HoimkIimI ii»r(/i, (<;/ a liw to he tlrmenfrom the nortlt-uenl anf;l( " of J\'ova Srolia nlonit tlir liitfhlmvls ttkieli liividc those rivers irliirli emplij ikeinstlm into " the Hirer Si. Laurnirr, J'roiii tliime ir/iic/t fait into the Mantirk (kean. In the north-west- " ernmosl head of Coniurlirnt Hirer , .liciice down aloiiK the middle of thai livei' to the l/ilh " deniTC of north latitude ; thenee due west in lalitndi' l.^t" north lW)iu the o(|«alor, to the " norlh-wealerninost side ol' the River St. Lawreni-e or (^aduraijui ; Ihenee Ktrai^ht to the " south end ol' Nepissinif ; and Ihenee straight to the .source of the Uiver Mi.ssi»si|i|)i : writ " hy a line to he drawn alon^the niiildle of the Kiver Mississippi Ihnn its suuree, to where " the said line shall intersect the ihirly-lirst dei^rtM- of iKnth latilutle ; south, hy a Uw to he " drawn due east from the termination of the line last menlioned in the latitude of .'{I" luirth " from the equator, to the middle ol' llu^ liiver Apalaehieola, or Calahouehii Ihenee ulon^ " the mitldle thereof to itspinetion with the Klinl Uiver; Ihenee slrai^hl to llii' head of St. " Mary's Uivei' ; and thence (/lands within twenty lea^ui's of any pari of " ihi; shores of the I iniled States, and lying hetween lines to he drawn due eaiit friim the " |)oinls where the aforesaid Houndaries helween Novu Seotiu on the one part, and Kast " Klorida on the other pari, shall rmpcclirrlii toueh the Hay oj I'undy and //if .///(iii/ic " Oeean. • ♦ ♦ • " Hut, notwith.standiiiK the clear righl of these States, and the imporlaiiee of the *' ohp'cl, yet they me so miieh inlhieneed hy the dictates of reliction and hiiniunily, and no " desirous of eomplyiiiK with the earnest ■(■(piest ol'lheir Allies, that if the lim: lo he drawn " Irom the mouth of the Lake Ne|)iHsinx lo the head of the Missis.si|ipi laiinot he ohtoiiied " '.vilhoul conlinuini!; the war tiir that purpose, \ou are heiehy enipowereil to agree to home *< othi'r line hctwecn that point and llii^ IliMr Mississippi; provided the same shaH in no " part thereof he to the southward of latitude 16' ikm'IIi. " And in like nuimier, if the eastern hoiindary ahove dcscrihed riitiiiof he obtained, " yon are herehy empowi'red lo aid'ce, that the same shall he alterwards adjusted hy Ooni- " missioners to he duly appointed lor thai pur|K>se, accordiuK to such line as shall lie hy *' them Hcltled and agiecd on, as ihe Koimdary hi^ltveen that part of llie Stale of Ma.s.suelni- " sells Bay, fornu'rly called Ihe I'rovinee of Maim-, and the (.'oloiiy of Nova Suolia, agreu- " alily to their lespeclive rights." Huhicipiently, in the year I7H3, alter the ni'Koliations had been a<-tiially o|iflned, the American ('ongriiss in(ain look these matters into their serious consideration, and eolieurred in a re|M(rt inaih' to Iheni hy a Commiltee ol' their House, appointed to iuvutltigale (hu Nul>jevt of lUtinidaries with referenda loihe alN)ve riled inslruelions. Of that report, which ina\ he seen at Iriitiih in the ahovu mentioned " Berret Joiir- " nuls of Ihe tUd (."oii({res»," we cite the followiiiK evlracls : 18 I eicejtod'utlde"' The Committee reported " That they had collected facts and observations which g«;;*» A«'»">ie " **iPy recommend to be referred to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to be by him digested, " completed, and transmitted to the Miaisters Plenipotentiary for negotiating a peace, for " their information and use. * * * " With respect to the Boundaries of the States, *****##*** ppm 11, p. . „ j\fnggachusetts claims under the charter granted by fViUiam onrf Mary on the 11 th Octo. " ber, 1691. ****** " It is incumbent on us to shew that the territorial rights of '.tie thirteen United " States, while in the character of British Colonies, were the same wi^h ti.ose defined in the " instructions given to Mr. J. Adams on the day of August, 1779. * * * » » Appendij, p. «. ,, gg f^jp ^pj. Q^p pretensions rendered by the united operation of the grants, charters, Royal '' commissions, and Indian cessions, * * * that we shall content ourselves with reviewing " the objections which will most probably be urged against them, without entering into the " direct proofs of our titles. " First Objection. Even upon the supposition that the charter of Massachusetts is " valid so as to cover the vacant lands, still it does not follow that St. John's River is part " of its eastern Boundary; for that river is contended to be in Nova Scotia, under the ex- " pression of the New Charter of Massachusetts in 1691, which conveys the country between " the Province of Maine and Nova Scotia. The south-west Boundary of Nova Scotia " therefore, will regulate this claim. But it is well known that in the altercation between " France and Great Britain upon this very subject in 1751. Acadia or Nova Scotia was " asserted by the latter to be bounded by Pentagoet or Penobscot River. .Insteer. " It is to observed, that when the Boundaries of the United States were " declared to be an ultimatum, it was not thought advisable to continue the war merely to " obtain territory as far as St. John's River ; but that the dividing line of Massachusetts and " .N'ova Scotia was to be consigned to future settlement. It must be confessed, also, that this " country, uhich is said in the JVne Charter to border on JSTova Scotia and the Province nf " Maine, on opposite sides, and which ^: tes under the name of Sagadahock, cannot be proved to " extend to the River St. John as cliarly as to that of St. Croix. But there is some reason, " noticithstanding, to believe, that ,\^ova Scotia icas never supposed by the British King, in any " grant to his subjects, to come to the south of St. John's River, although he might have ex- " acted from France a relinquishment of the lands to the River Penobscot, or even Kenne- " bee, as part of Nova Scotia." The Committee, after further reasoning upon the supposed Boundaries laid down in various old charters atferting that country, in which reasoning the frequent rectirrence oi the terms " suppose and appear" plainly indicate that they were completely in the dark on a subject so perfectly vague and uncertain, conclude this jiart ol" their report by saying : ApiMnJii, p. 49. " We are obliged to urge probabilities, because, in the early possession of a rough " unreclaimed country, accuracy of lines cannot be much attended to. But we wish that the " north-eastern Boundary of Massachusetts may be left to future discussion, when other " evidences may be obtained, which the war has removed from us." It must be remarked, that, at the period of this report, all the old charters, grants, and delimitations of provinces, were published and perfectly well known : yet, having all those documents within their reach, the report above recorded was made, and the instructions ol " 1779 contirined by the Congress, and acted upon by the American l'leni|)olentiarie8. ler l*e lol 19 ' Now from the whole body of the above-recited documents, we collect the following fi^i^l'J"^"' .. I the Treaiie* important particulars: riomtkeAtiutio Ist. That the mouth of the St. John River was, from the first, specifically described as being in the Bay of Fundy, while the Bay of Fundy was described as distinct from the Mantic Ocean. 2dly. That the north-west angle of Nova Scotia was, after all the consideration which the subject had undergone in Congress from 1779 to 1782, placed deliberately at that time, by the Americans themselves, at the source of the River St. John. For the Boundary of the United States is in that projet described as commencing north by the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, and thence running westward ; east, by the River St. John from its source to its mouth. But there is no mention made of any connecting line between the point of commencement of the northern, and that of the eastern line ; therefore they must be taken as identical. 3dly. We collect that such being the assumed position of the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, the highlands intended to divide the rivers falling into the Atlantic Ocean from those falling into the River St. Lawrence, are described in the very same terms which they now retain in the definitive Treaty of 1783. Hence we deduce, that the highlands designated in the projet being then intended to divide the Androscogg'm, Kennebec, and Penobscot Rivers alone, from those falling into the St. Lawrence, to tht exclusion of the .M John, the highlands so descri' ' are still intended to divide the same rivers ; and that from those rivers, therefore, the St is still intended to be excepted. The position assumed by the United States (or the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, it is true, was, ns we shall presently see, ai)andoned by them in the course of the negotiations, and another assumed further east ; but the phraseology respecting the highlands, as dividing certain rivers, having been preserved in its original terms, it is to be inferred that the Negotiators had the same highlands still in view, and that from first to last the River St. John was considered by them as entirely excepted from the class of rivers described as falling into the Atlantic Ocean. The above-cited instructions were so strictly adhered to, and acted upon by the American Commissioners at Paris, that in the first projet of an article respecting Boundaries, submitted by them to the British Negotiator, scarcely any deviation was made from the projet which has been already described as transmitted with those instructions to the Ameri- can Commissioners. In the body of the article so submitted, the eastern Boundary, from the source of the St. John to its mouth, was still rslained ; but a note was appended to that article by the Anaricaii Plenipotentiary, in which, conformably to the contingent instruction above quoted, it was proposed that the whole eastern Boundary should be referred to the decision of ("om- missioners to be appointed subsecjuently to the signature of the Treaty. This circumstance seems to prove, that what is termed in the Treaties the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, as well OS tlie limits of Massachusetts Bay, were by the Americans themselves considered as subjects totally unmanageable from their ho|H-less obscurity and uncertainty. The article thus drawi up was referred by the British Plenipotentiary at Paris to his Oovernnn'nt, who were so ilissatisticHid Stales lin treating of |jeaco with the " IJonimisbioners of His said Majesty, on their behall, on the other part. Fo ai ven L'S to Miry i>lcs the will tui'il ■l-ol un;s iiiiil tl If «' Whereas reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience are found, by experience, f,';",flS'uJiS^ " to form the only permanent t'oundation of peace and friendship between States, it is agreed ft'm t " AOtaiif " to frame the articles of the proposed Treaty on such principles of liberal equity and reci- '""' •* procity, as that partial advantages (those seeds of discord) being excluded, such a beneficial " and Mtisfactory intercourse between the two countries may be established, as to promtst " and necure to both the blessings of perpetual peace and harmony. 1st. " His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hamp- " shire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New " York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South " Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, sovereign, and independent States ; that he treats with " them as such ; and for Himself, His Heirs and Successors, relinquishes all claims to the " government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof; and that " all disputes which might arise in future on the subject of the Boundaries of the said United " States, may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared that the following are, and " shall remain to be, their Boundaries, viz : " The said States are bounded north bv a line to bt draien from the north-west angle " of J^ova Scoti« along the highlands, mhich divide those rivers that empty Ihemselres into •* the River St. lAiicrence from those which fall into the .Atlantic, to the north.iecslemmost * head of ConnecticHt River ; thence down along the middle of that river to the forty-fifth " degree of north latitude, and thence due west in the latitude forty-five degrees north from " the Equator, to the north-westernmost side of the River St. Lawrence, or Cataraguy ; " thence straight to the Lake Nipissing, and thence straight to the source of the River Mis- " siosippi ; wcs/, by a line to be drawn along the middle of the River Mississippi, to where " the said line shall intersect the thirty-first dep^e of north latitude : south, by a line to be " drawn due east from the tei-mination of the line last mentioned, in the latitiide of thirty-one " degree* north of the Equator, to the middle of the River Apalachicola, or Catahouchi ; " thence along the middle thereof to its junction with the Flint River ; thence straight to the " head of St. Mary's River ; thence down along the middle of St. Mary^i Hirer to the At- " lantic Ocean ; and east, by a line lobe drmen along the middle of the St. Johnh Rircr from •* itt source to its numth m the Ray of Fundy ; oomprchi-nding all islands within twenty " leagues of any part of the shores of the United States, ami lyint; between lines to be drawn '* due east from the points where the albrcsaid Boundaries, between Nova Scntia on the one " part, and East Florida on the other, shall respectively touch the Bay of Ftmdy Jl^D the " Mtmtk Ocean." " Paris, Sth October, 1783. " A true copy of which hfl.s been agreed on between the American Cominis.-'-'iprs " ami me, to be submitted to his Majesty's consideration. " (Signed,) R. OSWALD." " Alteratiou to be made in tbe Treaty, respecting the Bonudaries of Nora Scotia, vu ; " Ea$t, the true lint helwten which and Ike United Slates shmlt be settled by Commis- " sioners, as soon as convenimtly may be after the icar." 9. Extract of a fetter from Dr. Franklin to the Honble. R. Liviinplau, Seoretary Ibi Foreign Allaii-», dated Pussy, 14th Deer. I7H2 6 22 'ill Bimr Bt John, elMpted uDdei Iha Traatiel fromtht AtlUtlo Rivtrf. Sir, " We have the honor to congratulate Congress on the signature of the preliminaries " of a Peace between the Court of Great Britain and the United States of America, to be «« inserted in a Definitive Treaty so soon as the terms between the Crowns of France and " Great Britain shall be agreed on. A copy of the articles is here enclosed."— (N. B.— The second article is there described such as it now stands in the Treaty of 1783.) •'Remarks on Article H. relative to the Boundaries: " The Court of Great Britain insisted on retwning all the territories comprehended " within the Province of Quebec, by the Act of Parliament respecting it. They contended " that Mova Scotia should extend to the River Kennebec." Here, then, we learn that the projet of the Article above cited respecting boundaries, having been referred to the British Ministry, remained in London some weeks under the con- sideration of that Government ; that neither the scheme of settlement contained in the body of the article, nor that referred to in the note appended to the article, were agreed to by the British Government ; that is, that neither the one nor the other " could be obtained ;" that on the return of the projet from London " there was much contestation about boundaries ;" that some were settled and carried back once more to London by the under Secretary of State, who returned after a time to Paris with the propositions, some adopted, others omitted or altered, and new ones added.* We further learn, that during these disputes. Great Britain " insisted on retaining all the territories comprehended within the Province of Quebec by " the Jet of Parliament of 177 1," and tiiat " she contended that JVotio Scotia should extend to " the River Kennebec." After all this persevering contention, the Preliminary Articles of 1782 at length came out, displaying the provisions respecting boundaries such as they now stand in the Definitive Treaty of 1783. The evidence of Mr. Adams and Mr. Jay, (co- plenipotentiaries with Dr. Franklin in negotiating the Treaty of 1782-3,) relative to the same matters, subsequently taken on oath before the Commissioners appointed under the Treaty of 1794, for ascertaining the true St. Croix, corroborates in every point the informa- tion given by Dr. Franklin, and even contains some important disclosures in addition to it. «' The British Commissioners," says Mr. Adams, " first claimed to Piscataqua River, " then to Kennebec, then to Penobscot, and at length to St. Croix, as marked on Mitchell's " map." That map, Mr. Adams had declared, was the only map or plan which was used by the Commissioners at their public conferences. Mr. Adams proceeds to say, " one of the American Commissioners at first proposed " the River St. John, as marked on Mitchell's Map ; but his colleagues observing, that as " the St. Croix was the River mentioned in the charter of Massachusetts Bay, they could " not justify insisting on the Si. John as an ultimatum, he agreed with them to cidhere to thf " charter of Massachusetts Bay." " The ultimate agreement," repeats Mr. Adams, in reply to another interrogatory, " was to adhere to the charter of Massachusetts Bay, and to the St. Croix River, mentioned " in it, which was supposed to be delineated in Mitchell's map. Now we have already seen in the extracts above given from the " Secret Journals," * The paper in which theae alterationi were embodied, in not tiineisd to Dr. Franklio'i letter above cited, in the work froni which those extrtcta are taken. t t I ri o n at ni th wl or ca set eiti grc tion 1781 lb, ()sed as the lory, l)ncd Ms." cited, 23 what were the then generally received notions and intentions of Congress respecting the *'JJ'f J- ^Jj; Boundaries of the thirteen United States, o» founded on their adherence to the charter of rnm itaAtltntie Massachusetts Bay ; and that, consistently with those notions, the line of the St. John ^'"" River was proposed as throughout its tehole course, confining the Province of Massachusetts Bay. In addition to Mr. Adams's evidence ahove detailed, Mr. Jay declared on oath, in the same manner, that " in the course of the negotiations, difficulties arose respecting the eastern " extent of the United States. That Mitchell's map was before them, and was frequently " consulted for geographical information." Further, Mr. Jay declared, " that he doubted " there having then been very clear conceptions relative to the just and precise eastern extent of " Massachusetts, for he had reason to believe, that respectable opinions in America at that " time (1782) considered the River St. John as the proper eastern limit of the United " States." In recapitulation, then, the sum total of all the preceding evidence is, that the lehole course of the River St. John was first proposed by the United States as their eastern limit ; that that limit not having been obtained, the contingent proposition authorized by the American Instructions above-cited, namely, that for the settlement of boundaries after the war, was resorted to; that that also failed ; in fact, that the whole original projet of the article respecting the eastern and northern Boundary of the United States was fundamentally changed. Hence, we can come but to one conclusion, and that is, that a new and more contracted line was substituted for the line so rejected and altered. But it may be asserted that the new line may not necessarily have been a more con- tracted line than the old ; but that in return for the partial contraction of the line at first claimed by the Americans, in the substitution of the St. Croix River for the lower part of the St. John, Great Britain may have agreed to give up to the United States all the lauds to the north of the St. John to which they now lay claim. This would be equivalent to saying, that Great Britain, having vehemently contested the whole Line of Boundary proposed by the United States, from the source to the n.outh of the St. John, and having moreover herself gradually receded from her original claims to the Piscataqua, Kennebec, and Penobscot, gave up to the United States as an appropriate result App«ndi«, .\o of that contest, and those concessions, the entire \ipper half of that great and important river, together with 700 square miles* of territory to the north of it, beyond the utmost extent of territory demanded in the first instance by the United States to the south of that river, and negatived by Great Britain ; and, as if this was but an insufficient equivalent, that she con- sented to place the United States in entire possession of the only practicable line of commu- nication between her two Provinces of Canada and Nova Scotia : and all this in the face of the preamble contained in the very Treaty by which these arrangements are sanctioned, which preamble, as we have seen, expressly declares that these arrangements are made in order to prevent future disputes. Such an assertion would carry its own refutation. Besides, not a won! of evidence can be adduced in support of it. For in the whole of the evidence above-cited, we have seen that no claim was ever, from first to last, advanced on the part of the United States, cither in virtue of their adherence to the Charter of Massachusetts Bay, or on any other ground, to any territory to the north of the St. John. And from the account above given * Calculation by Dr. Tiatks of the comptratirc low which would accrue to Great Britain by the adop- tion of the Line of BouuJtry now cltimttl bjr the United State;, ia lieu of that ongmaU^ proposed by thein in 178t. 0, f. 47. 24 Jt"p'*'u,ft of the proceetlinj(8 relative to the Treaty, as well in, as out of Congress, it is clear! v dedu- jomthBAiiMtk! cible, that not a thouifht was ever seriougly entertained, on the part of the United States, of claiming such extension of Boundary. Every thing that we have seen, relative to the Negotiations in 1782, tends, in fact, to one irresistible conclusion, which is, that the United States, in the first instance, laid claim to a Boundary which they afterwards found that they could not support ; and as Great Britain positively refused to accede to it, they were compelled to contract it to a line within that originally claimed ; namely, to the St. Croix, on the extreme east ; and westward, along ft continuation of the same highlands which, in the original projet, were taken to divide the Kennebec and the Penobscot from the rivers falling into the St. Lawrence. In reference then to the two essential points which we have above discussed, namely, whether the Bay of Pundy is contra-distinguished under the Treaty from the Atlantic Ocean; and whether the River St. John is excepted from that class of Rivers which are described in the Treaty as falling into the Atlantic Ocean, we conceive ourselves to have conclusively established both these facts in the affirmative ; and to have demonstrated that it was the intention of thj parties to the Treaty of 1783 that the point which is designated in that Treaty as the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, should be found on highlands to the south of the river St. John. Such is the position of the Highlands and the point of departure claimed on the part of Great Britain. I laving now, therelbre, as we believe, shewn, affirmatively, that the highlands now claimed by Great Britain as the Boundary Line of the United States, are really those intended by the Treaty of I7S3, we shall endeavor, by arguments and evidence equally conclusive, to demonstrate, nes^alirely, that the line of Boundary claimed by the United States, cannot, even on their own shewing, and treating the question by their own arguments, be along the highlands intended by that Treaty. We have seen, by the evidence adduced respecting the proceedings in the American Congress, as well as by the testimony of the American CommissioiTPrs. that the only ground of claim originally advanced by the United States to territory on and about tho R ivcr St. John, was in virtue of the rights which they held to accrue to them under the ("hnrterof Massachusetts Bay.* No extension of territory in that quarter beyond the limits of thai * Two ntj ahifular uacrtioDi on thn suhjoet of tho claim of the VrAtti] Btttn to the territory in (|leitlon, in r«fcr(*ne« to llM Cliaiter of Munachuactti llajr, iiavt? Ii««n made l>f a very high auttiority. b«iug Bit leva a 4M>raon than Mr. tjalhtin, viie of (lia Plf7tii|N>- lenliaricanf tho Cm ted ."ittttea f.tr nogotiatmii thp Treaty of Ghent, in a h-tter aililreHaerf tty liim from Ghent to the Atnerican yecrelary of State. imlMdiatnly imbft^ntnt to the aigoaturo of that Treaty. In that letter, of which a fuller extract will be titund in the Ap[»<'nillx. No._|o, p. ,171, there ia thil remarkable cUuae ; " That northern Territory is of no \mportanee ttmi. anil hfli'Otfe to the t'niltil Stategantt not tn Maasachuaetts, ithicli hat " lUt the thaftotr of a rtaim to any land north of AH dtfrt'lM to tkt Mstitanl of Penohtcoi Rner, w yon Irtay ettaily convince yotiraelf of " by reourrinf toberChartera.'* The aingularily of one of the aaaertiona cuntaineil in thia clnuae conaiita in the supporitioD on which it la tnundeil, that the Uniteif States have a elaitn to the diatrirt in (lUCHtion by aome title, aeparate from that conOrred by the Charter of Ma^aachintrttN nay, which a refbranee to the Secret Joarnaja of the Old ITongrcta already eited by i». prnvw moei aoncluaively that Ihi-y never aaaerted. The aingulariry ef the other aaaertion aa r-oming from tltia tiimrter, cimai^la in the denial tn Maraa< biiaettn >>f any right od Art* part to that dialrict In the juilicii of that denial fiteal Dntain muat t\illy coneura ; but abe afflnilB that if it U adniitleil aa vnli.l with iflapaet to Maaaachmetta, il eiBat necetawMy equnll> embrace the i'niteri Htatea in general, aince m all the diioaaaiona anterior tu tho concltiaiun of the Treaty ef 17d:i, relative to the territory in 'ttieation, they uniformly prufeaaod to adhere to the Charter uf frlaaaacliuaelta It avill net eaeape ebaervatlen that in the preoedirf esttact one of the moat dlatingvlihed Stateamen in the I'nltad fltaaev eipreaaea h elibttatc opinion that the noitbem Tarniory, that la, piatieely the diatiict new in diaruie, " tr of no xmfortMce to tkt CntdlifSMfH." 25 province was pretended to by them. The ultimate agreement of the American Commis- 1'^;;^ "*'• sioners, was "to adhere to the Charter of Massachusetts Bay." We have seen that thch- conception of the limita of that provinne never extended beyond the River St. John. The United States now lay claim to territory far to the north of that river. The ground of this claim, however, must »«c«»«arili/ be still the same as in 1783, since the provisions of the Treaty of 1783, si^od by the American Commissioners under their ultimate agreement above mentioned, form the sole basis of the present reference to arbitration. We shall, however, shew by documentary evidence of the most positive nature, that the limits of the Province of Massachusetts Bay never did, and never could, extend to the line now claimed by the United States. In the British separate transcript (A a) of the map annexed to the convention under the denomination of the map A, there will be perceived, marked in green, a tract of country situated on the Madawaska River, and the Lake Temisquata, at a short distance from the River St. John. That district, laid down according to the most accurate measurement founded on the documentary authority hereinafter specified and annexed, represents a portion of territory denominated " the Fiej of Madawaska," which was originally granted in ihe year 1683, (that is, eight years prior to the Charter of Massachusetts Bay,) to a French subject by the Governor of Canada, which was then a French province. That province remained subject to France from that period down to the year 1763, at which time the whole of the French possessions in that part of North America were definitively ceded by Treaty to Gri-at Britain. During that entire period, however, and down to the present day, the Fief of Madawaska, in spite of all transfers, whether of the Province generally from nation to nation, or of itself individually from hand to hand, has pre- served its individuality under the original grant, and has constantly been, and is at this moment, subject to the jurisdiction of Canada. In proof of the accuracy of this assertion, we refer to the annexed papers, numbered Appcndif No from 13 to 25, inclusive. The tn-st of these papers, marked 13, contains the original grant of that territory in 1683. The others display the successive deeds of transfer and acts of jurisdiction exercLsed over it in Canada, from that period to the year 1802 ; since which time the fief has remained hi possession of the same occupant. Here, therefore, exists an extensive Possession inrontestably Canadian, held by virtue of the rights derived to Great Britain, from tiie cession to her of Canada by France, far vitliin the Line of Boundary claimed by the United States, as having formed part of the. Province of JUassachusetts Buy. Now, on what possible ground can the United States, who, in preferring their claim in 1782 to territory in this quarter, professed to adhere i tlie Charter of Massachusetts Bay, now lay claim to Territory which was granted to a Frencli subject by a French Governor of Canada, before the tristence of the Charter of Massachusetts Bay, and which has n/H>ai/.v formed an intcgial portion of Canada, whether held by France or Great Britain ? But not only does this interposition of territory, unquestionably Canadian, invalidate the claim of the L'nited States, as tounded on the Charter of Massachusetts Bay, but it also, when considered under another point of view, totally breaks down their argument respecting the line of higlJands claimed by them ; for it disables those highlands from fulfilling the dis- thirtive ecidition n'(|iiire(l of them by the Treaty of 1783, nanu'ly.that they shall divide the rivers falling inlo the Si. Lawitnec from those whirh fall into the Atlantic Ocean.' Aiiionc^t these latter we have seen that the l.'nited .S'faffv include the River St. John. 7 13 ui '25, inclu- sive, n. ITiJ ti) p. ttlo. t .■ ^l I 26 Pi>r<>r Uadt- wuka. Canadi&n jurii- diclicin in iliaput •d Tcriitory. Appendii, No. 88, p. SUS. Appftndiv, N.) -Mi, p. aao, Nil. -n, p. 922, No. -JS, p. S33. Appendix, No. S9, p. m On consulting again the British transcript of the map A, it will be seen that the Fief of Madawaska extends from near the sources of the River Madawaska to within a few miles of the River St. John, of which it is the principal tributary in that quarter. We conceive that it will hardly be pretended, that the Seigniory of Madawaska could have been considered, at the period of the original grant, as an insulated portion of Canada, totally disunited from that Province. We therefore assume that the Province of Canada extended, at the period of the original grant of the Fief of Madawaska, uninterruptedly, from beyond the Line of Boundary now claimed by the United States, along the Madawaska River, to the entire extent of thpt Seigniory. But assuming this to be the case, it is manifest that the American Line must, at me point towards the source of the Madawaska, experience an absolute chasm, — a complete interception, — by the interposition of that portion of Canada. But how would such a line fulfil the conditions of the Treaty ? It would certainly, in that case, neither run along highlands, nor would it divide rivers falling into the St. Law- rence from rivers falling into the Atlantic ; since the upper part of the Madawaska would undoubtedly be on the same side of the line with all the rivers which fall into the St. Law- rence. But without entering into arguments which might be derived from other sources, to shew what the general Boundary Line of Canada was, we may fairly assert, that the simple fact of the Fief of Madawaska having been originally granted and invariably held under the jurisdiction of Canada, whether French or English, goes far to warrant the conclusion that the wMe tract of Country in which that Fief lies, was always considered and treated by the Authorities of Canada a.s an integral portion of that Province. Upon such assumption or assertion alone, however, whatever may be its justice or strength, we do not propose to rest our argument. That the Coimtry has been so considered and treated is demonstrable from documentary evidence of an equally conclusive character with that already adduced on behalf of the Fief of Madawaska. To that evidence we accord- ingly appeal. On the 24th of January, 1765, a public notice, hereunto annexed, was issued by the Office of the Provincial Secretary in Canada, and published by authority, according to custom, in the Quebec Gazette, by which notice all Canadian inhabitants were prohibited from interfering with the hunting ground of the Indians down to the Great Falls of the River St. John. Again, on the llth of November, 1784, that is, but one year subsequent to the Treaty of 1783, an Indian was condemned by the Courts of Canada, and executed for a murder committed at Madawaska. The documents containing an account of this proceed- ing are hereto annexed. Again, in the year 1789, proceedings were commenced in a Court at Quebec, and continued to the 20th of January, 1791, in an action for damages brought against Augustine Dub6 and Pierre Dupere, residing at Madawaska, in which the defendants put in a plea against the jurisdiction of the Court of Quebec, alleging that they resided within that of New Brunswick. The plea was rejected on various grounds ; amongst others, absence of proof on the part of the defendants that Madawaska was not within the jurisdiction of Canada ; and the defendants were cast accordingly. and plea [New proof ada; 27 Again, on the 10th of November, 1791, a SherifTg notice was published in the Quebec Qazutte for the sale of lands of the said Pierre Duperd at Madawaska, appa- rently in execution of the judgment in the last-mentioned case. Again, in 1735, the Council of Quebec took into consideration the expediency of making a road from Ka nouraska on the St. Lawrence, to Lake Temisquata, along that district called the Temis(|uata Poitage, in order, as it is stated, to obtain an easy and spuedy cdinmuaicatioii between the Provinces of Canada and New Brunswick, " partic- " ularly in time of war, when an easy and speedy communication, independent of the " States of America, becomes absolutely necessary ; and when, in times of peace, " from the inconvenience of sending Government and other Despatches by way of New «« York, which is every day more apparent, the American Postmaster having lately re- " fused the Postmaster-General here (at Quebec) to allow the Couriers from tliis Pro- " vince to pass through their territories, insisting that all letters shall go by their n' "" «< only." Again, in 1787 — 1793, the question of the respective Boundaries of Canada and the then newly-erected Province of New Brunswick* was brought before the Council al Q leiicc. The paper which contains an account of the proceedings thereupon is highly valuable and important, especially as proving that whatever disputes may have existed between rhe respective British. Provinces as to their several limits, not the smallest doubt seems to have been ever entertained by them as to the right of Great Britain to the whole territory thus contested between the Provinces. In this document it is shewn, that for several years prior to 1792 the Government of Canadii had established a militia at Madawaska, and that the Courts of Quebec had exercised jurisdiction in various cases within that settlement. It will also be seen there- in, that, in opposition to the claim set up at that time by New Brunswick to a Boundary north of Lake Temisquata, the Committee of the Council of Quebec contended that such Boundary would interfere with " the sei^neuries loirfer Canadian grants as far back " as the yc'irs 1623 and 1683, besides the Jlccadians settled above the Great Falls of St. " John's River." The report of the Committee proceeds thus : — " The Committee most humbly submit to your Lordship, whether it would not " be for the advantage of both Governments that the Province of Quebec be separated " from that of New Brunswick by a line running along the highlands uhich extend from «' the head f Chaleurs Bay to the foot of the Great Fall of St. Jo/m's River, and I'rom " thence crossing the river (so as to include the whole of the portage or carrying place) " and continu'Dg m a straight line towards the sources of the River Chaudiere, which " rise on the highlands that commence al the said head of the Bay of Chaktirs, and extend " all the way to the north-westernmost head of Connecticut river." This opinion clearly shews what conception was at that time entertained by the Canadian authorities respect- ing the Boundaries of Canada and Nova Scotia. In a subsequent part ol the same docu- mrnt, it is distinctly stated that at that time (in 1792) "the line between the two Pro- " vinces of Canada and New Brunswick had not been ascertained ;" and it was then • Subucqusntly to the Treaty of 1783, the British Province of \ovr Scntiii was iliviilcil into two "Cparate Provinces, of which the one retuiriej its funiKT name ; iind the other, rmbraciu); Ihe l!riti.-h 1 urritory in the vicinity ef Uie due north line, uaU the uiijaccat pnrts of Iho ulJ Hravince of Nova Sccti», reoeiveil the name of New Brnn«- wkk. OnniiliBn jurik- (lictirni in i1iBput« oil Ttriitory. Appendix, No. •JH, p. 901. Appnililix, Nil. 3", p. ^1. Appendix, No :», p. ».', No. W, p. 'JXI Apptmlix, p.!n9. 6 f'aiiftdiia iiuii. diflttDu in iiiiput' •il Turltoiy. Appandii No. 33, P 'J45. ApnentliiNo. 34, p. Ski. Mtdivruka Sal' tlomtil. the declared object of the Canadian Government, " to call the attention of His Majesty's " Ministers to the adjustment of the limits necessary for preserving the public tranquilli^ " of both Provinces." Again, in 1791, an official list was made out of the Parishes in the Province of Quebec, in which list the Parish of Madawaska is included, and a description given of the species of tenure by which the settlers held their land ; and a census of the male popu- lation, above 19 years of age, is also thereto annexed. The above-cited series of documents clearly establishes Canadian JHrisdictioa, as far as the Oreat Falls of the 9t. John, for a long period, both before and since the Treaty o< 1783, and thereby further negatives the American claim to this Country, as founded on the supposed limits of Massachusetts Bay. Furthermore, there can be shewn, from A)urican testimony, a de facto possession by Great Britain of the district, called the Madawaaka Settlement, on the River 6t John, beginning a few miles above the Great Falls, and extending beyond the confluence of the River Madawaska with the St. John, which possession was uever called in question by the United States ur^il the termination of the war between Great Britain and the United States, in 1814. We think it necessary, in order to prevent mistakes from the similarity of the names, to state here that the " Madavaska Settlement," and the " Fief of Madawaska," are two totally difl'erent things, and not in any way connected with each other. The former is a morferw colony, planted subsequently to the Treaty of 1783: the latter is, as we have shewn, an hereditary seigniory, granted by the Government of Canada a century antece- dent to the Treaty of 1783, and from that period to this, subject to the jurisdiction of Canada. We prefer giving the account of the Settlement of Madawaska in the very words of the Special American Agent, who was sent by order of the American Government to in- quire into its origin, history and actual condition. " This settlement," says Mr. Barrell in his report, " derives its name from the River " Madawaska, which empties itself into the River St. John, about thirty-six miles above the " Great Falls, and about one hundred and sixty miles above Fredericton. The first settlers " arrived soon after the Treaty of 1783, and the first grant, which was of fifty-one several " lots or plantations of land, was made to Joseph Muzeroll and fifty-one other French ••settlers, in the month of October, 1790, by Thomas Carleton, Esq. then Lieutenant-Go- " vernor of the Province of New Brunswick. The land granted lay at intervals between «« the River Verte and the Matlawaska River, nine miles distant from each other, and on «« both sides of the River St. John. The second grant was of 6,263 acres of land lying below " the River Verte, and was made to Joseph Boucer and others by Lieutenant-Governor " Carleton, in August, 1794. These are the only grants ever made by the British Govem- " ment within the settlement, excepting one to Lirao Hibert* of 250 acres of land opposite <■ to, and upon the River Madawaska, in May, 1825. " Tkc laws of the Province of JVeui Brunswick appear to have been alvays in force «' «fn«e the origin of that tettlement. The settlers have acquiesced in the exercise of British " authority, both civil and military, among them, and have for many years had an organized " militia in the settlement. • • * * * The population of Madawaska amounts to about " 3,000, and is ahnost exclusively French." * isimon Hebert, 29 l/or(!« Iritish fiized kbout Id confirmation of the aborc statement, copies of the original grants of land in ff.'Sf^JJ"" ** that settlement, made in 1790 and 1794, are hereto annexed. In further corroboration Appmju No. of the same statement, we also quote the deposition of one of the first settlers, Simon No /w, p. aw. Hebert, which was taken on oath, on the occasion of the trial, before t>^e Tribunals of New Brunswick, of one John Baker, mentioned in the report above-cited. Tliat deposition establishes clearly the fact stated in that Report, of the settlers having, from the very commencement, considered themselves as subject to British juris- diction. " Simon Hebert, being sworn, deposed as follows : I live two miles below Mad- ^ jj, ^.^^ " awaska River. Have lived there forty years next month; I moved there from the *'>''• '■**• " French villnge about ten miles above Fredericton. I have a grant of my land from " this Province. It is the first grant iu the Madawaska, and was made about two or " three years after I moved up. 1 live under this Government, and have always lived " under it. All the Madawaska settlers live under the same Government. I vote at " elections The first time was about eight years ago." This Idst-cited evidence jiroves an actual jurisdiction over this Territory, lince the Treaty of 1783, by the British Province of New Brunswick. The claims of this Province and Canada, with respect to this and other parts of the territory in this quarter are conflicting inter se, and shew the uncertainty of their respective Boundaries, which in fact have never been settled, and may require the interference of the Mother Country to adjust: but these conflicting intercolonial claims, which have arisen since the Treaty of 1783, are altogether irreii-vant to the present controversy between Great Britain and the United States, as a Foreign Power, and under that Treaty. Whether under the one Province or the other, the possession is British. Ttie right to that possession was first called in question by the United States, and that oi\\y constructively, at the |)eriod of the negotiations at Ghent in 1814. A reference to the two annexed official decennial censuses of the United States, and, spcihcally, of the State of Maine, will shew that in 1810 no mention was -...au" of the Madawaska Settlement: whereas in 1820 that Settlement was included in the gener il Aypendii, No estimate of the population of the United States ; it being, however, stated in this Census of 1820, that the inhabitants of this settlement " supposed they were in Canada.''* Under all these circumstances. Great Britain conceives herself to have a fair right to assume that this settlement and territory havt been, from the earliest period, consider- ed a part of the British Dominions. We now believe ourselves to have demonstrated, from all the considerations and evidence above adduced, that the line claimed by the United States as their boundary, cannot possibly, in point of position, be the line intended by the Treaty of 1783. We have already demonstrated, on the other hand, that the line claimed by Great Britain is in strict accordance with the intentions of the framers of the Treaty, and does in every respect, in point of position, fulfil the conditions imposed on it by the Treaty. There is a separate ground, namely, that of the specific meaning and character ni|iii»n.i. attached to the term *« highlands," on which we shall briefly consider the question before we close this part of our argument ; and we propose to shew, in the first instance, that in this mure contracted view of the question, as well as on the broader and higher grounds already discussed, the highlands claimed by Great Britain have a just title lobe consider- ed as fulfilling the conditions of the Treaty. We will then consider the character of the line claiiu'.'d liy ihi.' United States in this respect. Great Uiitain then maintains that the term highlands employed in the Treaties k fe 3U UighlaniU. Appandu, No. 10, «. p. 72. " t. p. ua " *. p. 90. " «. p. 113. D, a, 7, IS. App«QdiI, No. II, p. IW. implies not merely lands which divide rivers flowing in opposite directions, but high, i. e. elevated, lands, or, in other words, a mountainous tract of country. The United States, on the contrary, contend that the term " highlands" does not imply visible elevations, but simply lends, whether high or low, which cause waters to flow in opposite directions. It is of course not pretended, on the part of Great Britain, that in order to sup- port the character which she assigns to the term " highlands,^' those highlands should present an absolutely unbroken and continuous ridge, without the intervention of valley or swamp. She does, however, maintain, that the "highlands" ought to coiform to the above-cited definition of the term, by displaying a gniera% elevated and mountninuus charactei ; and such a character she affirms that the highlands claimed by her do in reality bear. Under this view of the intent of the term " highlands," as used in the Treaties, Great Britain maintains that the point called Mars Hill is, with propriety, claimt'il by her as the point of departure on the "highlands" as well on the ground of that point being the nearest real elevation met by the due north line drawn from the source of St. Croix River, as on the other and more essential grounds already discusseil. PVoin Mars Hill the surveys hereto annexed, which were made by Surveyors appointed for that purpose by the Commissioners under the 5th Article of the Treaty of Ghent, shew that a generally hilly country is found to extend towards the eastern bianch of the River Penobscot. The accuracy of those surveys and the reports* of the Surveyors which accompany them, has been attempted to be impeached by the Agent of the United States under the 5th Ar- tide of the Treaty of Ghent, but ineflectually. It will be seen by the annexed account of certain proceedings, which took place between the British and American Commis- si'^ners in 1821, that the British Agent, at the same time that he objected to the Ame- rican surveys and reports, in part, and proposed to the Board to have the Surveyors examined on oath as to the accuracy of those documents, offered voluntarily to have the British Surveyors equally examined on oath as to the accuracy of their surveys, which had been called iu question by the American Agent. That offer was declined on the part of the Americans. A proposal previously made to the American, by the British Commi.s- bioner, to have those parts of the country, which were affirmed to be i; •>''.:"ate'y laid down in the respective surveys, surveyed afresh, had been equally declined on the part of tlie United States. Without in any way questioning the grounds on which the American Commissioner declined acceding to the two propositions above stated, which he had certainly a full right to do, we insist upon the siin|ile fact of a proposal having been made in the strongest and clearest terms on behalf of Great Britain, that the accuracy of the British surveys .should be subjected to the test of a solemn examination on oath ; and from that fact we conceive our- selves to have a fair right to infer, that the statements and delineations of the British .Sur- veyors are substantially conect ; and we accordingly assume, that the country between Mars Hill and tiie head of the ea.stern branch of the Penobscot, answers generally to the definition of highlands, namely, " nioitittditiou^ country" above given by us. * Although in this stotement such only of Uio roporta ma'lf umlcr Ihr ith Article of the Trenty of Ghent are upecificslly ndduoed in eriJouce, as Great Britain coiiMilcn nocoj>nry for Ihf support of her rlium, tlie w'lule collection of thoic reports anil aurveys arc ncverthelesH auneii e afToiJed to the arbiter to uiuke iinniei.liate rclcrrmc to any |>u t of Ihcai, auil to JuQiutui| rc'^reMOMliuiu vf tlie reipcuUvc Oritijh luxl .American Surveycr!. 31 ner t to tnd be kur- |ur- ■en Ithc These highlands connect themselves with a mountainous tract of country, well iiighiuuis known at the period of the formation of the Treaty of 1783, and long before, by the dis- tinctive appellation of " The Height of Land." That height of land had been described in many public documents as dividing the waters that fall into the Atlantic Ocean, from those « 'J* jp"' "" which fall into the River St. Lawrence ..■ the west of the sources of the River St. John, and the western head of the Penobscot ; that is, the same waters which we have shewn that the American Congress and Plenipotentiaries contemplated in their first proposition before cited, and must still have contemplated at the period of the signature of the De- finitive Treaty, because the same designation of the dividing highlands is still preserved therein. That the connexion above noticed exists between the western and eastern section of the highlands forming that "height of land" to the south of the River St. John, we af- firm not only on the authority of the Surveyors employed under the Boundary Commission, but also on that of an American to|K)graplier of repute, Mr. Greenleaf, who published in 1816, a "Statistical View of the State of Maine," illustrated by a map of the same State, delineated by himself With reference to the highlands in question he says, " with the exception of a sviall "tract at the eastern extremity, and some de/oc/ied elevations along the central part of the "north-western Boundary, the mountainous part of the district may be included within an "irregular line drawn from the line of New Hampshire, not far from Saco River; thence " proceeding north-easterly, and crossing Androscoggin River near Dixfield, Sandy River " above Farmington, Kennebec River above Bingham, the west branch of the Penobscot "at the Lake Pemmidumpkok, and to the east branch of "hf. Penobscot near (Ae mouth "of the IVassatttiquoik; thence north so far as to include ihe heads of the Aroostook; " thence south-westerly to the head of Moose>head Lake, and thence westerly to the Boun- " dary of the district near the sources of i!:e Du Loup. The greatest length of this section " is/roni south-west to north-east, about 160 miles ; its greatest breadth about 60 miles ; and " it comprises about one-seventh part of the district. No obser\'ations have been made to " ascertain and compare the height of the different elevations in this section ; but from es- •'timates which have been made on the falls of the rivers, j)roceeding from different parts of " it, and from the much greater distance at which the mountains in the western part are " visible, it is evident that the western, and particularly the north-western part, is much "higher than the easte.ii ; and the section in its whole extent may be considered as prescnt- " uig the highest points of land hetxceen the Jltlantic and the St. Lawrenee." The preceding descri^jtion is extracted from the Report of the British Commissioner under the 6th Article of the Treaty of Ghent, who adds, " that in the map accompanying " Mr. Grrenleai's work, and which that woik was intended to explain, there is not a vestige " of any highlands in that tract of Country through which the Bouiulary is claimed on the " part of the United States, except the Tiiniscouata Portage, which, it is contended on the " part of His Majesty, is proved also to be the case from the result of the exploring surveys " ill that (piartcr. And it is here to be observed that the Agent of the United States has "not attempted to call in question the correctness of the above statement of Mr. Green- " leaf"* 'a I ♦ See copy nf (irPcnliaPs Mnp. exhibiting tlic mountaijiouj tract licrc J«5ctibtJ, io coUccliua cf Mup' sml 9arv»y» U kdbfxciI. I). J1 Hi|falu(b. Appendii, No. 10, «, p. 191. " r,P.IM- " ». p. 133. " «. p. 13S. D, 13. 14, li, »,!»,!», S4. App«MUl,Ns.lO, e, p. 74. Asptadii, No 10, 1, p. 139. •■ I, p. 136. n, 13, u. 32 Throughout the whole extract from Greenleaf above^cited, it will be perceived that it is a question not of lands dividing rivers, but of elevatiimt : and it is shewn that those efe. vtttimt extend to the eattem braneh of tht Penobteot, which river we have demonstrated that the framers of the Treaty of 1783 clearly intended to divide from the River St. John. The surveys above referred to shew that the general character of the district between the east- em branch of the Penobscot and Mars H'M is mountainous. Great Britain, therefore, on this groimd, as well as on the others already expounded, conceives herself fairly entitled to assert that Mars Hill, and the line of boundary of the United States, as claimed by her from Mars Hill to Connecticut River, answer the intent of the Treaty, in which it is declared that the point designated therein as the north-west angle of Nova Scotia shall be placed on the highland*, and that the line of boundary shall he traced from that point along the said higUand* which divide the rivers which empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean. With regard to the line claimed by the United States as their Caundary, a reference to the official surveys and reports made by the Surveyors appointed by the Commissioners under the 5th Article of the Treaty of Ghent will fully confirm the assertion which w« here confidently make, that not one-third of that line can be shewn to run along any lands which, according to the just definition of the term, are entitled to the appellation of " high- elands." By an attentive examination of those reports and surveys, we shall find that with the exception of one spot on the Temisquata Portage, no eminences like those which are found in the vicinity of the British line have been observed, from which the country and its various elevations could have been viewed ; and from the only place, where highlands undoubtedly exist on the Temistjuata Portage, no ranges of any extent running in the direction of the Line of Boundary claimed by the United States have been seen on cither side, east or west. Setting aside the Survey and Report* of the American Surveyor, Johnson, as, with respect to the particular country now under consideration, altogether ideal and unfounded in fiict, we nroceed to examine cursorily, according to descriptions better worthy of attention, the individual spots of the American line which have been visited by the Sur- veyors. The north line, as described by the United States, terminates at a place where there are no highlands agre.eing with the definition above given. It appears from Mr. Odelj's report, that from the high bank of the Grand Fourche of the Restigouche the land declines gradually all the way towards Beaver Stream, and especially from the place where the line uiteraecta the last waters of the Restigouche until its intersection with Beaver Stream. This district is therefore no better entitled to the appellation of highlands than the whole of the surrounding country. The n'xt spot along the line, proceeding westerly, which has been visited, is the division of the waters of the second fork of the Lakes of Green River from those of th» Rimousky. There, indeed, there are highlands ; but they do not divide, but rather run parallel to the waters to be divided. From the reports and surveys of Mr. Bumham the American, and Dr. Tiarks I *8m Apptndii, No. 11. p. I4Q, tod No. 44, p. KM. S9iBI 33 he ih» un the English Surreyori it appears that the dividing land between the waters is a swamp hav- BifhitBh. iog all the features, the appearance, and vegetation of fou land. The highlands lie in unbroken ridges parallel to both water6, running south and north, so that those waters take their opposite courses in a valley between two ridges. The low swampy spot, in which the Waters divide, is an insulated point, without any continuity or connexion with other similar spots ; so that, in fact, it is impossible to divine which way the Line of Boundary ought to run from that point, since there are no highlands to direct its course as required by Treaty, and it is necessitated to find its way arbitrarily from one detached point to another, for want of such highlands. The next spot visited by the Surveyors, is that of the division between the northern Appondii, *^ , No. 10, uous waters of the Rivers emptying into the St. Lawrence. The Surveyors ascended several of these branches ; and it does not appear that any highlands, really entitled to that designation, were any where obser\'ed. No other spot further we«tward in the line claimed by the United States was visited by the Surveyors, except the point where the British and American lines meet at the "Height •' of Land," heretofore treated of. In the American transcript of the map A, as in some of the original American Surveys, a line of what appears to be mountains, is represented as extending continuously from the point which the United States claim to be the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, to that point near the source of the St. John where the British and American lines meet. If the line so delineated is intended to represent real elevations, we must affirm that represent- h'T^IJ; ^°i atitm to be altogether unsupported by evidence, as a reference to the aforesaid surveys and ""■ **' '' ■**■ reports will abundantly prove. If, on the other hand, those highlands are intended merely to represent lands which divide, here and there, waters flowing in opposite directions, we re- peat our appeal to the true meiining of the term " highlandi." It has now been shewn, on the part of Great Britain, and in support of her claim, somir.ry of a- in reference to the first branch of dill'erence between her and the United States, relative to ^ the point designated in the Treaties at the north-west angle of Nova Scotia. |un»nli S 1 tuyjLHIww 34 giuwDU. ''^ ^'*' "^"^ *^ ^"y "'^ Fundy, as mentioned in the Treaty of 178S, is intended to be sepa- rate and distinct from the Atlantic Ocean ; and that the River St. John, which falls into the Bay of Fundy, is intended, on that as well as on separate grounds, to be excepted from that class of rivers which are described in the Treaty as falling into the Atlantic Ocean ; conse- quently, that the highlands described in the Treaty must lie to the southward of that river. 2dly, It has been shewn that at the period of the negotiations in 1782, the only ground assumed on the part of the United States for their claims to territory in the quarter now con- tested was that of the limits of the Province of Massachusetts Bay ; that the utmost claim so founded extended oniy to the line of the River St. John ; and that in the course of the ne- gotiations that line was materially contracted, under which contraction the Treaty of 1783 was concluded. ' Sdly, It has been shewn that far within the line of boundary now claimed by the United States, necessariiy on the same ground of having formed part of the Province of Massachu- setts Bay, Great Britain holds an extensive iiereditary Seigniory, indisputably Canadian, as having been granted by the Government of Canada, and having continued ttntn(errup(e% subject to the jurisdiction of Canada from the year 1683 to the present day. 4thly, It has been shewn that Great Britain constantly exercised an actual and unquestioned jurisdiction in the country now claimed by the United States from the period of the Peace of 1783 to that of 1814 ; and held during that period uncontested rfe facto possession of other parts of that country besides the hereditary Seigniory above mentioned. Sthly, It has been shewn that the highlands claimed on the part of Great Britain as those designated in the Treaty of 1783 conform, in every particular, to the conditions imposed on them by that Treaty ; and, on the other hand, that the highlands claimed on the part of the United States conform neither in position nor character to those conditions. mSta.*' ""*' ^^ **'' ^^^^° grounds, Great Britain claims that the point designated in the Treaty of 1783, as the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, be established at or near the elevation above referred to, called Mars Hill ; and that from that point the line of boundary of the United States be traced south of the River St. John to the north-westernmost head of Connecticut River, at the heads of the Rivers Penobscot, Kennebec, and Androscoggin ; which rivers Great Britain maintains to be those intended by the Treaty as the rivers falling into the Atlantic Ocean, which are to be divided from those which empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence ; such, or nearly such, as that line is described on the official map, denominated t)ie map A, which is annexed to the Convention of the 29th of September, 1837. i 33 SECOND BRANCH OF DIFFERENCE RESPECTING THE NORTH- WESTERNMOST HEAD OF CONNECTICUT RIVER. We now turn to the consideration of the second branch of difference between Konh-wMw.o- Oreat Britain and the United States, as above-stated, namely, the designation of the c^MUc^ir' true north-westernmost head of Connecticut River, as intended by the Treaties of 178S and 1814. In reference to this point Great Britain maintains, that the north-westernmost head, intended by the Treaty, must be that head of the River Connecticut, which, of all the heads of all its waters above the highest p»int, where it assumes the distinguishing title of Connecti- cut, or main Connecticut, shall be found to lie in the most north-westerly direction relative to the main river. Towards the upper part of the River Coanecticut, several waters flow into it from various quarters. Of these, two, namely, Hall's Stream and Indian Stream, both coming from 'he north-west, join the main river a little above the true parallel of 43° N. lat., which is the extreme southern point of the Boundary of the British possessions assigned by the Treaties on that river. The main River Connecticut, however, retains its name and comparative volume far above the junction of these two streams with it ; as far indeed as a lake of some magnitude, denominated Connecticut Lake, which is succeeded, still higher up, by other lakes of smaller dimensions. The river which issues from Connecticut Lake, now bears, and always has been known by, the sole appellation of Connecticut River. Great Britain therefore claims the spring head of the most north-western water, which finds its way into Connecticut Lake, as the " north-westernmost head of Connecticut " River," intended by the Treaty of 1783, from whence the Boundt;!; is to be tiaced down along the middle of that river to the 45th degree of N. latitude. Great Britain maintains, that no stream which joins the Connecticut River below any point where the river is known by that distinctive appellation, can, with any propriety, or consistently with geographical practice, be assumed to be the River Connecticut ; nor, consequently, can the head of such stream be taken as a head of the river itself, being merely the head of a subordinate branch of the river, which branch is known under a sepa- rate denomination. If " HalPt Stream" or " Indian Stream" are, either of them, to be assumed as con- taining the true north-westernmost head of the River Connecticut, according to the definition employed in the Treaties, then, by a parity of reasoning, might the Moselle be considered as containing the south-westernmost head of the Rhine, and the Maine its most south-easterly head, and so on ; for those rivers join the Rttinc in the same relative manner, and are as com- pletely the true Rhine, as the tributary waters " IlaWs Stream" and " Indian Stream" join, and are the true Connecticut. We adduce the example of the Rhine alone for simplicity's sake. But it is obvious that the same rule which applies to one river must apply to all ; and if the American doc- trine be admitted, instead of seeking for the northern, southern, eastern, or western, head of any given river, at the point where the highest sources of the river so denominated are placed by geographers, and universally admitted to be, we must look all round the compass for the particular head of such river according to the specific magnetical bearing of it, which wc may be in want of. Thus the heads of the Rhine, if designated by such magnetical bearing, must \ ■'• I M>ipf»"iiii nvfuinyii" I NurUi-WMUrn* niMi H«ttil of OoniMcUout Apiitnilit, No. 10, r, p. IW, (nd Sunt U, in Mip A ■( anMi< ml. Aninndii, No. 40, p. IM. Mtf C uiiiuil. ViWDilii, No. ii.r iKN. 36 be searched for in diiTcrcnt parts of Europe, instead of in the range of the Bt. Qothard moun- tains, where they have hitherto been taken to be situated. Yet we believe that no jwrson will deny that in those mountains both the south-west- ern, south-eastern, and all other heads of that river, are to be found. So, iikewiiie, ure the various kead$ of Connecticut River to be found in the same relative position to each other, and to the river of which they are the sources. This point, however it may be involved in plausible argumentation, iii deemed by Great Britain too evident to re(|uire further elucidation or argument. For a confirmation of the several facts above alleged, however, with reference to the position and specific ticnomination of the River Connerticiit and its tributaries, as well as with a view to illustrate the Line of Boundary in that <|uarter resprctively claimed by Great Britain and the United States, we refer to the following documents hereto annexed. 1st. The Report and Survey of the British Astronomer, who was appointed by tin; Com- missioners (uider the 5th Article of the Treaty o^ Ghent to survey the district at the extreme head of the River Connecticut. The accuracy of that Report and Survey has been acknowledged by the Americana themselves. 2dly. The British transcript of the map A, already adduced in evidence. In that tran- script, the whole tract in dispute will be found laid down exactly according to the survey above mentioned, together with the adjoining parts of the Line of Boundary. 8dly. A grant of land made in the year 1789 by the State of New Hampshire to Dartmouth College*, in whicli the land granted is expressly deNcribrd as being wholly " bounded by Connecticut River" on one side. The said land extends, however, along the river, above the mouth of Indian Stream. Therefore this document proves, by Anu'ricnn authority, that this river is distinguished by the name of Connecticut in thut |iart of its course, and con.siderably above the mouth of Hall's stream, which, as we have seen, is claimed by the United States, as containing tlic true north-westcnimost head of Connecticut River. To elucidate the precise position of this grant, we offer in evidence a map of New Elngland, published in 1826, by Nathaii Hale, an American citizen, in which the limits of tlic grant are laid down. W(! must observe, however, that we adduce this map, simply in illustration of that in- dividual |)oint, and by no means in support of the general claim of Great Britain in tliat quar- ter, however powerfully it might, in various |)anicular8, be found to corroborate tliat claim ; for we hold map evidence, on citluT side, to be altogether incompetent to enter into the decision of any question of contested Boundary, such maps olone excepted, as have been admitted as fit to be annexrd to the Convention of the 29tli of September, 1827, for the pur- poses then-in specially declared. Before we quit this branch of dilference, wo think it not inexpedient to mention, that the American Commisssioner and Agent under the 5tli article of the Treaty of Ghent, were actually at variance, as to the precise point at which the north-westernmost head of Connec- ticut River ought to be established ; the latter having declared for " Hall's Stream," ihe former for •' Indian Stream." In proof of that variance, an Extract from the Report of the Coinmiiisioner of the United States is hereto annexed. Jt will be SUCH, by inspecting the maii A, that the American Government have 37 adopted the vieWR of their kffent, in preference to those of their CoininiiiHioiicr, by uilheriiif? j;^;;;!'',,]^*^;^" to " Hail's Stream" as their Houndnry now claimrtl. t^mnwu. m ai- It may also be cxjiedicnt to invite particiilnr attention to the circumstance of the old parallel of 45" north latitude having l)cen discovered to be erroneously Inid down half a mile to the north of the true latitude on the Kiver Oonnceticut. We advert to this fact more pnrticidarly, because the old parallel, in its course from the west, crosses Hall's Btream above its junction with the (/'oiinecticut Ilivcr, and strikes the latter at a spot where a land mark was ])iaced in 1772, ns evidence of the Houndnry be- tween the then liritish Provinces of (|uebcc and New York. We shall see hereafter, in diHciissing the third brnnch of ditferenee between (! rent Britain and the United States, that the United HtateH object to tiie /(mtral rectilication ot the Boundary Line along the parallel of 46" north latitude from the Ooniieeticut to the St. Lawrence. If, however, they apply that objection to the point of (K-partiire of (but purnllel on the River Connecticut, yet still maintain their claim to " Hall's .S'f ream," oh coriluiniiix the north-westernmost head of the (/'onneeticut, it is manifest that the liine of liouiidary cliiiuu-d by them can never strike the real (Connecticut at all, but must Ntop Khort iit I liiir.s Stream ; since it is only by adopting the rectified parallel of latitude, that the mouth of Ilidl's Striuin can be made to join the Connecticut above that latitude. A reference to the Mup A will ut once elucidate this |K>int. On all the grounds above adduced (>rcat Kritnin cluimx that the north-westernmoNt head of Connecticut River, as designated in the Treulies, be established at the source of the north-westernmost stream, which (lows into the uppermost uf the lakes, which are above Connecticut Lake, that {toint being the north-westcrnnu)st head of waters tributary to the said Connecticut Luke, up to wliieh the Connecticut River is known by that distinctive title : and that from thence the line of boundary be traced " down along the mir 45 w iN. Ittuiiulft Apptndii, No, 1», p. U. L OottodAfjr Line Irvm the River Oonneciiont to the Bivei at. LewrenceeJonff tke pualM «f ApModii, No-^o, c, p. ca " d, p. M. " », p. ea 38 " Gominiggioners * » * * * g^^j/ gg^g ^]^g Boundary aforesaid, from the source of the " River St. Croix to the River Iroquois, or Cataraguy, to be surveyed and marked according "to the said provisions." The Treaty of 1783, already cited above, provides, with reference to the point now under consideration, that the line between the British and American Possessions shall be described by a line drawn from the 45th degree of north latitude on Connecticut River, " due west on said latitude, until it strikes the River Iroquois or Cataraguy (6t. Lawrence.)" Of these phiin and explicit stipulations Great Britain simply desires the strict and faithful execution. As it may appear singular that upon a provision so clear and intelligible any question should have arisen, it will be necessary to explain the proceedings which have already taken place relative to this matter between the British and Aitierican Commission- ers who were appointed under the dth Article of the Treaty of Ghent to carry that provision into effect. In the year 1818 the Commissioners under the 5th Article of the Treaty of Ghent, having already executed some portion of the general task assigned to them, in the direc- tion of the River St. Croix, proceeded to order their respective astronomers to ascertain in concert various points of that part of the Boundary Line which is provided by Treaty to extend along the parallel of 45" north latitude, from the River Connecticut to the River St Lawrence. In the expediency, as well as in the mode, of executing that service, both the Commis- sioners fully concurred ; and an instruction to the astronomers was accordingly drawn up to the following effect : " That* on the arrival of Mr. Hassler, (the American astronomer) the astronomers " of the respective Governments should proceed with the least possible delay to ascertain the " point where the parallel of 45" of north latitude continued due west from Connecticut " River, will strike the River Iroquois or Cataraguy (St. Lawrence) ; and after that should " be done, that they should proceed to ascertain the said parallel of latitude at such other " places between tin Uiver Iroquois or Cataraguy and Connecticut River, as should be ne- " cessary to an accurate survey of the Boundary Line upon that parallel of latitude, in con- " formity with the provisions of the 5th Article of the Treaty of Ghent, and of the 2d Article " of the Treaty of 1783 : and that the Agents of the respective Governments should furnish " to the Astronomers such further instructions, not inconsistent with that order, and also " such assistants and laborers, and provisions, and other articlas, as might be necessary to " carry that order into execution." This instruction proves that at tliat lime, at least, that is, prior to the commencement of the astronomical operations above mentioned, there existed no doubt in the mind of the American Commissioner as to the propriety of instituting such operations. The Astronomers appointed for that service, both of them men of first rate scientific acquirements, entered accordingly on the task assigned to them, and had actually accom- plished no inconsiderable portion of that task, by fixing the points of the true parallel of 46" north latitude on the St. Lawrence, and at several intermediate spots between that river and the Connecticut, when doubts appear to have entered into the minds of the American Commissioner and Agent as to the exjjediency of continuing those operations ; Eitruted from the Report of the British Commi«!ion«r under the 5th Article of the Treaty of Ghent. 39 Llue ver ConnMticut Ui the River St. Lawroneu, along and the effectual prosecution of this survey, notwithstanding the repeated representations f^^fj^'n'; of the British Commissioner, was firom that time suspended. A cursorr explanation of the circumstances which occurred relative to the actual xSH'^i&t'^ operations in the interval between their commencement and the period to which we have brought them down, will be highly necessary in order to clear up this proceeding. From the reports of the Astronomers it appeared that the old line had been found by them to be in many places more or less defective, being laid down sometimes to the south, and sometimes to the north of the true latitude; and at a certain spot called "Rouse's ** Point," near the outlet of Lake Champlain, where the old parallel was found to be unu- sually inaccurate, there happened to be an important American Fort which had been erected not long before at considerable expense, as a defence for that frontier. That fort, by the rectification of the Boundary Line, was clearly discovered to stand on British terri- tory, that is to the north of the true parrallel of 45° north latitude. Under these circumstances the American Agent put forth a proposition to the following effect. In an argument delivered by that gentleman before the Board of Commissioners in 1821, he contended that no fresh survey of such pai-ts of the Line of Boundary as had been already heretofore laid down as a Boundary between the Provinces of Quebec and New York, while yet both British, was contemplated by the provisions of the Treaties above cited, those parts being considered as already sufficiently ascertained ; but he asserted, that in those parts alone, where the line had not been already marked, a new survey was in- tended. The American Agent declared, at the same time, that if his view were not acqui- esced in by the Commissioners, and if the question were still considered as unsettled, he should in that case be compelled to require that the parallel of 45'' north latitude should be laid down according to what he termed the principles of " geocentric latitude;" as contra- distinguished from the generally received, or " observed latitude."* Thus the whole preceding part of the astronomical observations having been per- formed according to the universally adopted rules of geographical latitude, the American Agent threatened to require that it should all be executed over again according to a scheme never heard of as applied to practical geography. It may be sufficient to state cursorily in this place, that the practical effect of the substitution of geocentric for observed latitude, as demanded by the American Agent, would be to throw the parallel of 45° north latitude about thirteen miles farther to the north than the true parallel. In proof of the accuracy of the ■,■■! ve statement, we annex hereto ij/""""^'^' '"' the account of this proceeding, such as it is stated in th.. .icjwrt of the British Commis- sioner. An explanatory letter, written by the British Astronomer, is also annexed, in order Appendu.Ko to elucidate scientilically the question of geocentric latitude. With regard to the argument adduced on the part of the Ignited States in support of the parti not K littls (iDgfuUr, that the American Commuaioncr haa not thought fit in hi» Report (o pntn upon Ui« subject above discuued . The contingent claim, however, to the adjustment of the Boundary Line in question, on Uie iirineiplc! of Geocentric Latitude, which was put forth, ex officio, by the American .li^mt. never hnvinc; been di'uvnwrd, "'. retracted, must be considered as etill advanced, and in force. 40 ftr?'7H^.« '"''« '* impossible. The rectification of mh a line can be effected only by reducing all the Jh'e'lfml?'*"' defective portions thereof into the line which forms the true parallel of latitude. If, tbere- thfTSriTrterof* fore, the parts already laid down are to be abided by, heing defective, that rectification cannot be ettected so as to produce one continuous Boundary Line. The following illustration, assisted by au inspection of the map, will put this matter in a clear light. At the point at which the Line of Boundary along the parallel of 45° north latitude sets out from the Connecticut River, the old parallel is erroneous. At 8t. Regis, on the St. Lawrence, it is correct. If, therefore, these two parts of the line be prolonged indefinitely in opposite directions, they can never meet ; and a chasm must exist between the two where they ought to join. But in the Treaties there is no provision for filling up this chasm. They simply provide for one conlinuous line ; consequently, if the American construction of the intent of the Treaties were adopted, there would be no mean<> of connecting some portions of the line with the others,— the rectified with the unrectified ; and the general Line of Boun- dary from the Connecticut to the St. Lawrence, instead of presenting one continuous line, would be but a series of unconnected links of a chain, which, as far as existing Treaties are concerned, must ever remain dissevered. Upon all the grounds above stated. Great Britain founds her present claim relative to this branch of difference between her and the United States, which is — That the Line of Boundary along the parallel of 45° north latitude between the River Connecticut and the St. Lawrence, be, as provided by Treaty, now surveyed and marked out, and, having been so laid down afresh, that it henceforward form the true Boun- dary Line between the British and American Possessions in that quarter. • ■11" Nl IIP I ^.WlffifURn.! .IVJJM APPmiDZZ TO BAXnSB 8T ATSDMDNT. TOPOGRAPHICAL EVIDENCE. 2- 3. 4. mi { A. Official Map, entitled the Map A, annexed lo the Convention of 3dth September, 1827. A a. British unofficial transcript of the said map A. B. Mitchell's Map of North America, annexed to the Convention of 29th September, 1827. C. Hale's Map of New England. D. Atlas annexed to the Report of the British Commissioner, under the 6th article of the Treaty of 24tb December, 1814. 1. Mr. Johnson's North Line — 1. Col. Bouchette's North Line — 1. Mr. Johnson's North Line — 2. Mr. Odell's North Line— 2. Captain Partridge's Section of Madawaskn River. Ditto from Point Levi to Hallowell. Ditto of the Orand Portage. Ditto of Mars Hill. Ditto Survey of the Restock River. 7. Mr. Odell's Survey of the Restock, with a Sketch of the country, as viewed from Mars Hill and the vicinity of Houlton. 8. Mr. Hunter's Survey of the Aliguash River. 9. Ditto Penobscot. IstPart 10. Ditto Penobscot. 2d Part. 11. Streams tributary to Connecticut River, by Mr. Burnham. 12. Map of Connecticut River, by Dr. Tiarks 13. Mr. Bumham's Survey of the Source of Beaver Stream. 14. Ditto Tuladi River. 15. Dr. Tiarks' .Sources of Green and Tuladi Rivers. IG. Mr. Loring's Per.;l>scot River. 17. Ditto Mojse River. 18. Mr. Campbell's Sketch of the Height of Land annexed to Mr. Odell's Report of the Survey of 1819. Mr. Hunter's Survey of the river St. John. Mr. Loss's Ditto Ditto Mr. Partri(%e's Ditto Chaudiere River. Mr. Carlile's Ditto Ditto Mr. Bumham's Ditto Ouclle. Mr. Carlile's Ditto Ditto Mr. Bumham's Ditto - Du Loup. Mr. Carlile's Ditto Ditto Extract from Carrigain's Map of New Hampshire. 28. Extract from Mitchell's Map. 29. Colonel Bouchette's Plan, shewing the different Lines considered as the Parallel of 45 Degrees, north Latitude. General corrected Copy from Mitchell's Map. GrecnlesTs Map of the District of Maine. Colonel Bouchette's Barometric.tl Section. 33. Mr. Collins' Plan of Line on the Latitude of 45 Degrees N., run between the Provinces of Quebec and New York. n I 1 1 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. :)0. 91. 32. I ■itjVHVanpp^^iPMiiii .^nip*.iiivi 42 WRITTEN AND PRINTED EVIDENCE. I. (.'onvontionof 'iOth September, 1827, between Great BriUiinuml the United States. '■!. 'I'roiiiyor 3(1 Seplember, 17ba, between Great Britain and the United Stales. J. Treaty of 2'llb Ueceuibcr, 1UI4, between Great Britain and the United States. 4. A(lul|>hu9' Uistury of the Rei^u of George 111. Chap. 43. 5. (irant of Novii Scotia by J.inu's I. to Sir W. Alexander in 1G21' 0. Extracts from t'ownalls'si Topographical Description of the middle British American Co1onie:>. 7. Koyal Proclamation of 17G3. i). Extracts from the "Secret Journals of the Acts and Proceedings of Congress, tic." published in 18'2l, under the direction of the President of the United States coolbrmably to resolution of Congress. !), Calculation by Dr. Tiarks, the British Astronomer, of the loss which would accrue to Qrcnt Biitain by the adoption of the Lino of Boundary now claimed by the United S tales, as com- pared with that origtnatlij proposed by them in 1782. 10. Reports of the Surveyors and Astronomers under the 6th Article of the Treaty of Ghent. II. h'.xtracts from the reports of the British and American Commissioners respeclmg the line of Highlands claimed by the United States as their Line of Boundary, and also relative to certain propositions made on the part of Great Britain for a re-survey of some parts of the disputed Territory and for taking the depositions, on oath, of the persons who were employed in surveying that country, as to the accuracy of their respective Surveys. 12. Exfr.Tct from a letter addressed by Mr. Gallaliri, one of the Plenipotentiaries of the United States for negociating the Treaty of Ghent, to the American Secretary of State, dated Ghent, 25th December, 1014; extriicted from some papers relative to that negociation sub- mitted to Congress by the President of the United States, on the 2l8t February, 1822. 13. Concession of the /7e/'o/ JV/a(/osHjAa to the Children of the Sieur de la Chenayc, 25th November, Iti83; and concession to the said Sieur dc la Chenayc, and to the Sieur de Ville- ray, of laud lying between their former consescions, 6th April, 1(389. 14. Adjudication of the Fiefs of revierc du Loup and Madawaska to Joseph Blondeau, dit la Franchise, 29th Octolier, 1709. 13. Act of " Fui ft Hommage" by Joseph Blondeau for the Fiefs of Reviere du Loup and Mada- waska, I3th February, 1723. IG. Avpu et Dpnombremcnl by Joseph Blondeau, 16th February, 1723. 17. Adjudication of the Fiefs of Reviere du Loup and Madawaska, to Pierre Claverie, 29th July, 1756 18. .\ct of "'/■'oi et Hommage" bv Pierre Claverie for the Fiefs of Riviere du Loup, and Madawas- ka, 19th March, 175G. 19. Receipt for the Domanial Dues for the Fiefs of Riviere du Loup and Madawaska, 8th May, 1756. 20. Deed of Sale by J. A. N. Dandamme Donsville, and his wife, (the widow of Pierre Claverie,) to James Murray, 20th July, 1763. 21. Deed of Assignment dated 2d August, I7G8, by Richard Murray to Malcolm Fraser, of an In- denture of Lease, dated lUtb May, 1766, made by James Murray to the said Richard Murray and Malcolm Fraser; and an Indenture of Lease of the said General James Murray to Henry Caldwell, dated 7th April, 1774. 22. Lease from Henry Caldwell, to Malcolm Fraser, 24th September, 1782. 23. Confirmation before a Notary, 27th December, 1786, of Lease from Henry Caldwell to Malcolm Fraser, 24th September, 1782. 24. Deed of S.ilc, from the Trustees and Executors of James Murray, to Henry Caldwell, 21st June. 1802. 25 Deed of sale by Henry Caldwell to Alexander Fraser, 2d August, 1802. 26. Indictment of Charles Nichau Noite, a native Indian, for a Murder committed at Madawaska, in the Court of King's Bench at Quebec, 2d November, 1784. 27. Extract from the minutes of the Executive Council of the Province of Quebec, relating to the mode of executing Charles Nichau Noite, 3d November, 1784. 28. Extracts from the Quebec Gazette, viz: 1st. From the Gazette of .0th November, 1791; of a Sheriff's Notice of the Sale of Lands of Pierre Duperrj. at Madawaska, at the suit of Anselmc and Michael Robi- chaud. 2d. From the Gazette of 24tb of January, 1766; of a Notice from the Provincial Secretary's Othce, dated 19tb January, 1766, forbidding the Can.idian Inhabitants from inteH. ring with the Hunting Grounds of the Indians, down to the Great FcUli of the Hivtr St. John. 43 29 30 31, 32 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. .38. 4(1. 41 42. 43. 44, ^^'I'.Z nI'^T? 1 >/'!]. November. 1784; of the account of the execution «t '-"•"•lesNichuuNoitc. the Indian condeniiiedtbr II MurcU-r lit AI,„i:,wi,«k, • !:.X''mKr;?n'r"™ "' ^"^''^'^' ^•""■"^"^'-^ '^"'«^pi-ber. neo, ■ STeI;:ufRo'!i:tn[d;':nr5!""" <^--">'-'»>«P-inceof qud-ec. relaUvcto E«rnct» from the minutes of the Executive Council of the province of Quebec, iilh July, Extjact from the Minute, of the ExecuUve Council of the Province of Quebec, 4th Auguit, Exirnct from n List of the Parishes in the Province of Quebec, contained in the minutes of vhe Executive Council of that Province for the year 1791 K...port of Mr. Barrell (the special American Agent) relative to the settloment of W. daw .ska, ?h'"rn„'l"'°'''''''."*.-M''°"D'''''"''''y:'''s!''''^''''"'''''^'''''''''" 'f"* Madawaska Settlement, by the Government o( New Brunswick dated 1st October, 17P0. ' Grant to Pierre Duperrd. dated llth June, 1790. Grant to Joseph Souci and twenty-six others, dated 2d Augint, 1794. Rrl'ZL^'J''*' ""t'i "^ i"^" al^Z "' ";'■ "'"• "'' "^« ^"P'"*""^ C""" »<■ ^'^ Province of New Brunswick, on Thursday, 8th May, iHSifi, for conspiracy. ^ini'h'I'J! ^'T "*! ?"^T "' "'* ^"''*'^ ^""•=*' '<"■ ">« ye"" 1810 and 18S0, published by authority ot an Act of Congress. ' •' Grant of Land to Dartmouth College. Extract of the Reporv of the Commis.xioner of the United States, under the 6th Artirle of the Treaty of December 24, 1814, relative to the difier.^nce of opinion b.:i«. ,., h,n .-.lal li.e Stream"" ^^"'' "'"""''S'""'' '" ^"'"S '•'^ Boundary of the United Slatt.o nn KrII s ,., Inc'.un rlVnf'f/T *^ ?o?7'A "'" '^^ ^'J''*'' "•"' American Commissimrr.. nrrier (he Cth Arti- UiuSl f ,u^ of 241h December, 1814, rolative to the Survey ofthe parallel of 45" north latitude, from the River Connecticut to the Kiver St. Lawrence. Letter from Dr Tiarks in cxpl.ination of Groomtric Latitude Observations on the pin of Great Britain, on the American separate Trar<.rrinf of the o.ap. A, and on the engraved maps rommunirated as evidcnrc nn the pan t.f ih, United f'U-.Ja mademsonftrmity with the 4th Article ofthe Convention of the 29th September, 1827! • W^P^'"*" *1 T""-.Ni ■ II" "li" HW lUP" m-wr—