IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 ^O 
 
 ^ *^% 
 
 .V^ 
 
 ^- ^'^^^ 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 |5o ^^" l!MH 
 
 ■^ 1^ 1 2.2 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 1.25 1.4 |i.6 
 
 
 4 6" 
 
 ► 
 
 ^ 
 
 71 
 
 /: 
 
 
 V 
 
 /A 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sdences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. MS80 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 

 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommag6e 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurde et/ou peliicuiie 
 
 I I Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 □ Coloured maps/ 
 Cartes g6ographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relid avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La re liure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intirieure 
 
 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 ajoutdes 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 filmies. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl^mentalres; 
 
 The 
 toth 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la methods normale de filmage 
 sont indiquds ci-dessous. 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 v/ 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicui^es 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqu6es 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages d6tach6es 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 The 
 posi 
 of t^ 
 filmi 
 
 Orig 
 begi 
 the! 
 sion 
 othe 
 first 
 sion 
 or ill 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 Quality indgale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel supplimentaire 
 
 The 
 shall 
 TINl 
 whi( 
 
 Map 
 difffl 
 entii 
 begi 
 righi 
 requ 
 metl 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont dt6 fiimdes d nouveau de fapon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est f ilmd au taux de reduction indiqui ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here het been reproduced thenke 
 to the generoeity of: 
 
 Library of the Public 
 Archives of Canada 
 
 L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grAce A la 
 gAnAroeitA de: 
 
 La bibiiothdque des Archives 
 publiques du Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Les images suivantes on<l 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin. compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire fiim6. et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back wover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimte sont filmis en commen9ant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 derniire page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration. soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont film6s en commen9ant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la derniire page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — »• (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaTtra sur la 
 derniAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbols —^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent Atre 
 filmte d des taux de reduction diff6rents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre 
 reproduit en un seul clichA, il est filmA A partir 
 de Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche d droite. 
 et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre 
 d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
TJf 
 
 ^\m tf 
 
BRIEF HISTORY 
 
 OF THKt 
 
 UNITED STATES BOUNDARY QUESTION. 
 
 DRAWN UP FROM OFFICIAL PAPERS. 
 By G. p. R. JAMES, Esq. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 SAUNDERS AND OTLEY, CONDUIT STREET. 
 
 1839. 
 
 y- 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The following sketch was first written as a 
 note, upon a part of the register kept by Mr. 
 James as Historiographer. Finding that many 
 persons, even personally interested in the settle- 
 ment of the Boundary Question, were unac- 
 quainted with the early transactions concerning 
 it, and had neither time nor opportunity to 
 wade through the mass of documents connected 
 with the question, the author has ventured to 
 publish in this form the brief summary then 
 written, believing that it might prove useful 
 to some. He has also ventured to suggest in a 
 NOTE at the end, what he believes to be the only 
 means by which a fair settlement of the question 
 could be really arrived at. 
 
 4 
 
 LONDON 
 
 PRINTKn BY BLATCII AND l.AMl'ERT, GKOVK PLACK, BROMPTON. 
 
BRIEF HISTORY, 
 
 cj-C. 
 
 Tim disputed points regarding the limits of 
 certain possessions of the Crown of Great Bri- 
 tain on the Continent of America, and the Re- 
 pubh'c of the United States, dating from a 
 period considerably anterior to the reign of Her 
 Majesty Queen Victoria, it may be necessary 
 briefly to state the facts which had previously 
 occurred affecting that question, in order that 
 the present state of the case may be clearly un- 
 derstood.* In the famous treaty of 1783 between 
 the King of Great Britain and the United States 
 It became necessary to define the respective 
 limits of that country, which had claimed and 
 established its independence of Great Britain, 
 
 * The wl.ole of this sketch having been drawn up as a 
 note upon the register of remarkable events, which I kept as 
 H^tonographer. during part of Her present Majesty's reign, 
 I have not thought fit to alter the above sentence. 
 
 b2 
 
and of tliojso tt'iritoriea adjacent which remained 
 subject to the Crown of Great Britain. 
 
 The definition of boundaries has always been 
 extremely difficult in continental states; and 
 in the present instance the terms made use of 
 were so vague, and the various points along 
 which the line was to be carried were so ill 
 ascertained, that thirty-one years afterwards 
 several most important points of dispute re- 
 mained unsettled, and various islands in the bay 
 of Fundy, together with a large tract of terri- 
 tory on the Continent of America, were claimed 
 by the United States on the one hand as pari of 
 the Republican possessions, and by Great Bri- 
 tain on the other as part of British America 
 according to ihe true meaning of the treaty of 
 1783. The clauses in that treaty affecting the 
 question in dispute, were as follows : — 
 
 I 
 
 % 
 
 *' Article 1 1. 
 " And ihat 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 be their boundaries, viz. — From the north- 
 west angle of Nova Scotia, viz. that angle which 
 is formed by a line drawn due north from the 
 source of St. Croix river to the highlands, along 
 
 i J 
 
the said highlands which divide those rivers that 
 empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, 
 from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, 
 to the north-westernmost head of Connecticut 
 river ; thence down along the middle of that 
 river, to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude : 
 from thence by a line due west on said latitude 
 until it strikes the river Iroquois or Cataraquy ; 
 thence along the middle of said river, into Lake 
 Ontario ; through the middle of said Lake, until 
 it strikes the communication by water between 
 that Lake and Lake Erie ; thence along the 
 middle of said communication into Lake Erie ; 
 through the middle of said Lake, until it arrives 
 at the water-communication between that Lake 
 and Lake Huron ; theiioe along the middle of 
 said water-commun 'cation into the Lake Huron ; 
 thence through the middle of said Lake to the 
 water-communication between that Lake and 
 Lake Superior; thence ■ / 3Ugh Lake Superior, 
 northward of the Isles Royal and Phelipeaux, 
 to the Long Lake ; thence through the middle 
 of said Long Lake, and the water-communica- 
 tion between it and the Lake of the Woods, to 
 the said Lake of the Woods ; thence through 
 the said Lake to the most north-western point 
 thereof, and from thence on a due west course 
 to the river Mississippi ; thence by a line to be 
 
e 
 
 drawn alonjr the middle of the said river Mis- 
 sissippi, until itshaP intersect the northernmost 
 part of the tiiirty-first dejj^reo of north latitude : 
 — South, hy a line to bo drawn due east from 
 the (Ictcrmination of the line last mentioned, in 
 the latitude of thirty-one den^recs north of the 
 Equator, to the middle of the river Apalachicola 
 or Catahouche; thence along the middle thereof, 
 to its junction with the Flint river ; thence 
 strjiight to the head of St. Marys river, and 
 thence down along the middh* of St, Mary's river 
 to the Atlantic Ocean : — East, bv a line to be 
 drawn along the middle of the river St. Croix, 
 from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its 
 source ; and from its source directly north to 
 the aforesaid highlands, which divide the rivers 
 that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those 
 which fall into the St. Lawrence ; comprehend- 
 ing all Islands within twenty leagues of any 
 part of the shores of the United States, and 
 lying between lines to be drawn due East 
 from the points where the aforesaid boundaries 
 between Nova Scotia on the one part, and East 
 Florida on the other, shall respectively touch 
 the Bay of Fundy, and the Atlantic Ocean : 
 excepting such Islands as now are, or heretofore 
 have been, within the limits of the said province 
 of Nova Scotia."' 
 
 I 
 
On tlie termination of the general war in 1814, 
 a new treaty was entered into between the 
 United States and the Kinj^ of Great Britain, 
 and signed at Ghent on the •24th of December, 
 1814, which is known by the name of the Treaty 
 of (ihent. 
 
 In that treaty some parts of the boundary 
 definitions of the treaty of 1783 were set forth, 
 and the differences between the two states in 
 regard to the interpretation of those definitions 
 were briefly stated, especially regarding the 
 islands in the Bay of Fundy, respecting which 
 the claims of the several states were very clearly 
 explained. In regard to the boundary line on 
 the Continent from the source of the river St. 
 Croix to a certain point on the river Iroquois, 
 it was stated, that a survey had not been made, 
 and that several important points in that line 
 had not been determined. 
 
 The question regarding these boundaries and 
 possessions, and the proposed means to be adopted 
 for removing existing difficulties, were comprized 
 in the fourth and fifth articles of the Treaty of 
 Ghent. The IVth Article referred alone to the 
 islands in the Bay of Fundy ; but after a statement 
 of the difi'erences, that article provides that " in 
 order, therefore, finally to decide upon these 
 claims, it is agreed that they should be referred 
 
 Wl^M*,^'-.. 
 
to two Commissioners, to be appointed in the 
 foUowinir manner, viz. — One Commissioner 
 shall be appointed by his Britannic Majesty, 
 and one by the President of the United States, 
 by and with tlie advice and consent of the Senate 
 thereof; and the said two Commissioners so ap- 
 pointed shall be sworn impartially to examine 
 and decide upon the said claims, according to 
 such evidence as shall be laid before them, on 
 the part of His Britannic Majesty and of the 
 United States respectively. The said Commis- 
 sioners shall meet at St. Andrew's, in the pro- 
 vince of New Brunswick, and shall have power 
 to adjourn to such other place or places as they 
 shall think fit. The said Commissioners shall, 
 by a declaration or report, under their hands 
 and seals, decide to which of the two Contract- 
 ing parties the several Islands aforesaid do 
 respectively belong, in conformity with the true 
 intent of the said treaty of peace of 1783; and 
 if the said Commissioners shall agree in their 
 decision, both parties shall consider such decision 
 as final and conclusive. 
 
 '* It is further agreed, that in the event of the 
 two Commissioners differing upon all or any of 
 the matters so referred to them, or in the event 
 of both or either of the said Commissioners 
 refusing or declining, or wilfully omitting to 
 
 i 
 
 'a; 
 
 <m\» ir 
 
 aflSir' 
 

 
 act as such, tliey shall make jointly or separately 
 a Heport or Reports as well to the Government of 
 His Britannic Majesty as to that of the United 
 States, stdt'iiKj in detail the jx/mts on which they 
 differ, and the (jionnds upon which their respective 
 opinions have been formed, or the grounds umoii 
 whi(;h they or either of them have so refused, 
 declined, or omitted to act. And His Britannic 
 Majesty and the (Jovernment of the United 
 States Iierehy agree to refer the Report or Reports 
 of the said Commissioners to some fricndhj sovereign 
 or state to be then named for that purpose, and 
 who shall be requested to decide on the differences 
 which mat/ be stated in the said Report or Reports^ 
 or upon the Re|)ort of one Commissioner, toge- 
 ther with the grounds on which the other Com- 
 missioner shall have refused, declined, or 
 omitted to act as the case may be. And if the 
 Commissioner so refusing, declining, or omitting 
 to act, shall also wilfully omit to state the 
 grounds upon which he has so done, in such 
 manner that the statement may be referred to 
 such friendly Sovereign or State, together with 
 the Report of such other Commissioners, then 
 such Sovereign or State shall decide, ex-parte 
 upon the said Report alone, and His Britannic 
 Majesty and the Government of the United States 
 engage to consider the decision of such friendly 
 
 i 
 
10 
 
 Sovereign oi State to be final and conclusive on all 
 the matters so referred.''* 
 
 The Vth Article relates to the continental 
 boundary line, and is to the following effect. 
 "Whereas neither that point of the Highlands 
 lying due North from the source of tlie river St. 
 Croix, designated in the former treaty of peace 
 between the two powers as the North West angle 
 of Nova Scotia, near the North Westernmost 
 head of Connecticut river, have yet been ascer- 
 tained ; and whereas that part of the boundary 
 line betwen the dominions of the two powers, 
 which extends from the sou: ^e of the river St. 
 Croix, directly North to th above mentioned 
 North West angle of Nova Sc tia, thence along 
 the said Highlands Vvhicli di de those rivers 
 that empty themselves into t e river St. Law- 
 rence, from those which fall nto the Atlantic 
 Ocean, to the North Western lost head of Con- 
 necticut river, thence down along the middle of 
 that river to the 45th degree of North Latitude, 
 thence by a line due West on the said latitude 
 until it strikes the river Iroquois, or Cataraquy, 
 has not yet been surveyed, it is agreed that for 
 the several purposes two Commissioners shall be 
 
 *This article IV, is decidedly the most important as far as 
 the question of reference is concerned; as it in fact defines ex- 
 actly the powers of the arbitrators ; the Vth Article referring 
 entirely to it. 
 
 A)» ir 
 
11 
 
 appointed, sworn, and authorized, to act ex- 
 actly in the manner directed witli respect to 
 those mentioned in the next preceding* article. 
 The said Commissioners shall meet at St. An- 
 drew's, in the province of New Brunswick, and 
 shall have power to adjourn to such other place 
 or places as they shall think fit. The said Com- 
 missioners shall have power to ascertain and de- 
 termine the points above mentioned in confor- 
 mity with the provisions of the said treaty of 
 peace in 1783; and shall cause the Boundary 
 aforesaid, from the source of the river St. 
 Croix, to the river Iroquois or Cataraquy, to 
 be surveyed and marked according to the said 
 provisions; the said Commissioners shall make a 
 map of the said Boundary, and particularizing 
 the Latitude and Longitude of the North West 
 angle of Nora Scotia, of the North Westernmost 
 head of Connecticut river, and of such other 
 points of the said Boundary as they may deem 
 proper. And both parties agree to consider 
 such Map and declaration as finally and con- 
 clusively fixing the said Boundary. And in the 
 event of the said two Commissioners differing, 
 or both or either of them refusing, declining, 
 or wilfully omitting to act, such Reports, De- 
 clarations or statements shall be made by them, 
 or oither of them, and such reference to a 
 
12 
 
 friendly Sovereign or State shall be made in all 
 respects, as in the latter part of the fourth ar- 
 ticle is contained, and in as full a manner as if 
 the same was herein repeated." 
 
 Increasing difficulties, and the improbability 
 of ever arriving at any definite conclusion, by 
 the Reports of Commissioners, induced the 
 Governments of Great Britain and the United 
 States to refer the question of the boundary 
 line to the King of the Netherlands, according 
 to the terms of the two articles above cited, and 
 a map containing the boundary lines as claimed 
 by Great Britain and the United States, as 
 well as a map used in the formation of the 
 Treaty of 1783, and called Mitchel's map; 
 were appointed to be received in evidence by 
 the arbitrater. 
 
 In the convention of reference signed at 
 London, on the 29th of September, 1827, 
 the 1st Article states, "It is agreed that 
 the points of difference which have arisen 
 in the settlement of the Boundary between the 
 British and the American dominions, as described 
 in the fifth article of the Treaty of Ghent* shall 
 
 * No one viewing the question with common fairness, 
 can doubt what was the true meaning of these words ; espe- 
 cially when it is remembered, that many of the questions 
 in agitation, at the time of the ratification of the treaty of 
 
 4M\ • *r 
 
'<3 
 
 13 
 
 be referred as therein provided to some friendh' 
 Sovereign or State, who shall be invited to 
 investigate, and make a decision upon such 
 points of difference ;" and in the seventh article 
 it is declared that, " The decision of the arbiter 
 when given shall be taken as final and con- 
 clusive, and it shall be carried without reserve 
 into immediate effect by Commissioners ap- 
 pointed for that purpose by the Contracting 
 Parties." 
 
 These are the only words made use of in 
 any of the treaties or articles of reference, 
 which define the question that was to be referred 
 to arbitration ; and it is upon some pretended 
 want of precision on this point, that the 
 United States founded their resistance to the 
 decision of the King of the Netherlands. 
 
 That Monarch bestowed great and scrupulous 
 
 Ghent, had been set at rest before the signature of the con- 
 vention of reference ; and that it was therefore necessary 
 to point out distinctly, that the part of the boundary to be 
 decided upon, was that referred to in the Vth article of the 
 treaty of Ghent. It is a great pity that in drawing up the 
 convention, the good old English form of locution had not 
 been adhered to, and then the article might have stood thus : 
 "It is agreed that the points of difference which have arisen 
 in settling that part of the boundary, between the British 
 and American dominions, described in the fifth article of the 
 treat v of Ghent." 
 
14 
 
 pains on the investigatiion of the facts, and at 
 length gave his decision at the Hague, on the 10th 
 of January, 1831. By that decision the King 
 of the Netherlands declared that neither of 
 the two lines, claimed respectively by Great 
 Britain and America, were the line of boun- 
 dary intended by the Treaty of 1783 ; that 
 various points mentioned in that treaty could 
 not by any possibility be obtained geogra- 
 phically, or historically ; and that the line of 
 Boundary by his decision should be such as he 
 traced upon the maps submitted to him, whicli 
 line was considerably more in favor of the 
 American claim than of the British claim. 
 
 Great Britiin expressed her determination to 
 submit at once to the decision of the King of 
 the Netherlands. The Minister of the United 
 States, however, at the Court of the Hague, in- 
 stantly protested against that decision, contend- 
 ing, that the King of the Netherlands had arbi- 
 trated on a matter not submitted to his arbitra- 
 tion, and asserting that the sole question submitted 
 to arbitration by the convention of September 
 1827, was the definition of the line intended by 
 the treaty of J 783, and that no authority what- 
 soever was conferred upon the Arbiter to assign 
 any other boundary whatsoever than that. 
 The articles which we have cited from the con- 
 
 v-ITi 
 
 m 
 
15 
 
 vention of arbitration, are the only ones which 
 fix in any degree the powers of the Arbitrator ; 
 and by these it will be found that the powers 
 conferred were general, and by no means so 
 distinctly limited as the American minister as- 
 sumes , so that very little doubt can exist that 
 the real intention of the Plenipotentiaries, by 
 whom the Convention of Reference was signed, 
 was to refer the whole matter in dispute to ar- 
 bitration, and not to limit the functions of the 
 arbiter to the settlement of certain abstract 
 geographical questions. 
 
 Now the question to be submitted to the ar- 
 bitration of a friendly power, as defined in the 
 fourth article of the treaty of Ghent,* (which 
 is declared by the fifth article to be the real 
 explanation of the clause of reference in that 
 fifth article also) does not state that it is certain 
 geographical points which are to be submitted 
 to arbitration ; but that it is the report or re- 
 ports of commissioners, previously appointed 
 by the fourth and fifth articles, which are to be 
 so submitted in case of difference, and it is in 
 regard to those reports, that the Arbiter is to 
 
 * It is in reality, as I have before said, by the IVth Article 
 of the treaty of Ghent, not the Vth, that the question is prin- 
 cipally affected, as it is by it that the manner and extent of the 
 arbitration is declared. 
 
16 
 
 decide; the United States and the King of 
 Great Britain hinding themselves to regard 
 his decision as conclusive in regard to all the 
 matters so referred : And hy the first article of 
 the Convention of Reference of September 1827, 
 it is declared, not that it is certain geographical 
 points which are to be determined abstractedly, 
 by the King of the Netherlands; but that "The 
 
 POIINTS OF DIFFERENCE WHICH HAVE ARISEN IN THE 
 SETTLEMENT OF THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE BRI- 
 TISH AND American dominions, as described in the 
 fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, shall he re- 
 f erred as therein provided;" which terms must 
 be intended to apply to all the points of difference 
 which had arisen since the treaty of 1783; the 
 words" as described in the fifth article of the treaty 
 of Ghent,"" being solely applicable by every rule 
 of grammar to the word boundary ; and there- 
 fore, the article left the term used ^^ points of 
 difference,"" in its~most extended signification: 
 while the seventh article of the Convention of 
 arbitration states, that " the decision of the ar- 
 biter, when given, shall be taken as final and 
 conclusive;" so that had the King of the Nether- 
 lands merely pronounced his arbitration with- 
 out explanation, in the words, " The boundary 
 line is such as I have drawn on the map," 
 America must have submitted, or broken faith. 
 
 
17 
 
 Mr. Preble liowcver, who had been sent to 
 the Court of the Netherlands as Minister of the 
 United States, a citizen of the State of Maine, 
 whose boundary was immediately in question, 
 and one, who throughout the whole affair, 
 took an active and decided part in uj)holding' 
 the claims of that State, protested as I have 
 said against the decision of the King, alledging 
 that the only question submitted to arbitration 
 was, what was the boundary prescribed by the 
 treaty of 1783. The government of Great Bri- 
 tain signified to the general Government of the 
 United States, its adhesion to the decision of 
 the King of the Netherlands, but in considera- 
 tion of the difficulties which were were likely 
 to arise from the protest of Mr. Preble, Lord 
 Palmerston empowered the Representative of 
 Great Britain at Washington, to hold out to the 
 Government of the United States, in a private 
 and informal manner, the prospect of some 
 amicable arrangement of the difficulties on 
 condition of the decision of the Kins; of the 
 Netherlands being absolutely and formally re- 
 ceived by the United States. 
 
 The President of the United States found 
 himself bound to submit the decision of the Kinor 
 of the Netherlands to the Senate for acceptance 
 or rejection. But he, at the same time, strongly 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 recommended that the award should be agreed 
 to. The question was submitted to the Com- 
 mittee on Foreign Relations, who recommended 
 that the President's views should be acceded to. 
 
 Mr. Preble returned to America while the 
 matter was under consideration : a declaration 
 was mr.de by the Senate that not less than two- 
 thirds of the votes should be considered as 
 finally decisive of the question, and the award 
 of the King of the Netherlands was consequently 
 rejected. 
 
 This result was notified to the British Repre- 
 sentative by Mr. Livingston, American Secre- 
 tary of State, who in his note upon the occasion 
 makes this important acknowledgment regard- 
 ing the line pointed out by the King of the 
 Netherlands, " If the decision had indicated this 
 line as the boundary designated by the Treaty 
 of 1783, this objection could not have been 
 urged." He then goes on to propose new 
 negotiations for determining the line, holding 
 out hopes of greater facilities in the arrange- 
 ments, which could not of course be relied upon 
 by those who had experienced the difficulty of 
 treating with a state, the executiv-^ Government 
 of which was so circumscribed in its powers. 
 He also put forth, as an appendage to the queSf 
 tion, an object long desired by the State of 
 Maine : namely, the right of navigating the 
 
19 
 
 river St. John, whicli he stated naturally to 
 combine itself with the negotiations he proposed. 
 In reference to these transactions, Lord Pal- 
 merston instructed Sir Charles Vaujrhan to 
 inform the American Government, that, in the 
 proposal of Mr. Livingston Great Britain saw 
 no probability of settling the question with- 
 out being certain of what was the principle of 
 the plan contemplated by the American Govern- 
 ment, and that without being assured that the 
 President of the United States would be em- 
 powered to carry any decision into effect, the 
 proposal could not be at all entertained. At the 
 aame time he distinctly refused to suffer the 
 question of the navigation of the river St. John 
 to be mixed up with the discussion of the Boun- 
 dary question. 
 
 Some negotiations then took place through 
 Mr. Vail, American charge d 'affaires in London, 
 Mr. Livingston, and Sir Charles Vaughan, 
 from which it became evident that no definite 
 basis of negotiation could be obtained, and 
 that instead of the negotiation on a broader 
 footing, which had been first suggested by Mr. 
 Livingston, America was inclined to recur to the 
 original disputed points of the Treaty of 1783. 
 
 The American Secretary of State however, pro- 
 posed a new Commission, accompanied by an 
 
 c 2 
 
'20 
 
 umpire, whose decision upon all the disputed 
 points which might arise between the Commis- 
 sioners of the two nations, should bo final. The 
 Representative of Great Britain gave no encou- 
 ragement to this idea of a new Commission, 
 which promised equal expense, and no results 
 more favourable than had been obtained by 
 former commissions ; and, in the end, shortly 
 before his resignation of office, Mr. Livingston 
 made explanations of the plan he proposed to be 
 pursued, in the hopes of obtaining a more fa- 
 vourable result from a Commission, which 
 explanations present one of the most extraordi- 
 nary points in the whole negotiation. Mr. 
 Livingston therein suggested that a line drawn 
 obliquely westward from the source of the 
 river St. Croix, might lead to the discovery of 
 Highlands within the terms of the Treaty of 
 1783, and might thus afford the Boundary. 
 Now what was the pretext upon which the Go- 
 vernment of the United States refused to receive 
 the award of the King of the Netherlands? — 
 That that decision was a departure from the 
 terms of the Treaty of 1783. What are the 
 terms of the treaty of 1783, on the very point 
 now proposed by Mr. Livingston ? — That the 
 line shall be drawn '* due-north from the 
 source of the River St. Croix." 
 
 This anomaly does not seem to have escaped 
 
 ■|*: 
 
31 
 
 Sir Charles Vaughan, though he does not appear 
 to have pressed it upon the American Govern- 
 ment ; and he contented liimsclfvvitli demanding 
 farther explanations as to where the line drawn 
 North West was to stop, asserting that every 
 thing tended to prove that the Boundary of the 
 Treaty of 178ii was merely imaginary, and 
 hinting that it was time to abandon both that 
 Boundary line and the line suggested by the 
 King of the Netherlands. The answer of the 
 President, however, put such a proceeding en- 
 tirely out of the question, the power of the 
 Central Government being so limited, and its 
 operations so fettered by the claims of ihe State 
 of Maine, that he could agree to no other devia- 
 tion than that proposed by Mr. Livingston. 
 
 The question now, howe 'er, was stripped by 
 the proposals of deviation on the part of America 
 (or rather might have been stripped) from all 
 pretended adherence to the exact terms of the 
 Treaty of 1783 ; and the real question became 
 to what deviation from that Treaty the State of 
 Maine would permit the federal Government to 
 consent.* 
 
 Another most important question remained, 
 but that was between the federal Government 
 
 * This is never to be forgotten, that America herself 
 
 HAS PROPOSED DEVIATIONS OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CHA- 
 RACTER FROM THE LINE PRESCRIBED BY THE TREATY OF 1783. 
 
92 
 
 and tlu! State of Maine : namely, what consti- 
 tutional power tliat State had so to limit the 
 authority of the federal (lovernment. The ques- 
 tion of the territory was in dispute, and had 
 heen so for years, with the general Government 
 of the United States, heforc Maine hecame one 
 of those States ; and, to the understanding of 
 most people, it would seem, that the mere fact 
 of Maine becoming one of the States by being 
 detached from Massachusets, while the terri- 
 tory originally in dispute was supposed to 
 belong to Massachusets, could give Maine no 
 claim to fetter the operations of the general Go- 
 verment in resrard to negotiations which had 
 commenced between tliat Government and 
 another State, before Maine was admitted as a 
 State at all. 
 
 Circumstances, however, and considerations, 
 in regard to which we have no power of deciding, 
 induced the President to act upon the objections 
 of Maine, as if constitutionally valid ; and in 
 the very first reply of Lord Palmerston addressed 
 to the American Government through Sir 
 Charles Vaughan, that Nobleman points out in 
 clear and explicit words, the idleness of pre- 
 tending to adhere strictly to one part of the treaty 
 of 1783, and to deviate from another; and tak- 
 ing into review the various points considered in 
 the award of the King of the Netherlands, toge- 
 
23 
 
 thtr with ijit 'eriiis of the reference to that 
 Prifice, Uti (lernands inasiruich as the only pretence 
 for nj/ 'titirr thataWiirrl wfistliat one of the points 
 was not truly deciilcMl at all, (liat the points tliat 
 the Kintr of tlie Nethcjrlands did aijsoliitclv and 
 clearly decide should be received by the Ameri- 
 can (jrovcrnment as determined ; and that satis- 
 factory proof should be given that the American 
 Government is possessed of the power to carry 
 into effect any determination to be produced by 
 subsequent negotiations. In regard to the first 
 demand, the American Government distinctly 
 refused to acquiesce ; and in regard to the second, 
 no satisfactory proof was given whatever that 
 the views of the President would not be over- 
 borne in all instances, as they had been in regard 
 to the award of the King of the Netherlands, by 
 the States of Maine and Massachusets. 
 
 In the course of the preceding discussions, a 
 new pretension had been put forth by the Ame- 
 rican Government, the American Secretary of 
 State boldly asserting that his Government had 
 constantly and pertinaciously insisted upon the 
 proposed line of Boundary being carried to tlie 
 North of the river St. John ; whereas, on the 
 contrary. Sir Charles Vaughan, in a luminous 
 summary of the proceedings, drawn up about this 
 time, shews that from the signature of the treaty 
 of 1783 up to 182'2, the American Government 
 
24 
 
 made no pretension whtitsoever to carry the 
 Boundary beyond tlie river St. John, while Eng"- 
 land ehiimed at least ten thousand square miles 
 on the south side of that river. 
 
 In the beginning of 1835, a strong disposition 
 was evinced on the part of the Representatives 
 of Maine and Massachusets in Congress, to throw 
 elements of irritation into the controversy, by 
 representing in loud and angry terms that the 
 Government of Great Britain was in forcible 
 possession of territories rightfully belonging to 
 the United States, and that aggressions had been 
 committed therein, by British authorities, upon 
 American citizens.* One of the Representatives 
 of the State of Massachusets demanded that the 
 correspondence between Great Britain and Ame- 
 rica on the question of the Boundary, and any 
 representations and correspondence between the 
 general Government and the provinces of Maine, 
 regarding the possession of the disputed territory 
 by Great Britain, should belaid before Congress. 
 
 On this demand the Secretary of State re- 
 ported, that it would be detrimental to lay the 
 
 * Two things will be remarked in regard to these points 
 now revived, first — that England has been in uninterrupted 
 possession up to the present day ; secondly — that the Ameri- 
 can Secretary of State, in his report to the President, dated 
 5th January, lSo5, admitted that an understanding did sub- 
 sist between the Government of Great Britain and the United 
 Statcf, regarding the possession of the disputed territory. 
 
 k 
 
25 
 
 late correspondence between Great Britain and 
 America before Congress ; that no complaints 
 had been made on the part of Maine, but that 
 complaints on the contrary had been made 
 of agg-ressions on the part of America. The 
 application therefore was refused, and the ques- 
 tion remained between the two Governments, 
 the Government of the United States adherinjr 
 strenuously, notwithstanding all the sacrifices 
 offered by Great Britain, to the impracticable 
 plan of seeking according to the terms of the 
 Treaty of 1783, for Highlands, separating the 
 rivers which flow into the St. Lawrence from 
 those which flow into the Atlantic ; although 
 it had been shewn that the American Govern- 
 ment itself had at various times acknow- 
 ledged that such Highlands were totally 
 imaginary in the due North line from the 
 source of the river St. Croix, presented by the 
 Treaty of 1783. 
 
 This important fact had been admitted by 
 Mr. Madison, American Secretary of State, in 
 1802 ; by President Jefferson in 1803 ; had been 
 virtually acknowledged by the Commissioners 
 of inquiry in 1816; and had positively been 
 declared to be the case by the King of the 
 Netherlands, in 1831. 
 
 The only deviation from this impracticable 
 plan that had been suggested was, that the High- 
 
 \ 1 
 
'' i 
 
 26 
 
 t 
 
 M' 
 
 lands should be sought in a North Western, 
 instead of the Northern direction, which had been 
 directed by the terms of the Treaty, by which 
 America affected to be guided ; and this sug- 
 gestion was made by an American Secretary 
 of State. But this was coupled by an intima- 
 tion that the Highlands were to be sought at 
 any distance on that line Westward, so that 
 the pretensions which might have been raised 
 bv the United States were incalculable, and 
 the certainty of obtaining their great object of 
 crossing the St. John was very nearly obtained. 
 Such being the state of the question, and 
 England having shewn herself disposed to 
 make every sacrifice, in order to abide by the 
 decision of the Arbitrator which she had chosen ; 
 while America showed herself disposed to make 
 new demands from day to day, and only to 
 treat upon such vague and indefinite principles, 
 as promised to yield her future advantages ; 
 it appeared from some conversation which took 
 place between Sir Charles Vaughan, and Mr. 
 Forsyth, the American Secretary of State, that 
 the Government of the United States desired 
 and hoped, that notwithstanding the great 
 sacrifices already profferred on the part of Eng- 
 land, in agreeing to the award of the Arbitrator 
 at all. Great Britain should offer some compen- 
 sation to Maine for her accession to that award. 
 
 •'1 I 
 
 M 
 
27 
 
 In the reply of Lord Palmerston to the letters 
 of Sir Charles Vaughan, enclosing the preten- 
 sions of America as set forth by Mr. Forsyth, 
 no notice is taken of the above informal suff- 
 gestion ; but Lord Palmerston suggests, in the 
 first place, that the Commission of Survey pro- 
 posed by the American Government should be 
 instructed to search for Highlands separating 
 rivers in regard to the course of which into the 
 Atlantic or the St. Lawrence there could be no 
 doubt, inasmuch as the question as to whether 
 the Bay of Fundy or Chaleur Bay did or did 
 not form a part of the Atlantic, according to the 
 meaning of the Treaty of 1783, was contested. 
 In the second place, Lord Palmerston proposed, 
 in case of the rejection of the above, that the 
 disputed territory should be divided equally be- 
 tween Great Britain and America, giving as an 
 outline of the division that the Boundary should 
 be drawn due North from the source of the St. 
 St. Croix till it struck the St. John, then alono- 
 the course of that river to its southernmost 
 source, and thence in a direct line to the head 
 of the Connecticut river, the Northern division 
 of the territory thus separated remaining in the 
 possession of Great Britain, the Southern being 
 allotted to America. 
 
 Both these proposals were immediately rejected 
 by America ; Mr. Bankhead, then representing 
 
 I 
 
i I 
 
 in 
 
 . 28 
 
 Great Britain at Washington, declaring a counter 
 proposition made by the American Government 
 to consider the river St. John along the whole of 
 of its course, the boundary, to be utterly inad- 
 missible. Mr. Bankhead at the same time ex- 
 plained the first proposal of Lord Palmerston, 
 which had been rejected, by stating that the com- 
 mission of Survey was intended, as modified by 
 Lord Palmerston's proposal, not to decide upon 
 points of difference, but merely to present to the 
 respective Governments the result of their 
 labours. In reply to this, the President asked 
 several questions of no great importance, and 
 the correspondence on the subject appears to 
 have dropped from the 5tli of March 1836, till 
 the 29th of March 1837. 
 
 But in the meantime, some important events 
 had taken place in America. The Senate had 
 applied for the correspondence between the two 
 Governments since the arbitration of the King 
 of the Netherlands. Copies of the correspon- 
 dence had been furnished by the President, and 
 the Senate had ordered the correspondence to be 
 published, notwithstanding the strongest repre- 
 sentations of the President. The State of Maine 
 made application to the President to cause the 
 line of boundary to be run according to its own 
 interpretation of the Treaty of 1783, and the 
 appropriation of a sum of money granted by 
 
 >J 
 
29 
 
 Congress for the purpose of carrying that object 
 into effect. 
 
 The correspondence with England was re- 
 sumed by an application from Mr. Forsythe for 
 an answer to the proposal of the United States 
 to make the St. John the boundary, and Lord 
 Palmerston replied, strongly urging a conven- 
 tional line equally dividing the disputed terri- 
 tory. 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 N.B. From the above statement it will be seen 
 that although America rejected the arbitration 
 of the King of the Netherlands, on the pretence 
 that his decision was not in accordance with the 
 line prescribed by the treaty of 1783, she has 
 on various occasions proposed a direct deviation 
 from that line; and at the same .time has as- 
 sumed much indignation when Engfland has 
 proposed deviations not so well suited to the 
 views of Maine. 
 
 Although by no means fond of meddling with 
 any political discussions, I may be permitted per- 
 haps to say that there would seem to me to be a 
 very easy way of settling the differences on the 
 boundary question, supposing that there exists 
 good faith and moderation on both parts. No new 
 survey can have any good result, except upon 
 such conditions as will create an umpire between 
 
 \ 1 
 
30 
 
 tlie respective Commissioners of survey, and 
 render the limits agreed upon by the Commis- 
 sioners, together with the decision of tlie umpire 
 in regard to all contested points, binding on the 
 two states interested. The transactions which 
 accompanied the rejection of the division made 
 by the King of the Netherlands, prove that the 
 executive Government of the United States is 
 not entrusted with sufficient powers to eft'ect this 
 object ; and therefore it can only be brought 
 about by a treaty of survey and arbitration, 
 duly submitted to the constitutional bodies of 
 both States, and fully ratified by both before any 
 new attempt to define the boundary is made. 
 One of the articles of the treaty might thus de- 
 fine the objects of the survey, and the powers of 
 the umpire. 
 
 " It is agreed that two Commissioners be ap- 
 pointed in the following manner: that is to say ; 
 One Commissioner shall be appointed by Her 
 Britannic Majesty, and one by the President of 
 the United States, by and with the advice and 
 consent of the Senate thereof, and the said two 
 Commissioners so appointed shall be sworn im- 
 partially to examine and decide what is the 
 nearest possible approach which can Lo made to 
 the line of boundary described in the 5th article 
 of the treaty of Ghent, or to any part thereof 
 which yet remains to be decided, commencing 
 
 
 ik 
 
31 
 
 their survey at that point hetween the degrees 
 46 and 47 North Latitude, and 70 and 71 West 
 Longitude of Greenwich, or in any other spot, 
 where the boundary first appears unfixed and 
 indefinite. 
 
 "And it is hereby farther agreed, that in the 
 event of the two commissioners differing at any 
 point upon the directions of the boundary line, 
 which will afford the nearest possible approach 
 to that line described in the fifth article of the 
 treaty of Ghent, 'Hhey shall immediately draw 
 up a report, or reports, jointly, or separately, 
 of the point of difference between them, and 
 shall lay the same before the umpire, herein- 
 after named and appointed : and immediately 
 that the said umpire shall have notified his de- 
 cision upon the point of difference between the 
 two commissioners, and not till then, the two 
 commissioners shall proceed upon their survey, 
 adopting at once and without reply, the deci- 
 sion of the said umpire, to all intents and pur- 
 poses as if it had been made by themselves on 
 mutual consent, and shall draw and mark, out 
 the line of boundary accordingly ; and on any 
 fresh difference of opinion upon any point of the 
 said boundary line or upon the question of what 
 is the nearest possible approach to the line des- 
 cribed in the .5th article of the treaty of Ghent, 
 
 I I 
 
n i 
 
 32 
 
 the same course of reference to the umpire shall 
 be pursued, and liis decision shall be considered 
 as final by the said Commissioners ; and upon 
 all, and each, and every point of difference they 
 shall adopt the decision of the umpire as if 
 made by themselves, and instantly and without 
 hesitation proceed to mark out and fix the line 
 of boundary accordingly, till the whole shall be 
 completed. And her Britannic Majesty, and 
 the Government of the United States hereby 
 agree to regard the line of boundar-' thus drawn 
 out, to be to all intents and purposes the real 
 and true limits of their respective dominions, ac- 
 cording to the intent of all preceding treaties, 
 conventions, &c." 
 
 The appointment of the Umpire, and the me- 
 thod of marking the limits, when determined, 
 would be easily provided for by the other arti- 
 cles ; but it is necessary never to lose sight of 
 the fact that before the survey is commenced, the 
 treaty which is to insure its finality, must be 
 sanctioned by Congress, or we again begin to 
 fight with shadows. 
 
 
 
 THE END. 
 
 LONDON: 
 Bt-atch and Lamvert, Printers, Grove Plaoe, Brompton. 
 
 I 
 
lall 
 red 
 )on 
 ley 
 5 if 
 out 
 ine 
 be 
 ind 
 ;by 
 wn 
 eal 
 ac- 
 es, 
 
 le- 
 
 3d, 
 •ti- 
 
 of 
 he 
 be 
 to