s^y^^-i ^ \t V^. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 12.5 Ui|28 ■u 122 12.2 Ht U° 12.0 M L25||U|J4 < 6" ► FholDgraphic Sciences CorporatiGn '^'5^:^*^'' ^.v* 23 WfST MAIN STMIT WIUTIR.N.Y. 145M (7l6)l7a'4S03 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVl/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. C.n.dtan l«.,.,u« f., Hh.«.c.. M.c,.™p,oduc,l,„. / ,„.,«„, c.™dl«, d. mlc,,«p™duC.n. h....H,u» Technical and Bibliographic Notaa/Notat tachniquaa at bibliographiquas Tha Instituta has attamptad to obtain tha bast original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibiiographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. n/ n D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagia Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6a et/ou pelliculAe 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 er couleur Bound with other material/ Rali6 avac d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int6rieure 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'una restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais. lorsqua cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas iti filmias. Additional comments:/ Commentairas supplAmentairas: L'Institut a microfilm^ la meiileur exemplaire qu'il lui a 4t6 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 m6thode normale de filmage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagtes □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages rastauries et/ou peiliculies Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcoior^es, tacheties ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages ditach^es rri Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prin Qualiti inigala de I'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprend du material suppl^mantaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ Til to Th po of fill Or be th( sk ot fir sic or Th shi Til wt Ma dif 9n\ be( rigl req ms Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possibia image/ Les pages totalement ou partieilement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata. une pelure. etc.. ont Ati filmies A nouveau de fa^on d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X ■•ym^wv-tr^ The copy filmed hare has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada The Images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Orlginel copies In printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated Impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with e printed or illustrsted impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The lest recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^»> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever appiies. 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 ss required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'exemplaire filmA fut reprodult grflce il la gtnArosltA de: La bibiiothique des Archives publiques du Canada Les images suivantes ont tt6 reprodultes avec ie plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettetA de l'exemplaire f ilm«, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est Imprlmte sent filmte en commen9ant par Ie premier plat et en terminant soit par la darnlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'illustration, soit par Ie second plat, salon Ie cas. Tous les autras exemplaires originaux sent fllm6s en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaltra sur la dernlAre Image de cheque microfiche, selon Ie ces: Ie symbols — ^ signifle "A SUIVRE", Ie symboie ▼ signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre fllmfo A des taux de reduction dlff6rents. Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clichA, 11 est f ilm6 A partir de I'angle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant Ie nombre d'Images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mtthode. 1 2 i I 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^■^• #•■ €rt.-tf ^*T ,■ I' '^\ THE DECISION or THE KIIVG OF THE NETHERLANDS CONlilliKltl'U l!4 KKI'KRENCl: Tu THE RIUUIl oi' THE UNITED STATES, t' AND OF THE STATE OF MAINE \V-,-o, *T>\\:.\; '';'r*'u\^^- , 'U.V- ,u. Ml ;| » PORTLAND PRINTED BY THOMAS TODD. 1831. ^h rt.-lf'^'T-IK^'S' ><« The author of the following numbers wnj led to prepare ihrin onH to present them in their present form hy the repeated siiggeslion orsrverul nl'liis fellow citizens, who take a deep interest in the snhjeet to which they relate. If the (|neslion were one of trifling importanoe and temporary character, — if the singe, to which the prp('ee. •I*- '♦" A J m is- ■'*^"'m "■ -'., ■vgf'.- "> pn>scn( ihpin w citizens, who slloii wrre one •li llie prprccd- !> Ihom fliil not cal fcilcriuive >' lliis moment )nilcinnc(l uu- Stales, of tho "'■ llie Peojile ami thorough I" search for <'''cve ihem- il measure of •he union by - 1^ ■%>»*v-^/,' itWH,1'| P i» *f WHH w y«!^ ■'■ . ' ♦ verSt. Croix, rcc; and from lauds, which ail from those ereas, neither )in the source •iiier treaty ol" vest ungle of Connecticut at part of the two powers, '•■oix, directly Nova S<;otia, those rivers wrence, from lorthwestem- n along the prth latitude, it strikes the rvcycrf," &c. o relation to lead of Con- e, it is inani- arties to the rface of the iiig mutually it had before he angle in n tJie source nnt dc par- Ives into the he Atlantic arties agree ht line due lit and the \ I . ) U1 III \ \:^: c ■A i [ l side of lliu St. .loliii hcUMTii two of its triliiitary slri'uins, t"«)n- stituli's tlif lii^li IuikIs wliit.-l) divide (Iiohu rivers timt (Miiply lliuiMSfivLs into (lie river St. Lnwrcncc from those which full into tlio Athuitic Ocean. Tiie United States, on the other hand, contendud thiit tiie liiglilands of the Treaty were those which liiid always been known as such and Ixinnded the bason of tho St. Lawrenco on tho south side of that river. Hence arose the (|uestion, "which are the highlands described by tho Treaty of US) as dividing those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those that fall into the Atlantic Ocean ; at a point on which said highlands due north from tho source of the river St. Croix it was agreeil, was to be found at the date of said Treaty the northwest angle of iNova Scotia ? " (.living to the language of tho Treaty of Ghent a liberal con- struction with a view to the declared intentions of the parties this was the question, and the sole (|uestion,so far as Maine is con- cerned, sid)mitted by the Convention of 'iJUh September I85i7, to the Arbiter. "It is agreed," says that C'onvention, "that the "points of dillerence which have arisen, in the settlement of the "U)undary ** as described in the fifth article of the Treaty of "Ghent sliall be referred as therein provided to some friendly "Sovereign or State who shall be invited to investigate and "make a decision upon such points of dilFerence." Again "the map A. ** has been agreed on by the contracting partieii "as a delineation of the water courses, and of the Iwundary "lines in reference to the said water courses, as contended for "by each parly respectively." Instead of deciding, or pretending; to decide, the question raised, which resolved itself simply into "the point" of departure "to be ascertained," as described and established by the Treaty of 1183, the Arbiter studiously avoids doing so ; and, after suggesting certain pretended difficul- ties, proceeds to recoiinnend a totally diiTerent and new line of bounilary, repugnant to the Treaty and at variance with the agreement of the jiarties, viz : the bed of a river instead of highlands dividing rivers. The language and description of the treaty is as definite and precise and free from all obscurity as it is possible for hiunan language to be. "A line drawn from the source of the river Ht. Croix directly north to the highlands which divide the rivere that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which lUll into the river St. Lawrence, along the highlands which divide," &.c. I-anguage equivalent to this is familiar in tlie treaties of Europe. It is of no consequence to such a M h (loscriplion wlictlior tlic Innds wlik-li divide tlip rivois nrc iiiorr or loss clevatiid. 'I'hn principle of dividiii|; the rivers and not that of height, is the governing; prinri|)le. Compare this language with that of the recommendation of tlie King of the Netherlands — ^'A line drawn due north from the source of (he river St. Croix to the point where it intersects the middle of the deep bed of the river St. John, thence along the middle of the deep bed\of that river ascending to the point where the river St. Francis empties itself into the St. John, thence along the middle of the deep Led of the river St. Francis ascending to the source of its southwesternmost branch, thence a line drawn due vest" to tiie highlands whif-h divide the rivers and thence along th_ higiilands. Here us we iiavc already remarked we not only have the bed of a river instead of high- lands dividing rivers, but from the source of the river selected wo have a due west course to the highlands instead of a due north course. If we take a. ma|) of the coinUry am' by aid of it examine and compare the description and boundary of the treaty with that of the line of the Arbiter, no language can make the discrepancy more plain, or more perfectly demonstrate that the Arbiter has undertaken to make a new treaty for the |)artics instead of executing those already in existence between them. We have said the question in its largest extent, before the Arbiter, was, "which are the highlands of the treaty." Strictly and more correctly speaking the question raised and submitted was 'where is the northwest angle of Nova Scotia,' it being acknowledged and agreed by the parties that said angle is on highlands of a certain definite description. The question raised by the Agents of the two Goveniments under the Treaty of Ghent involved simidy the point of departure, as described and established by the Treaty of 1783, and recognized by the Treaty of Ghent. This was emphatically the question dis- cussed, and on which the (Commissioners differed. Whatever was said in regard to highlands was said solely with a view to establish the point of departure. When that "point" should be once, "ascertained" as required by the Treaty of Ghent, there wfs n.o difference of opinion between the Commissioners as to the place of the boundary line or the manner in which it should run to or from the point ascertained. Here all were agreed. The New Brunswick Agent had not the face to claim, nor the British Commissioner the hardihood to sanction or suggest any other manner of running the line from the point > I -f r I 1 , ( . i ^ I r ,V 1 «it" ilfimriiiic wlicii usi'ciliiiiird. tliiiti Hiirli as was pri'scriht'ii l»v iIk^ 'Jiffity. viz, Rlonu; liij^liliinds dividing hmts — His IN'otlier- liind Miijcsty haviiin seluclod the bed of the 'river St. John as tl»c point of dojiartinn was nwart; that iho ('oinmi.s!*ionen woidd be embarrassed in any attempt to run from thence nlunf^ hii!;hluiids dividing; ri*' "s. Hence, not to decide existing |)oints of dill'erence, but sue. is probably would arise, ho pi-oceeds ){;rHtuitously to sn^i^ust that the line should not be drawn from the ()oint of departure along hii^hlands dividing rivers, but up river. It is wortliy of remark, and it is but an act of justice to the Arbiter to remark in this place, that in givitig his advice on thin branch of the subject before him, lie does not make use of the language of decision (il doit circ comidire) but studiou.sly employs that of recommendation (il convicndra) that is to say that in his opinion the line he pru|)uso.s would be u suitable one. No. 2. Recommrndation not Odi,io\tort. m We have stated in our fortner number that in order to ascer- tain the powers of the Arbiter \\c nnist look into the agreement of the parties, that is to say, into the Treaties and Convention between the United States aiul Great Britain. Tliere is in such ca.ses from the very nature of the transaction no implied power. Every man feels within him, a.s the dictate of common sense, that a consciousness of the delicacy of the oflice, and a proper respect for the hii;h parties interested, impose it as a rule, tnat the arbitrating St)vereign should never take upon himself to ex- tend the limited special powers delegated to him, beyond the most plain, obvious meaning of the solemn, express stipulations of the parties. It is not only indelicate, — it savors of assump- tion in such cases to resort to inference and construction in order to enbrgc his authority. To maintain that the Arbiter is the sole judge of the powers delegated to him and of the measure of his discretion, is to confer upon him the power to make trea- ties for the parties as well as to execute them. When the King of the Netherlands was invited by the United States and Great Britain to accept the functions of Arbiter, copies of the Treaties and Convention under which he ' >' *%* was to net, were (tlaced in \m liaiv's in order that lie might t'lilly conipruiiond thu nntiiro and exivtU of the powers delegated. Ten days afterwards he returns an answer by his Minister of Foreign Alliiirs in which acknowledging the receipt nf the invi- tation to accept "/ei j'onctimu d*ArMtre" and uiti'hin|» a high value to thi8 mark orcoiitideiice lie accc^)t.s {"Irs Jntictioni d'Arbitre" ) the functions of Arbiter. Such was the language of his Majesty, when after mature consideration with the Trea- ties and Convention l)efore him, he concluded to accent the high honor the United States, in compliance with the wishes of Great Britain, had agreed to unite in conferring. If in the States would have been unfaithful to themselves and wanting in duty to the States immediately interested, if they had not forth- with taken the necessary measures to correct the misapprehen- sions of his Majesty. But at that moment there was no such misanprehcnsion. We are led to inquire how it was that after the lapse of tuo years, after the revolution in France, after the successful revolt m Belgium and at the time when unable to sustain himself, he was calling upon England as his "fl//y," to fulfil her treaty 8ti|)ulatioiis in which she had guaranteed to him the integrity of his kingdom, how it was I say, that he found himself under this great t-hange in bis position, invested with new and enlarged powers having accepted as his decision informs us "Ics /unc- tions d' Arbitrateur.' This term "arbitrateur," as my author- ities inform me, is not properly a French word any more than TiMi priiu or habeax corpus are English expressions. It is a term simply of French law and inemis a "friendly compounder." "Arbitre" on the contrary implies no such power to relax troin strict right. Boniface, one of the best lexicographers in Fnmrc, thus iioints out the distinction of which we nre speaking. "Arbttrateur, (terme rie loi,) amiable compositeur, a qui on "(hmne la liberti de se relacher du droit: — PArbitre, au con- "traire, doit guarder les formalitis de justice." Who but a lawyer, ready to resort to the most paltry subterfuges of the profession, would ever have hud recourse to such a substitution of terms in order to give countenance to the conversion of certain limited and specific powers into those of unlimited discretion. Even this substitution of terms, and the new and more extended powers to be derived from it, were not satisfactory to the Arbi- It' ^ \ .1 f 10 tcr's niiiid. He was conscious that he was not caiTjing into efTect the Treaty of 1783, nor confining himself within the powers delegated nor discharging the functions of Arbiter, as l»rescribed by the Treaties and Convention between the parties intei-ested. Hence, though in deciding the question submitted in regard to the northwestemmost head of Connecticut river, he makes use of the appropriate language of decision, (il doit etre considere) when he gives his advice in regard to that \mt- tion of the line, in which Maine is more immediately interested, he as already remarked, studiously avoids the language (»f decision and substitutes that of simple recommendation (il conviendra. ) We have seen that the express, declared and sole intent of the fifth article of the Treaty of (Jhent was to provide for the surveying and marking on the surface of the earth, in conform- ity with the treaty of 1783, a portion of our boundary as de- lincd and described by that treaty. The language employed in that description is so definite and precise, that it professes of itself to preclude and jirevent all dispute on the subject of boundaries. In the debate in the House of Commons, 17tli February, 1783, on the preliminary articles, T. Pitt contended that "the great excellence of the Treaty" was that it so "clearly "and so plainly described the limits ol the dominions of Great "Britain and America, that it was impossible they could be "mistaken, therefore it was impossible there should in future bo "any dispute between them on the score of boundaries." This curious debate, as well as that in the House of Lords on the same day, pro^'e incontestibly that the boundaries as now claimed by the United States, were then understood by the British Ministry and by both Houses of Parliament to be the boundaries described and established by the Treaty. The very objection that "the line of boundary delivered Canada and "Nova Scotia fettered into the hands of the American Con- "gress," and that "the passes and carrying places" were all delivered up to the Americans, was then urged by the Earl of Carlisle and others in the Lords and by several speakers in the House of Commons ; but what is perhaps more in point, the highlands of the Treaty north from the source of the river St. Croix were expressly recognized as tho.se '■^near the river St. Lawrence." Notwithstanding these and other objections, the preliminary articles were approved, and, on the 3dof Septcm- oer following, the definitive Treaty of 1783 was signed. There was no pretence or suggestion made at that day by any person A i It tliat llie hoiindnries pirsrnboil by the Treaty were or could be any othor thuii those now contended for by the United States. The engraved Map of "The Kebel Colonies," published at Liondon, JiHth Feb. 1783, by tlie reporter of tlie debates in I'arliunient, on the preliminary articles as illustrative of and to accompany those debates, removes every possible doubt on the subject. At the date of the treaty of 1794, the only question which it was supposed could arise in regard to the boundaries, as prescribed by the treaty of 178JJ, related to the river St. Croix and its source. This difficulty was provided for. The boundaries of 178^1 were recognized by the treaty of 1794 ; and in executing tiie provisions of this latter in regard to the St. ('mix and its source, the higldands, as now claimed by the United States, were then recognized as "the highlands" of the treaty by the British Agent. What was the ti-ue intention of the parties a.s expresscid in their .solemn stipulations in the treaties of Paris and- Ghent, therefore, is too manifest to admit of doubt or cavil. There is no room for inference or con- struction. Has the Arl)itcr carried into effect that intention, — has he even professed to do so ? We contend if he had professed to do so, that \w has connnitted such a gross, palpable and self- evident mistake, Uiat no Court of Chancery would ever con- firm or carry into edect such an award. We contend that he had no nutnority (iclogatod to liiiii, oilier than what was given for the sole and express purpose of carrying into full effect, without variation or modidcation, the treaty of independence. He was no more authorised to de|)art from that Treaty than the Comniission«!rs who were under oath "to ascertain and deter- mine in conformity witii its provisions." Who can maintain that the United Stales ever did consent to refer to a humble dependent «% of Great Britain the question whether the Ti-eaty of their indejwndence should be repealed either in whole or in part ? We maintain that the Arbiter does not pro- fess to carry into effect that Treaty, but, on the contrary, does nrofuss to roconnnend a new line — he does not decide which js the Treaty boundary, but merely recommends one, which, under the influence then operating upon him he thought mi^ht be a suitable one. We maintain that he not only went aside and beyond the specific powers delegated for a special purpose, but that it is evident he was conscious he was doing so ; and hence, assuming to act in a new and difibrent capacity, he employed the language of recommendation and not that of , ♦ ■• 13 i I r h f decision. VVc contend, therefore, that excepting; perhaps, in respect to the northwestemniost head of Connecticut river, his opinion imposes no obligation on the United States, but is merely void. Nor is the good faith of the United States in the slightest degree committed. They have, to the utmost extent, ililfilled every treaty stipulation. They have done more : They have suffered to be drawn in question what was not susceptible of doubt. They have sufiered a bold and reckless invasion on their rights perj^ietrated under color of the Treaty of Ghent. They have discussed a question which they never ought to have listened to for a moment. As well might they have discussed the question, "Shall the United States remain free and independent ?" Nay, lest it should be urged that acquiescence on their part in the award was to be presumed from silence and delay, the Minister of the United States at the Hague entered his caveat, notifying all parties interested that the rights of the United States, whatever they might be, must be regarded as reserved to them in their full extent, without their being supjwsed to be committed by any constnictive assent or acquiescence. The rights of the State, therefore, to its territory, remain unimpaired, and the obligations of the United States, arising under the hazard- ous stipulations of the Treaty of Ghent and the Convention of 1827, have been fully redeemed. .;■■,:• i t*-:' No. 3. Recohhendation how made Obligatory... .Treaty mak- ing POWER.. ..Limitation. , The doctrine, which we are disposed to maintain is, that neither the whole nor any portion of the territory of a State, can be taken from it without the consent of the State interest- ed, whether Tor the purpose of being attached to another State, erected into a new State, or transferred ' to a foreign power. It is very certain that the principle which will justify the taking of a part will justify the taking of the whole, and if one State may thus, without its consent, be put out of the pale of the Union, so may more. The constitution of the United States assumes to "guarantee to every State m this Union a republican form of government," and "to protect each of them V I I 18 against invasion." How is this guaranty fulfilled when a State, or a portion of it, is voluntarily abandoned by the United States in tune of ;;>eace, transferred to a foreign power, and placed under a monarchical government, the State itself mean- while constantly remonstrating and protesting against the pro- ceeding ? Congress is vested with the power to dispose of the territory, or other property belonging to the United States, but even here it is expressly provided that nothing in this constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of any particular State. Waiving for the moment, however, this branch of the subject, it appears to the writer of these observations, that unless the constitution in its prescriptions, as well as in its guaranties and limitations, is no longer to be re- garded — the only mode in which a State or States, or any gortion of a State can be peaceably transferred by the United tates, to a foreign power. Is by Treaty or in pursuance of Treaty. We say peaceably, because in time of war a State or several States might be conquered by a foreign power, and it might be impossible for tlie unconquered portion of the United States to reconquer the territory lost. In such a case the rights of States and of the United States arc alike swept away by vio- lence. The constitutional obligation to defend the territory and repel invasion, is suspended by the want of physical power to fulfil it. Cases, in which the rights of States and of the United States are wrested from them, and each is compelled to submit to superior physical force, afibrd no rule of construction, either as respects the powers of the United States or the rights of a State under the constitution. Cases like these are analogous to the theoretical right of resistance in a people. It is said to exist un- der all forms of government, but is recognized by the constitution and laws of no government. The constitution of the United States makes no provision for the supposed case of conquest. The statesmen and heroes, who had achieved our independ- ence, and who fiwned that instrument, would have blushed to recognize in it that such an event was possible. They pro- vided for mutual defence, but not for submission ; for defending the territory of each and repelling mvasion, but not for trans- ferring or surrendering up a State, or any portion of a State, to the mother country, or to any other foreign power. These princi- ples come in aid of the positions we have already endeavored to maintain, that it was and must have been the sole intent of the stipulations in the Treaty of Ghent and the Conven- tion regulating the submission to an arbiter, to provide for car- ■i .,,4' v r * I ' if 1: li i*^ IIS I ki i I i h rylng into full and complete effect, without vv- 13 No. 1. Consent or a State necessary to the cession of its Territory. In examining a constitutional question, it will not be forgot- ten that the government of the United States is not a govern- ment uiiliiiiited and absolute in its powers, but of special and modified sovereignty. It can neither bind the States, nor the people of the United States, in all cases whatsoever. But the i)ower to transfer a State to a foreign government necessa- rily implies an absolute and unlimited control over the political institutions and existence of a State, and over the persons and property of its citizens and inhabitants. If the United States may transfer a State without its consent to a limited monarchy, like that of Great Britain, they may transfer it to an absolute one, like that of Russia. Such n doctrine at once annihilates all pretence of State Rights and State Sovereignty. In prin- ciple there is no difference, in tiie claim or exercise of such a jKJwer, whether applied to a part of a State or to the wholu ; whether the population on its territory be scattered or dense ; whether the State be nnnote and feeble, or central and powerful. These latter considerations might address some grave tjuestions to the discretion of the government, but they affect not, in the slightest dt'gree, the abstract principle of its vested and rightful powers. If we turn to the constitution of the United States, we find enumerated, among the declared motives and objects in view, in framing and adopting it, those of "forming a more perfect union," — "providing for the com- mon defence," and "securing the blessings of liberty tooui-selves and our jwsterity." In pursuance of these objects, the United States undertake expressly to "guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government," and to "protect each of them against invasion." As the United States assumed up- on themselves this paramount obligation, it became proper to guard against the peace of the nation being committed by hos- tile external operations on the part of a State. Hence tlie con- stitution provides that '^no Utate shall, without the consent of Congress, * * * engage in war, unless actually invaded," or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. Again, to prevent all misconception of the extent and mejiiing of its provisions, it is further declared "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respective! ij, or to the peo- m n m i I Ml? I* 16 ( 1 m pit'.'' WImtefer surrenders of power therefore, w8re made on the part of tlie States to the United States, it is clear, if reser- vations in a coitipact for the benefit of the weaker party mean any thing, each, as originally a sovereign and independent pow- er, did reserve to itselt its pristine right of repelling all invasion, and maintaining the integrity of its dominion and territory. What ih)ntier or Atlantic State would have consented to enter the Union, if by doing so, she placed herself helpless at the mercy of every invader, provided the United States should be slow or remiss in fulfilling their guaranties ? What State would have become a party to a contract, which rendered her liable to be delivered up, in spite of remonstrance, to a foreign despot, whenever a majority of States, yielding to a- time-serving and selfish policy, should think it cheaper and less troublesome to barter away and abandon her, than to defend her. Surely we are not to be told seriously that the United States may right- fully relieve themselves from all constitutional obligations, in regard to an individual State, by transferring that State to a for- eign power ; in other words that they can cancel a wrong done to a State by perpetrating an outrage against it. These a(e not the principles, and this is not the operation of the constitution, the object of so much pride and tlie theme of so much praise. The sages who formed it are obnoxious to no such charges, as such a construction of its provisions implies. It was not their intention to reduce the States, then sovereign and independent, fresh from the contests of the revolution, proud of their freedom and jealous of encroachment, to the con- dition of humble, dependent provinces, at the mercy and sover- eign disposal of the United States. Their object was the reverse. It was to preserve the rights of all and to produce a conspiring and consenting action of the whole, for the common defence and the welfare of the whole, as made up of the wel- fare of all and each of the parts. While, therefore, they pro- vided that the United States "shall protect each State against invasion," they did not deprive the States of the power to protect themselves. They foresaw that notwithstanding the most express and solemn guaranties, the United States might, from various causes, be hesitating and backward-m discharging their duty towards a particular member. Hence certain pro- visions in regard to the militia, and the express recognition of the right in each State, with or without the consent of the United States, to defend its own territories. Nor is it for the United States to say to an individual Stati;, you may repel in- 1^': fir , .17 V m ■ ' vasioii from tliis section of your territory, but not from that* — 'you may oxprcise iurisdiction and protect your inhabitants and citizens in the south, but not in the north.' Nor is it for them to say 'we have transferred one tliird of your territory to a for- eign power, in spite of your remonstrances and tlierefore your constitutional right to repel invasion is narrowed down to thn remainder — 'we have transferred tlie whole, and therefore it is annulled. The only right which is left to you and your people, is the right of unconditional submission to your new masters.' In such a case, a great State would say, 'my constitutional rights are elder than yours. The very instrument, which is the source and sole foundation of your riglits, recognizes and guarantees mine ; and it is not for you to limit, restrain pr annul them.' A great State, in such a case we say, would reply perhaps, in this manner ; but a great State will never have occasion to do so. A powerful State know ing her rights, will know how to protect tliem: — the United States will also know them, and know how to respect them. If the territories of such a Statn were actually invaded by the authorities, military or civil of a foreign'power, instantly it would be perceived that the consti- tution of the United States neither requires nor contemplates that she should wait for orders or permission to act. While she called upon the government of the United States to fulfil its duty toward her, she would herself prepare to repel the invader, and if necessary by her ow n ann, would, with or without the consent of Congress, drive the aggressor from her soil and inflict upon the instruments of the aggression a merited chastisement. The rights of Maine are the same, her situation and resources only are different. But it is not the intention of the writer to pursue or enter upon an inquiry that tends to still graver ques- tions. His sole object is to sustain the position which, with all deference to better opinions, he thinks ho has sustained — that the United States have no constitutional power to depiive a State of a portion of her territory and without her con- sent ceae that territory to a foreign power. , ' ,-.'; '^u>'i .K-^r 'iy ^ ■i:' I 18 No. 5. Tbrritory claimed by Great-Bbitain... Jurisdiction oe rACTO...MADAWASCA. But why contend for a small piece of territory, so remote and of so little value ? Msny wlio put lliis question might pos- sibly put it if the whole State were clepeii(ling oil the issue. We answer, because it is our right, and we cannot consent to have it wrested from us by fraud or violence. But let us in our turn inquire, 'How is it, if the territory is of so little importance, that in violation of good faith ana in the shameless disregard of treaties, surh persevering efforts have been and continue to he made on behalf of the adjacent British colonies to obtain it V Is it in order to gain the most easy, direct and practica- ble channel of communication between those provinces ? This in time of peace never has been and never would be denied them. It is enough for us to say that, casting an eye at the map of the country, it will be seen that when peopled with a hardy race of men, as it would be before half a century, if pre- served to us, that tenitory will constitute a point of strength for lis and of weakness for our adversaries. In extent it is larger than more than one State in the Union. Why should Maine yield her undoubted right, and with her right, that which secures to her the moral certainty, in due time, of becoming a large and powerful State, possessmg advantages of situation, and occupying a position important to herself, and valuable to the United States ? At the date of the Treaty of Independence that whole region was an unsettled wilderness. Very soon after the provincial gov- ernment of New Brunswick was organized, they discovered and felt the immense importance of this piece of territory. Great Britain had begun to reper.t of yieldmg so much to the United Slates. Under various pretexts she postponed the withdrawal of her forces from the posts and territones in the north-west, and the authorities of New Brunswick commenced their intrigues and encroachments in the north-east. They had again driven the remnants of the persecuted neutral Aca- dians from their farms and their homes. These had once more fled into the wilderness, and sought a refuge within the boun- daries of the United States. The seeds of new troubles be- tween America and Great Britab were rapidly developing. These unfortunate people were beyond the reach of succor on our part. Twice tncy had bcm driven by rapacity and vio- to l»iK'(} from tliuir farms and cottages. They ^ere ufTurcd by tlieir persecutors, grants of two and three hundred acres of land uacli, in their new residence, as security against their being again disturbed, and in 1790 and 1794 they were in- duced to accept them. But tiie threatening storm was dis- sipalcid by the Treaty of 19th November, 1794 — provision wiLS made for ascertaining the true St. Croix and its source. Great Britain agreed to withdraw all her troops and garri- sons from all posts and places within the boundary lines assigned by the Treaty of Peace. Provision was made that the posts should be formally surrendered within a specified time; but except "within the precincts or jurisdiction of any of tlie said posts" "the United States in meantime, at thctr discretion, extending their settlements to any part within the said boundaru line. Tiiat is to say, the military posts were to be formally surrendered ; but alt other places within the boundaries prescribed by the Treaty of 1783, which might be regarded as in Britisii possession, were to be considered as yielded up and delivered over to the United States, ipso facto, by the Treaty of 1794. The river St. Croix and its source were determined in 1 798. The place near where 'the due north line would cross the river St. John was perfectly well understood ; and the Agent of the British Government, who had the whole management of the business on her part, in his written arguments on the record of the proceedings, fully and explicitly acknowledged the highlands of the treaty to be those now and always claimed as such by the United. States. The fact that the due north line of the treaty necessarily crosses the river St. John, was at the same time explicitly re- cognized also by the Minister of Great Britain, resident at Washington, in a letter addressed to the same Agent.f At that period, to have doubted what were the highlands of the treaty, would have been regarded as evidence of want of understanding or of mental alienation. Here then is an end of all pretence of Britisii jurisdiction, even in Madawasca. Nor is tliere from tluil period the slightest trace of it until some years after the dale of the treaty of Ghent. On the other hand, during this .same period, we find that in 1797, 1801, 1806, 1807, M-i.ssa- chusetts made large grants adjoining the due north line, and ex- tending to within about fifteen miles of the place where that line crosses the river St. John. Without pursuing this inquiry further, we refer to the official statement of Mr. Deane,J and the A I I 4 f Sen Apjicmlix No. 3. \ !ic that full ir.- "to the river St. Lnwrrnce." The ninnni'r of carr'.in thin it,ipnr- r>ntly exceedingly definite and lucid deHciiiition oi iMtiindnry into ftlKi-t, by riinniii;; the linn a^ descrihcd, ami mnrking the HHine on the HiirtHue of the enrth, wns the Hiihjert, the sole, exclusive Aiilijcel, Hiihmittod bv the Convention of the '^.)th Hept. Irt'j7, in ^iiirHiiiince of Art. V. ot the treaty of Ijhent, 1814, to nii Aihiier. II on inves- tigation tlint Arbiter found the language of the treaty, in liia opin- ion, inapplii'ublo to, and wholly incoiitti^tent with the topography nf the country, so that the treaty, in regard to itM deacriptinn of boundary, roiild not bo o^euuled according to itH own cxpreu atip- iilntioiiM, the United HtatcH bad never submitted the queHlion, what lirncticiihle boundary line aliould, in such v.ane, he siibatituled and e.ttuhliMlii'd ; nor had they in ony way, directly or indirectly, intima- ted a (ieHirc that any Ruggeotion should bo iiiude, as to what might be nonaidored a anitable boundary. Hncli a c|iiv8tion of bounilnry, ns is here Hiippofied, the (Jniteil States of America would it ix li' iic- veil, submit to the definitive decision nf no sovereign, and it ' ^ 1/ such case they should solicit the friendly intervention 'if an aU>), itiu probable they would expect first to bo heard, before 'u: opinion was formed as to what line might he convenient. In the preMcnt case especially as any revinion or substiintion of hi midary whatever, had been steadily, and in a spirit of unalterable di'terinination resis- ted at (ihent and at Washington, they had not anticipated the pos- sibility of there being any occaKion tor delegating such power, or soliciting such intervention. That such must have been thf viei^a of the Uovernmeiit of the United States would appear evident, not only from the history of the iicgociution nt Ghent, but from the lan- guage of the treaty itself, which provides for the selection nf an Ar- biter, and dclines the object and extent of the powers delegated. The treaty, reciting that "whereas, neither that point of the high- ■'hinils lyiii<; d le north from the source of the river St. Croix, and "designated m the former treaty of peace between the two powers, '•as the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, nor the north-westernmost "bend of ConinTticiit river, has yet been nsccrtoined ; and whereas, "thnt part of the boundary line between the dominions of the two "powers, which extends from the source of the river St. Croix, di- "rectly north to the itbovoinentioned north-west angle of Nova "Scotia, thence along the said highlands, which divide those rivers "that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, from those "which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the northwesternmost head "of C'onnecticiit river ; thence down along the middle of that river "to the forty-fifth degree of north lotitude ; thence by a line due "west nil said latitude, until it strikes the river Iroquois or Cataru- "guy ; has not been surveyed" provides "thot for these several pur- poses two commissioners shall be appointed" — And it would lie dif- ficult to describe and define the objeC' ind nowers of the cnmtnis- sioners in terms more precise ond 1' '> •, misconstruction. Under the "ilemn obligations of an oai' ' ■ nmine and V \ '« impartially," they were authorized si ,i., ... ,0 oscerl.. 1. and "determine the (raints aforesaid ir. v'ii!l,.iiit> with the iiroviaioiia its ">.• "oftlie Irnnty of |'»'Br'»! •>f l7Kt, nml to rau«« the liuiiiidury B(brf»HlJ "rroiii tlie Mtiirr,!! ol'tlH' " cr Hi. (J' '^ I' tli« riviir IroqiioiN or I'lit- "Mrngiiy, lu Itu xiirwyuil unil iiiarkoti aciror>iiiiK t*> tl>t iii the eveiii oCiIib twii 'iiiiitiiiM- ■ionnrH ilitlrriiiK ii|> nil (n- iiii_\ urtif'> iritoicmvd "oKroud to ruler tho n>|iort or m portH to Horiio triuiidly soviu lii^d or "Sluto, who Hhoiild lit! rv(|iii!4lL-(l to duuidt! on the ihliKreiircK, whii-li "alioidd 1)0 Htuted in tliu Kuiil report ur rcporlH," And the hii(h piir- tioH intervHtod "eiiga);ed to conitidur tliu decision i>t° nnch Iriendly "Hoveroigii ur Hiiitu to hu tinul und uonehmiw on all the nmiiei -, tto "retLTrud." Th« di-rinioii of thu Arhilur, therKfor)), wun to .: on the matttrt to to be rtftrrrd. The mnttert no to he referred, wr ,.■ «o/«- ly, exclusively, uih\ erjireastii, limited to U\o ^'impartial" "i>u< iit^^ng" and "marlrin^" on the MorliiRU uf the eiirth ^^in cou/ornuii/ wtth tlie provuioni of Ike trealy of peace of 1783," ofn portion of the huuintu- 'on« of of til ry linii of the United UlatON, uh prescribed l*y that treaty — to wit: ''that Wv.e drawn from tliu Hoiirce of tlie Ht. Croix river liireftly north "to the aforiixaid higlilandx, whieli divide IIih rivers that fall into "the Atlantic Ocean, from tlioNx which fall into line river i;^. l.aw- "reiice;" thence "uIoiik the tiaid highland!* which divide Uinse nv- "em that empty llieiiifiulves into the river Ht. Lawrence, niin tli> .\t- !~::*ic Ocean — at which same point on said highlands wa> iIiho to lie foUi;i| the north-west angle of the long nstahliHhcd, well .-.iiowii and distinctly defined British province of Nova Scoiiii? 2d. As there is nliuve the forty filth parallel of latitude, n Miim- her of trihiitary streams, all, with the exception of Hall's iSti ciiin, at the date of the treaty nameless and unknown strcdins of tin: wil- derness and whnie comhined waters were only known as forming the river Connecticut ; which of the sources of all those streams is "the nnrthweslernmost head of Connecticut river?" 3d. As the boundary of the forty fillh parallel of huitu3, Uie Canadas from the earliest settlement of the country had belonged to the dominions of the King of France ; and prior to the aame period Nova Scotia had alternately belonged to France and Great Britain. In that wilderness country - i :t v>4 licnvever tlie linuniliirins ofilior^o iiinltlie mljoiiiiiig BritiHli provjiicr of MaasiirliiiMPttM Hiiy liail not nt tlint porinil luM^n |)rci-i!lHin in forty- '■fivii di-^rccM ot' north lulituih) (xishos idong the higtdimds whi-^li ''divi(hi iho riv».'ri» that piiipty thcnisidvcs into thn said river St. '*ljavvronri! from ihoHu \vld>.-h Call into tlio scu, nnd ul.so along the "north conMt oC ilio hay des C'haleiirH" — thus throwing the ba.iin of the SI. ftitwrenee iVoin the sources of' time to time, and the snnic liountlnry specilied and described in nil the public doruinoTits i-fferrinx to tlint Bidijt'ct, tliiit is, the coinitiis- sioiis of the Governors, for the twenty yeiirs prccedinj; the sigiin- tnre of the treaty of 1783, and ilu! siiinc idciiti(;al description "(roiii . "the niouth of the river St. Croix, hy the said river to its Rourco, "and from thence to the Southern boundary of our I'rovince of "(iuebec," is to this moment tiie precise and only description of that boundary in the only public e hou);hc for, the commissions of the Gov(!rnors. Whatever personal mis- apprehension there miiihl have been in the tirst instance in the minds of the American Commissionera, therefore, in rej;ard to the precise western boundary of Nova Scotia,* arisint; from their bein^ jii i!cluded by the war from a ]icrsonal inspection of Dritish public documents, that misapprehension had been entirely dune uway by the preliminary discussions, prior to their ugrceiiiff to the prelimi- nary articles of peace in 1782, and of course there can bo no pre- tence of their want of u full understanding of the Rubject, in Sep- tember, I78;J. And it should be recollected there never was for a siuijile moment the least misapprehension, or want of knowledj^e, on their part, in regard to the bi,!;ldands, always known and desi){- nated as "the highlands which divide those rivers which empty "themselves into the river St. Lawrence, Iroin tho.se which fall into "the sea," or Atlantic Ocean. Ilencc, as Mr. Adams, one of them, testifies, they agreed after much coiitestaiion to abide in that (piarter by the existing boundaries, or as he cxpre-sses it the charter uf Alassachusetts Bay. It a[»pears therefore, from evidence in its nature conclusive, frotn authentic public documents of the highest character and nnthoriiy, that lor twenty years prior to the Treaty of \7S'•^, the northern and the western boundaries of Nova Scotia, had been prescribed and deKned in language the most clear and precise, and of course the place of a northwest angle so accurately indicated, that n common surveyor needed but to be shown the source of the St. Croix, in order to bo able to sijj up n momiment at the point of intersection of the northern and western boundaries; and thus mark on the surface of the earth the precise position or locality on the highlands, of "the northwest angle of Nova Scotia." Add to this,|)rior to the revolution the two nations were constituent parts of the same great empire and the language of King and Parliament, in their public documents, was the atVicial language of the whole kingdom, \\hen therefore the two high contracting parties at the Treaty of jieacc, availed themselves officialli/ of Ihat identical laiiffvage and specijic description of particular boundaries, which had lieen so long used and exclusively appropriated, tf must be presumed that they used them *Mr. Adams in Ills note lo Governor Cusliing dalrcl Z'Mi Ocl. I7!U, snvs "Wo had hrforo iis ihroiiRli lliR whole negorialion ii varic^lv of maps." Kivo "dilVrrenl maps publislicd at London, in the years I7lij, 1771, I7tt. 177.'i, plare the norlliwisl anj;lc of Nova Scotia, on the "highlands" at the .sonne of liint liraneli ol'llie river St. John now called the Madawasea. One of these five is specially i|iiol<'il in the report of the Committee of ('ongress llilli Aug. 17fP2. Hence prohahly the miscon- ception in the first instance on the part of the American ('(nnmissiorierswlio in pro- posing at the commencement of the negocialion, the river Ht. John as the b(mnda- ry assumed the position of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia as hcing oa "the highlands" Ace. at the sonrco ol the river St. John. \ 37 in the same meaning, and with the same applicability, and extent of sifrnijkation, in wliuh one of the particn had always used them, and the other had always understood them. Tliut such was their iiiutiial iiiiileiiitiiiiding would hcl'iii to ruciuii tVoui the peculiar expression of the Treaty — "I'roui the northwest anj,'lo of Nova Scotia" — not that su|ipo8e(i northwest angle on the highlands at the source of the river St. John — not th:it northwest angle on the hunk of the St. Lawrence, formerly insisted upon in the controversies between France and Great Britain — not the indefinite northwest angle of the original vague grant of the province, hut that northwest angle, which had been prescribed by the authority of King and Parliament, and had been repeatedly recognized by thut authority in the most Bolurnn manner, in all their public documents for t!ie lust twenty years, "to wit: that angle formed by a lino drawn due north from the source of the river St. (^'roix to tho highlundd," etc. The high- lands thercforn, which the United States have insisted are the high- lands of the Treaty, are those alone on which the point of departure the actual legal "northwest angle of Nova Scotia," was e.atablished and to be found. Tliey are tin highlands which had long been described by the language of the 'J'reaty and the only ones tiiat cviir tiud been so designated or known at the time the Treaty was made. But it is contended by the Government of Great Britain that there is a rival range of higidauds, which in all its characteristics better comports with the language and de.'^cription of the Treaty. It is ilie dividing ridge tiiat boimds the southern side of the basin of the river St. John uiul iliviilcs the streams that flow into the river St. John from those which flow into tho I'enobscot and St. Croix. No river flows from this dividing ridge into the river St. Lawrence. Un the contrary nearly the whole of the basins of the rivers St. John and Uistigouclie intervene. The source of the St. Ooix also is in this very "ligne des versonts," and less than an English mile distant froui the source of a tributary stream of the St. John. Tliis proximity reducing the due north line of the Treaty as it were to a point coin|)i.-lled the provincial Agents of the British Govrrnincnt at tho expense apparently of consistency, to extend the due north line across this dividing ridge and to pass onward into the basin of the St. John ; and crossing continually as they t)rt>c(;edod the tributary streams of that river they at length arrived in tilt! vicinity of an insolatod hill called Mnrs Hill, standing near the southwestern bank of the river St. John between two of its tributary streams, and distant about forty miles from tlio source of the St. ('roix. Connecting that isolated hill by means of the divid- ing ridge between said trdjutary streams with the "ligne des ver- sants" as just described they claimed it as constituting the highlands of the Treaty, "which divide the rivers that empty themselves into tlie river St. Lawrence, from those that fall into the Atlantic Ocean." In the absence of all and every kind of public document to sus- tain the line claimed by Great Itrituin, in opposition to the express language of a series of public documents emanating from the Brit- ish Government itself for a succession of more than sixty years, — in opposition to ull tho ancient British and other Mai)s of the coun- ■•-; I '■I, 33 <1 i 1 ^.-^, ■ §-- I try from tliu cniKiuciit of Caiimlii in 17(i9, to tire spriii^rjn^ up of now (lilVuuiltieH hutwieii the United Statfs und Ureal Urituiii alter tlic Frciicli Revolution — in op)iuMitioii to all tlio debutut) in I'urliu- nient on the treaty of 178-'i and lliu map pul)li»liBd ut that time to illustrate those ilebates — in oppusiiion to all the funlureM, tiipogru- ])liy and traditions of the country, and in opposition to the titcttliut the uortfiwest an<;le of Nova >Sc.otiu, the point of departure of thu treaty never was at jMars llili nor within one hundred Eni^lislt miles due north of it, his Majesty the King of the Netherlands from considcruiions principally arising out of u position assumed that the river St. John empties itbelf into the bay of Fundy and not into the Atlantic ocean, and that the river Kistigouche empties itself into the bay des Chaleurs and not into the Atlantic ocean, and that it equally accords with the requisitions of the treaty of 1783 wheth- er the highlands that divide the rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those that fall into the Atlantic ocean, divide said rivers "mediately" or "iininedi:itely," expresses the opinion that the lino as claimed by Great Britain comports equally well in all respects with the language of the treaty as that claiincil by the United States. Having thus discovered that the language of the treaty is ambiguous and inexplicable he proceeds to set aside the boundary of thu treaty and to propose a new and diifereiit line of demarcation which bethinks would be a suitable one, viz: that the line drawn directly north from the source of St. (Jruix river should extend to the centre of the river St. John only, thence the boundt\ry line should pass up that river to the mouth of the river St. Francis, thence up the river St. (Vancis to the source of its southwestern^ioBt branch, thence due west from said source until it intersects the line of the highlands as claimed by the United States, and only from thence to pass "along the suid highlaiiila "which divide the rivers that empty themselves into the liver St. "Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic ocean, to thu "northwesternmost head of Connecticut river." Upon this branch of the subject and in reference to this proceeil- ing on the part of His Majesty I confine myself to one remark thnt this is the making of a now treaty and prescribing new limits in- stead of executing the old one by '■^aictriainxn^^'' "sumei/idg'" ami "marking" its boundaries. It is giving the bed of a river for a boundary instead of highlands diviirmg rivers nHignedesversanls." I should not advert to thu decision of His Majesty on the second question were it not for tlio purpose of saying that it had appeared to the Government of iho United States, judging from inspection of an accurate map of the country, that the conrce or bead, which the Arbiter has decided in conformity with the British claim to Ite "the northwesternmost head of Connecticut river," was in foot the northeastern head ; yet that being the point Bubmilied,lhe United States will without doubt fultil whatever they have stipulated. In regard to tlio third (piestion submitted the Arbiter after ex- pressing an opinion that the 45th parallel boundary should bo run and marked without rofurence to the line as formerly run and es- tablished, proceeds to doclaro tlint it would be suitable that at the jilace culled Koiise's point, the territory of the Uniteil States of America should nevertheless extend so us to comprehend u "fort" m 39 ilici'u C8t(il)liiiliu(l 1111(1 its "rayon kiliiiiictrii|uo." It is true lljiit there aro the niiiid ol' uii uhuiuluiieil lurtilicutioii furintirly built by the Unitetl Htutun on a stiiiken point ur piece ut' ground culluii "RoUitu'd point" on tlio bortlurti of hake ClinniplHin and that thiif point is within the hinits of tlm United iStates acxordiiij^ to the old established line, but will probably full without by ucuuriite ndniuas- ureineni. Jtut it is eipially true that these facts had not even been al- luded tu in the atalenients,douunientsand evidence submitted on tlio part of the United iStntes, and that no conununiuution or intimation of the slightest character in relation to these facts has ever been made to the Arbiter in hehalf of the United Ktutes, As the ques- tions submitted related solely to the true limits defined and (trescri- bed by the treaty of 17t^t, any allusion to lt<>use's point was deem- ed irrelevant. 'Die Government of the United States asked for iiothing but a rigid adherence to the faith of treaties and a ready execution ot their stipulatiuns in an elevated sentiment of national good faith. But for sometime past His Majesty the King of the Netherlands has had his attention strongly excited to tiic subject of convenient boundaries, 'i'liere is, siiys the Court Journal of the Hague of the lltli instant, "iin rapprochment bizarre" between the position which the King ocimpied as Arbiter in regard to the boim- daries between Ureat Britain and the United .';?tates and that which Ureat Britain occupies in regard to the bouniiaiies between Holland and Belgium. Wliun, thendbrc, the (lovernment of Great Britain urged a claim to a portion of the ani:ient territory of the Uniied States, on the ground that it was convenient and necessary to her, and His Majesty felt the power and yielded to the influence of the argument, it was natural that he should look around for something which might, in order to save appeiirances, afford an ostensible application of the same principle in favor of the United States. — And this mode of saving appearances could not be un.'icceptable to Great Britain inasmucli as it originated from the suggestion uf her own Agents. With sentiments of respectful cnnsiderntion, ^ 1 have the honor to be, Dear Sir, your very obedient servant, \VM. i: I'lU'AW.K. His Kxcellcncy, Louis McI.ank, Envui/ Ktlrttordiiiari) and Minister Plcnipoknlianj oj the U. S. Jl. London. ■iV i 'i No. 2. Eli met from the Rvport of John G. Dcunc, Esquire, Agent, ifc. to the (iovenior of Maine, dated Nov. '•2d, 18.'JI. "In itS'i, I'ierre Lizotte, then a boy of fourteen years of ago, strayed from his home in (^'amida and found his way to the Indian settlement at the month of Madawasca river, where he continued during the following winter. On his return to hia friends, his rep- I'usciitatiuns were uuch as induced his half brother, IHure Dupaiv. ! y I '■ ■ ./: I U:. .{() /« accoin/mnij him to Ihc same place, for the purpose oj trade wilh the Jndiitns, the year following. Tliuy cuiiiiiiuiicuil their biisiiiuMS on tliu south y'ulu ut' tlie St. Juliii, IVoiii two to three inilett huhiw tho iiiuutli uf Mndawasca rivur. TUetj were the first persons who com- menced their residence at Madawasea. Two or three years afterwards, tmy in 178(1, the Jlcadian or neutral French, whose ancestors hail buuii sultlcd at ilie head of tliu Bay of Fuiidy, or in tliu country \vhi(;li is now cullud Nova dcotin, and had been driven from Ihenct and had established themselves at St. Jlnns, (mow fniduricton) and in that nui^hhorhoud, 2iet)i^ disturbed by the introduction of the refulishment which I'ierro Dnperru hud made a few yuurn previous. Here they con- tinued in the unnlolo'^ted onjoynieut of tlieir property for some years. Pierre Dupcrre hcinfr a man of some learning, had great influence wiiii his nei^rjiiiors, and the Urilish authorities «/ the province of ^Yew Brunswick, seein^r his ronsci|uoniH: in the sctllcinent, hf/fa?i enrlif to caress and fiuUtr him, uui[ sunietimu in llie year I7'J0 iniluccd him to receive from them a grant of the land he occupied. Infiuenced as well by Pierre Duperre as with the hope of not again being disturb- ed and driven from their posses.sions, ns they and their ancestors more than once h:id been by the Hriiish, this large body of Prench- vien were also induced to receive grants from JVew Brunswick of the land they possessed, fur whicli some were required to pay ten shil- lings and others nothing. Aliout this period, 171)0, another body of tho tlescendants of the Acadian or neutral French, who had souirht n refu;;e on the Ken- nebucknsis, were there disturbed in tbi'ir possessions bj the refu- gees and the acts of the govermnent of New lirunswick; they also rniiiKt citi- zens nf the United Stutea who hnd settled in tlie wilderness, innny inileHbeyoiMl where the liritish had ever cxerciricd any Jin-isdictiuii before, but tlicse were not prosecuted. In 1824,* Sir Howard Douolaa arrived and took upon himself the frovernmenl of the province of.Vew Brunswick as its Lieutenant (Jov- vrnor. In Ueceinber of that year, he appointed four tniliiia (^ap- tniuH and a competent nundier of MuhalternH at Aladawasca — but the persons appointed did not accept their cotntnissions until Jidy J82(» — and suh.secpient to that time the militia were fully <>r<;ani/cd. Licenses to cut timber were also t;ranted by New Brunswick. In May 18'2."), l^t. (iS ' V-i -; - fl •2titii of Aiierusi. ■I 1 Ui * 9 A, .1 .18 llii' revolution. In 1800 hIic ^rrnnteil llio townKliip niljuinin;' iMiirN Mill on (lit! West to Dturlielil iiiul Wi-Hiliflil Aciiili-nnus. In IM07 nIh! ;rruntcil u townMliip ol' liind lo tliu town of riynioiitli, lying on liotli siilKH of tliu AroHtook unci iMiniuitxl oust liy tlio line (luo north from the Huurce of the river Ht. Croix to the liighlumls. In 1H(M Hhe cunvnyeil ten thoniiiitid ncrea to (ien. bliiton, huuniled eitHt hy the lust utoreHiiiil grant. All the aforcKuiil grnnti* were made pur- suant to actual KiirveyH, which had heen previnuHly nmde under her nntiiority. In 1808, or hefore, the line Iroin the Hource of the Ht. (>roi.\ due north wax run under the authority uf MuHsnchuseitH an far as the river ^t. John. In 18'J0un examination and recunnoisanre was made, under the authority of Maine, of the whole country on the AlligaMh river and on the (Ji. John, from tiie moulh ot tiie Allignsh lo the place where the line due north from the source of the 8t. Croix intfr)iv, to within less than half a mile of the river Ht. John, and the H'atits divide(! hetween them, occordini; to the act of St^paration of M;, Maine and MaRsachusctts surveyed and divided Ave ndditionul ranges of townsliiiis, lying west of the two ranges afore- said, and extending nearly to the river Ht. John. Ar.d there iievek has been a moment during which Massachusetts prior to I82U and Maine since that period, have ceased lo assert their jurisdiction over the wliole territory." Extinct of a letter from the Hon. Mr. Kavayiagh, Member of Congress, to Wm. P. Preble, dated Nov. li), 18;J1. "I deem it material in treating of the liistorv of tlie Acadiann, or Neutral French, /o present in prominent relief Iht facts allendinc Iheir several migrations which go most conclusiveljf to show thai in all their movements, since their exile from JVova Scotia, they have endeavored to place themselves beyond the reach of British jurisdiction. When their settlement was broken up in Nova Scotia, a few families escaped from the troops and settled themselves on the Keimbeckasis and others near the Baye des Chnleurs*; but the yoinig infen who were not encumbered by wives and children fled to Quebec, then under French rule ; there they remained until the cession of Canada to *I'or a liiMory of the outrage hero rcfnrrctl lo, sec Halliburlon's History of NuvS Scotia, or the North American Review for January KM. ^ .'}.'» I'jiifliuitl ill I7ii;i. 'riii~ f'M III I'niifi.il ilii.'iii to ijiiii Ciiiiiiln iiiid I' i'tiiiipv<'(l 111 I I'lacc uhirli llicy nncnviinl.'' ciillcd St. Ainn", wIk llic IDWII 111 rrcili'i'irtDii liMN Im'i'ii ■i'liii'i; liiiilt. It >vhn iit lliiit tiliio II \vil(li'rni-.ss. 'J'lirri! iliry liopril to rciiiniii iinknrnvn. 'I'liey Ciillici'od on tliat spot soiiif of the I'lMiinaiit u\' ilirir riii-i', tind roiii- iMcnred riiltivatiii;; tlii; soil, iickiiowli'dgiiiK no allnginncc to any power on earth, and most rcrtainly disinclinnd torotnt the attention o( Hritish barliniity. In I7HI they were diseoveied and their liiiid*) were ^(rnnted to a dishanded regiment of Jlefn^'ees, eommunded by one (Colonel l,ee, (1, to reeeive i;raiUs from the Provineial authorities of New Itrnnswiek of the farms which they oreiipicd. Ifi recfard to the erelesiastieal jnrisdietion exereised by the Cntlio- lie Itishop of lioston in the Madawasea settlement, I learn that the prwscnt Itishop, when he took eliar<;e of his diocese in 182'i, received Ironi the present Hishop (d'tineliee an ofli;r to interehanae faeultiea on the line diviilintf tiie limits of their Seas, and it was done." Note. S<"o iIh' (Icpo'iilioiis (if »p\cral nf llir MailiiMnsoa seltli-rs, Uiki'ii No\ 'r. 11(21), priiilcil III till- Aiipciiilix til till- Ainoiirnii Sliili'inoiils, niigo itl'J lo 3^l(i. The ijiflinsilion to sonllit' tlirsr srlllrrs ami tlioir rt'inif^naiicv In iNi'W llniiiswick ii* very • loarly, tlioiigli imidoiilallv. alliiilcil tn in tli<" lotlor nC l.onl norclu'stcr iif 9tli July I7II7, to John Holland, ami liis ri'pK , ilnlcil Jlitli of llm Kanic- month, priiilcit in the same Ap|H'iiilix, pngf!>i tt'i, l-t3. Hi'* l.orilship savi, "you will nejricrl no oppnrtu- iiily of assiirin;; all porsons, » » » * partiriilarly tlic Arcinlians in that vicinity, of llif gooil dispositions of (iovorninrnt in tlirir favor as ixjircssod in th»' riiclospil Aliii- iiti'ii of Couni'il. which yon will coinmiinicatc lo llicni leaving copies thereof with "ininc of the people for iheir satislaclion."— The ininnlcs of ( 'oiiiicil here referred to, stale "his Lordship proposed and the ('oiincil concurred in iiiilhorizing Mr. Holland to give assurances lo all persons lo sellle ihere, hikI esjiecially the .\ccadians in that \icinilv. of the favoralih' inlcnlions of this (lovernment lo ibciie graiitb in llieir favor (or three hundred acres lo ihe head of crerv (ainilv," &<-. T 1 , I ■> V- ■ '1 •M m"^h3^* 1^ ^ i\u. :». Hitrttcl J'roiii till Arffiiiiiint.i of tin Uriiisli Agt:nt under the Tmittj of niM. ir it cmi l)u hIiuwii tlint ilic river Kcoudiar, ho cnllcil liy llio liiiliuiis, is tlic rivur St. Ooix, and lliat ii lino uloiifi; tlio niiddlu ut'it to it« Monnui, togtjiliur witli a liiii itiit north from its source, Jbniir.d a purl o/ the ii'tntern boundaries uj'lht province of N'ovn Scotia, luid ihnt the hiffhlands formed the northern lioiindiiri/ line ol" tliiH pruvincu »< Me time the trentif of peace was rnadi', so as to form the northwest anf(le o/ .Yovn Scotia l>y the.it western and northern Imundurits, tliij intention of the treaty of puace is ut unce asceitained in the great point in con- trovers'/. *»«**»« All till! Frrncli possrtssions npon tlio continent of Nortli Anierivn l>t the ccs.sion of thu territory coni- pri.'^ed within thu boundarieH of the United States, as described in the second article of the trt;aty of peace, his Majesty must bo sup- posed to have used the terms ('.-si-riliiiig these boundaries in the sense in which they had l:een uiiiiorinly iiiKlerstood in the British nation and reco^rni/vd in public ilocuui'Uits and actsof goveriimont. , 111 this sensu and in no other could they have been then undorstooif, or can they now be claimed or insisted upon by tbo United States. Ill this sense and in no other is liis Majesty bound to give the po»- session. #»««»** As then at the treaty of pence in 1783 the northern limit of tlio province of Nova Scotia wan a line along the highlands which divide the rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those which Jail into the sea, it un(|uestioiiably follows, that the uorlhwesl angle of .Vovn Sfotia at the time of the treaty of peace in 1783 was that angle which was formed fci/ a line drawn due north from the source of the river St. Croix to those highlands. Can it be believed or tor a iiioinont iiiingiiiiMl that in the course of huiiiaii events so exact a coincidence could have happened lie- Iwecn the actual, real boundaries of ihc province of Nova Scotia and the linuiidarics of it (lescrilii'd in litis Iri'aty, (178!) if the latler liad not been dictated aiul re^'ulalcd by ilic foimer. * * * A / <( ■• » " /■ 86 "A line duo north rroiii a Bourne nf die wsHtern or main branch of the Bcoutliac or Ut. Croix will Tuliy itecure this uffuct to the United Htntes in every instance and also to Great Britain in all inatances except the river St. John wherein it becomes impossible by reason that the source of this river is to the westward not only of the western boundary lino of Nova Scotia, but of the aourcun of the I'enobscot and even of thu Konnuhec, so that this north line must of necessity cross the river St. John. But if a north line is traced from the source of the Cheputnateeook, it will not only cross the river St. John within about fiAy miles from Frcdcricton, the me- tropolis of New Brunswick, hut will cut otl'tho sources of the rivers which fall into the Buy of Chaleurs, if not of many others probably the Mirramichi among them, which fall into the gulph of St. Law- rence." ^ Letter 0/ Robert Liston, Esquire, Minister Plenipotentiary of Great Britain, at Washington, to the British Agent Wider the Treaty of 1794. pBoviDENCE,23d Oct. 1798. Private. Sir — I have considered with attention your letter of this day, and it appears to me evident that Me adoption of the river Cheputna- teeook aa a part of the Boundary between his Majesty's American dominions and those of the United States, in preference to a line drawn from the easternmost point of the Scodiac Lakes would be attended with considerable advantage. It icoulJ give an addition of territory to the Province of J^exe Brunsioick together mth a greater extent of navigation on St.John't river: and above all a larger stretch of natural frontier, calculated to prevent future difficulties and dis- cussions between the two countries. If therefore by assenting to the proposal of the American Agent you can bring about the unan- imous concurrence of the CommisHioners in this measure, I am of opinion that you will promote His Majesty's real interests: and I will lake the earliest opportunity with a view to your justification, of expressing these my sentiments on the subject to His Majesty's Secretary of State. I have the honor to be with great truth and regard. Sir, your most obedient humble servant, ROB. LISTON. Ward Chipnmn, Esq. (NoTK. The rii'er Clifjmlnatirnok wa.i selrrleil and oslahlishcd, ns rccomiiieiid- cd III llie abcivc Irlter, lo 1«j lit* river St. Ctoix. For further cxtracU from tlie Ar- giiinvut of Uic Britisli Agciil, sou Appendix lo Anicricon Slalcmcntii, pages 370 to .74.J i n --y^ \ \ ^ wrt'YjKsw tasataiiea:*, ^■^ '•"■ii"-"f^f