IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) Z^o A. ^ K 1.0 1.1 I 2f |jj4 ■■■ us ■» u uo IM L25 i 1.4 i 1.6 9ki>. <%4 '/ / °m PhotograiAric Sdences Corporalion ^v iV ^ 'i? <> - ^ ;\ 23 WBT MAIN iTRKT WiMTLi/t.Y. I4SS0 (716) »73-^^03 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notas tachniquaa at bibliographiquaa T u Tha Instituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat original copy avaiiabia for filming, f aaturaa of thia copy which may ba bibliographicaliy uniqua, which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha raproduction, or which may aignificantly changa tha uaual mathod of filming, ara chackad balow. □ Colourad covara/ Couvartura da coulaur I I Covars damagad/ D D D D D Couvartura andommagia Covars rastorad and/or laminatad/ Couvartura rastaurte at/ou pallicul6a I I Covar titia missing/ La titra da couvartura manqua FTj Colourad maps/ Cartas gAographiquas an coulaur Colourad init (i.a. othar than blua or black)/ Encra da coulaur (i.a. autra qua blaua ou noira) I I Colourad platas and/or illustrationa/ D Planchas at/ou illustrations an coulaur Bound with othai material/ RaliA avac d'autras documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re iiure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion la long de la marge intArieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within tha text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouttes lore d'una restauration apparaissant dans la texte, mais. lorsqua cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont pas M film«es. Additional comments:/ Commentairas supplAmantaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ la meilleur exemplaira qu'il lui a tt6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaira qui sont paut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modiirication dans la mAthoda normale de filmage sont indiqute ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D Pagea da couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurtes at/ou paliiculAes Pages discoloured, stained or foxet Pages dtcoiories. tacheti«s ou piquiftes Pages detached/ Pages ditachies Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quaiit^ in6gaie de I'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprend du material supplAmantaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponibie |~n Pages damaged/ I — I Pages restored and/or laminated/ rri Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ rri Showthrough/ ! I Quality of print varies/ |~~1 Includes supplementary material/ r~1 Only edition available/ T P o fi C b tl a o fi si o T U t ri( ra m Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refiimed to ensure the best possible image/ Les |>ages totaiement ou partiallement obscurcies par un feuiilet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont M filmtes A nouveau da fapon A obtanir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu* ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X Th« copy filmad h«r« has bMn r«producMl thanks to tho o«n«rotity of: Library of tha Public Archivas of Canada L'axampiaira fllmi f ut raproduit grica k la 04n4rosltA da: La bibliothAqua daa Archivas publiquas du Canada Tha Imagas appaaring hara ara tha bast quality possibia considaring tha condition and iagibility of tha original copy and in Icaaping with tha filming contract spacif ications. Original copias in printad papar covara ara fllmad baglnning with tha front cover and anding on tha laat paga with n printad or illustratad impraa- sion, or tha bacit covar whan approprlata. All othar original copias ara fllmad baglnning on tha first paga with a printad or illuatratad Impras- sion, and anding on tha last paga with a printad or illustratad imprassion. Tha last racordad frama on each microflcha shall contain tha symbol — ^ (maaning "CON- TINUED"^, or tha symbol y (moaning "END"), whichavar appiias. Lsa imagas suhrantas ont 4t4 raproduitas avac la plua grand soln, compta tanu da la condition at da la nattat* da raxamplaira filmA, at an conformity avac laa conditions du contrat da filmaga. Laa axamplairaa orlginaux dont la couvartura an papiar aat imprlmAa sont fllmfo an commandant par la pramiar plat at an tarminant salt par la darnlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'impraaalon ou d'lllustratlon, soit par la sacond plat, salon la caa. Tous las autras axamplairaa orlginaux sont fllmte an comman9ant par la pramiAra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'impraaalon ou d'lllustration at in tarminant par la darnlAra paga qui comporta una talla amprainta. Un das aymbdaa auhrants apparaftra sur la darnlAra imaga da chaqua microflcha, salon la caa: la symbols -^ signifia "A SUIVRE", la aymboia ▼ aignlfia "FIN". Mapa. platas, charts, ate, may ba fllmad at diffarant raductlon ratios. Thosa too larga to ba antiraly included in ona axposura ara filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many framea as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Lea cartas, planchaa, tableaux, etc., psuvent §tre f ilmfo i das taux da rMuction diff Arents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atra raproduit an un seul ciichA, 11 eat f llmA A partir da Tangle supArleur gauche, de gauche k droite, et de haut en baa, en prenant le nombre d'Imagea nAcaaaaira. Las diagrammes suivants iiluatrant la mithoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 / •■ J? ■ CONTENTS. Treaty of 1783. — Its Construction Treaty of Amity and Commerce between Great Britain and the United States of America. — Proceedings bad in relation to the Boundary in question, under the Fifth Article of that Treaty . Treaty of Ghent. — Proceedings bad under the Fifth Article of ^ that Treaty Inference to the King of the Netherlands. — His Award. — Rejec- '* tion of it by the Senate of the United States of America Negociation between the Government of Great Britain and that of the United States of America respecting the Boundary in question. — ^Proposals of the establishment of a conventional line of Boundary. — Negociation of the Government of the United States of America with the State of Maine.— Final . Result thereof Consideration of the Boundary, as settled by the Treaty of 1783, resumed Of the Negociations between the Government of the United States of America and the States of Maine and Massachusetts, respecting a conventional line of Boundary to be substituted in the place of that of the Treaty of Peace of 1763, on the sup- position that this last was impossible Proceedings of the States of Maine and Massachusetts, between the period of the Convention of 1827 and the Resolution of the Senate of the United States rejecting the Award of the King of the Netherlands . . Proposal of Mr. Livingston Conclusion . Appendix ... . . . . , . . Page 1 41 66 71 100 126 138 142 146 194 197 1 v; \\ w: ;j?;hj' SUCCINCT ACCOUNT or TUB llftii » TREATIES AND NEGOCIATIONS • ETWBKIf GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ^ : BRLATIMO TO THB o ■ BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE BRITISH POSSESSIONS OF , LOWER CANADA AND NEW BRUNSWICK. IN NORTH AMERICA, AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Pi(§ ... /DS TREATY OF 1783. ITS CONSTRUCTION. In the second Article of the Treaty of 1783, the Boundary in question is described as follows:— " From the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, viz. " from that angle which is formed by a line, drawn " due north from the source of the St. Croix River '^ to the highlands ; along the said highlands which "divide those rivers that empty themselves into " the River St. Lawrence, from those which fall " into the Atlantic Ocean to the north w^estemmost "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 river into Lake Ontario ; thence," &c. &c. ' As in a Statute so in a Treaty, the preamble may be looked at, to aid in arriving at the true interpret- ation of the clauses in the body of the instrument. By the preamble to the Treaty of 1783 it w de- B clared, that the end which the high contracting parties thereto had in view, was " to establish such ** a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse between " the two countries, upon the ground of reciprocal ''advantages and mutual convenience, as may " (might) produce to both perpetual peace and " harmony." The rules to be applied to the construction of this Treaty are as much moi'e large and liberal than those which obtain in the construction of compacts between private individuals, as the power and dig- nity of nations, and the interests represented by the sovereignty, surpass in kind and in magnitude any rights or possessions which can belong to indivi- duals. «, . f t In the first instance, however, it will be proper to examine this international compact with the same strictness that would be applied to a private con- tract; and, as in private titles to land, so in this great national title deed, to ascertain upon the earth's surface the line described therein. So also, as in private contracts, if the words of the instrument be clear and unambiguous, there is no room for interpretation — the words must be fol- lowed. It is only in the event of discrepancies existing between the several clauses in the instrument, or between the subject of the instrument, as that sub- ject exists in nature, and the subject as described in the instrument, that we are required, or indeed at > ! liberty to enlarge or abridge the effect of the terma of the compact ; and then the construction is to be of the large and liberal kind above mentioned. t But whether we look at the terms of the Treaty strictly or largely, it cannot be too steadily borne in mind that, as the question relates to the inten- tion of the framers of the Treaty, we are not at liberty to introduce any facts or circumstances which could not have been in the minds of the framers of the Treaty, and consequently that all facts posterior in time to the 3rd September, 1783, to the punctwn temporis even when the Treaty was perfected, must be excluded. It is otherwise as to facts anterior to the making of the Treaty in any way connected with its subject- matter. Accordingly, the controversies which from tim6 to time may have existed in relation to the Bound- aries of the tract of country in question between the Crown of France and that of England — the acts of the public authorities within the old Bri- tish Colonies— within the old Province of La Nou- velle France — as well as those of the public autho- rities in this kingdom and in France charged with the superintendence and government of their respective colonies — the claims and pretensions of the parties to this Treaty, as found in the corre- spondence of its framers, with each other, or with their several Governments; — may legitimately be used to aid in the discovery of the intention. It b2 T will not, however, be necessary here to advert to any of this class of facts, except to a very few, which are known to all the world. Before the Treaty of 1783, three several lines of Boundaries of this territory had been in contro- versy : — 1st. The line of the River Kennebec from its source to its embouchuie in the Atlantic Ocean. 2nd. The Pentagoet or Penobscot River, also from its source to its embouchure, in the Bay of the same name, in the Atlantic Ocean, drd. The St. Croix or Schoodic River, also from its source to its em- bouchure, in Passamaquody Bay, at the termina- tion of the Bay of Fundy, being the westernmost extremity of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. ? The River St. John, emptying into the Bay of Fundy, had been thought of as a Boundary, but the claim to it, as a line of Boundary, had been, by the American Negociators of the Treaty of 1783, abandoned as plainly untenable. * '^ ' '• ^ Now the three rivers, the Kennebec, the Pen- obscot, and the St. Croix, or Schoodic Rivers, all rise in one range of highlands, the distinctive character whereof, as they strike the eye, is that they divide the rivers that empty themselves into the St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlan- tic Ocean. Looked at as lines of Boundary between two States, they possess, nearly, the same general cha- There are, however, considerations which seem to I t entitle the St. Croix, or Schoodic River, to a pre- ference over the other two rivers as such line of Boundary. The River and Gulf of St. Lawrence remain- ing to England, it was fitting that the rivers emptying into the River St. Lawrence, and into the Gulf, and the territories which they watered, should in like manner belong to England. It was equally true that the Rivers Kennebec and Penobscot, falling into the Atlantic Ocean, should belong to the State to which the North American Atlantic Coast belonged. Now the River St. Croix takes its source at the extremity of the highlands, that divide the waters emptying themselves into the River St. Lawrence, from those which empty themselves into the At- lantic Ocean, and its embouchure may be con- sidered as terminating the Gulf of St. Lawrence on the one side, and as touching the Atlantic Ocean on the other. -" « • "'-- '- -• ' - A line run due north from the source of the St. Croix, would strike highlands, at the distance of about twenty miles from the point of departure, and proceeding along those highlands to the north- westernmost head of Connecticut River, will have a continuous course of highlands — ^the ligne des versantSy which " divides the rivers emptying them- " selves into the St. Lawrence, from those which " fall into the Atlantic Ocean." ^'- We have here too the north-west angle of Nova T Scotia, to wit, iii the very words of the Treaty, *' that angle which is formed hy a line drawn due " north from the source of St. Croix River to the highlands," &;c. Sec. kc. Any ordinary map giving the sources and courses ' of the streams in this tract of country, which empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence, and of those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, gives this summit level, this great dividing ridge, so plainly described in the Treaty of 1783. The map Number 1, at the end of this paper, which has been coloured to make of it an hydrogra- phic map of the whole of this territory, shows plainly this dividing ridge. - ■> J After all the discussions which have taken place since the making of the Treaty of 1783, it is be- lieved that it would not be possible to describe this line of Boundary with greater certainty and pre- cision than it is described in that Treaty ; the words are too plain to call for or admit of interpretation. And if interpretation were necessary, these high- lands correspond not less with the spirit than they do with the letter of the Treaty. The subject has thus far been presented in its most simple form, and free from all details ; justice, however, would not be done to it without entering into details, sufficiently dry, but absolutely necessary for the explanation of the Treaty of 1783. A notion has been adopted by many, otherwise well-informed persons, that in the discussions be^ tween Great Britain and the United States, respect- ing this boundary, the positions to be maintained by Great Britain, are the same as those which France heretofore maintained without success. Now although it be true that this controversy between Great Britain and the United States of America cannot be rightly understood without a knowledge of the history of the controversies which preceded it, between the English and French Crowns, still it differs essen- tially from the anterior controversies. It has also been very generally supposed that the Geography of this territory was altogether unknown to the framers of the Treaty of 1783. This last opinion is as erroneous as the preceding one ; the truth or error of these opinions can only be shown by reference to historical facts, to which we pro- ceed. '■^■■'' ■■ ' ■'"''■ •^''■'^-' '"^ ■■'■'^^ Besides, conflicting titles are produced, and ad- verse possession set up on the one side and on the other. In investigating these opposite lines of title, we cannot be certain of understanding the last title without first understanding that which immediately precedes it, and so back until we reach the first link of the chain, and with this we ought to begin. The chronological order, always an useful aid to the memory, cannot here be inverted without prejudice to the judgment, nor can a single link of the chain be with safety omitted. The French settlements upon the North Ameri- can continent long preceded those of England. 8 In 1506, Jean Denys of Honileur/ published a chart of t;iie coast of Newfoundland, and in- 1508 a savage was conveyed by a pilot of Dieppe to France. But the first of all the voyages made to North Ame- rica with the view of effecting settlements there, • was unquestionably that of the Baron de Lery de St. Just, in 1518.f He landed cattle upon Sable Island in this voyage, whilst it was more than a hundred years afterwards (A. D. 1624) that cattle were first conveyed to New England.J It is not necessary here to advert to the voyages of Jean Verrazan to the southern parts of North America, in the years 1523, 1524, and 1525, nor to those in the same direction of Laudoniere Bibaud, and of the Chevalier de Gourgues. Nor is it necessary for us to take any notice of the voyage of Jacques Car- tier, in 1534, and of his settlement upon the north shore in 1535; nor of the first appointment of a Lieutenant-General in the Counties of ^^ Canada Hochelaga and Saguenay^ and others in 1 540." Our attention will be confined to the Biver and Gulf of St. Lawrence, and to the great peninsula com- mencing on the southern shore of the St. Lawrence opposite Quebec, and terminating at the mouth of the Biver St. Croix, in the Bay of Fundy. After the failure of an attempt to make a settle- ment at Taioussac, by the Sieur Chauvin, a French * Pastes Chronologiques du Nouveau Monde, p. 13. t L'Escarbot, p. 2K X Salmon, III., 536. Protestant, and after bis death, about the year 1602, the SieuT de Monts, who had made his first voyage with Chauvin, formed the project of effecting a settlement more to the southward.* The Sieur de Poitrincourt joined in this enterprise. L'Escarbot, wliom the Sieur de Poitrincourt took with him to America, on his second voyage, in 1606, has given the history of these early settlements, whereof he was, as it were, an eye-witness, since Port Royal (Annapolis) was only founded in 1605, and that he was mainly accessary to the earliest advances of that colony. The Letters Patent nominating the Sieur deMonts Lieutenant GSnSral pour representer notre personne au PaySf Territoirey Cdtes et Conjms de TAcadie^ h com' mencer des k quarante — quatrieme dkgrk. jusqv! au quarante — sixUme, bear date the 8th of November, 1603, and may be read in L'Escarbot, p. 417. As early as 1604, the Sieur de Monts fitted out two ships, one intended to form a settlement within the limits of his grant, in which he embarked with the Sieurs Champlain and de Poitrincourt ; the other under the command of the Sieur de Pont Grave, intended principally for the fur trade.f Upon the 6th May, 1604, they reached the coast of * Memoims des Commissionaires du Hoi, et de ceux de Sa Majeste Britannique sur les possessions et les droits respectifa des deux Couronnes en Am^riqiie I. 137. — Champlain, part I. p. 42. t Mem. des Comm. I. 137. Acadie, at Port Rossignol, and thence sailing coast- wise, they reached a port which they called Port au Mouton. They thence went to Cape Sable, and ex- plored a large bay, which they denominated la Baie Frangoise, and which is now known by the name of the Bay of Fundy . The port at the entrance of this bay was, from its signal beauty, called Port Royal, and the Sieur de Poitrincourt was so well pleased with the situation that he solicited and obtained a grant of land there to settle with his family.* After going out of Port Royal, and exploring the mines, they crossed the bay and arrived at the River St. John on the 24th of June : leaving then that river, and sailing coastwise, they came to the mouth of a river, and settled on a small island in it which they called St. Croix, a name which was afterwards transferred to the river itself f The situation of St. Croix not being found advantageous, it was determined to effect a new settlement at Port Royal, and this was carried into effect in 1605.J Another settlement was effected about the same time towards the River Pentagoet (Penobscot) by the Sieur de la Saussaye.§ The colony not receiving much support from France, was feeble and unprosperous, but retained * L'Escarbot, p. 440. f L'Eecarbot, p. 441, et seq. + L'Escarbot, 495, 496; Mem. Corns., '38. § Champlain, part I., p. 104, and seq. H quiet possession of the country. Against thw ' colony, the expedition of Argal was directed. He found it totally unprepared for defence. The inhabitants, who had assiduously and successfully cultivated the friendship of the Indians, being re- strained by no fear of hostility from them, were scattered abroad in the woods, engaged in their several pursuits; and a ship and bark, just arrived from France, laden with articles necessary for the use of the colony, were surprised in port, and their cargoes taken to James* Town. Argal left no gar- rison to keep possession of the place, and after his departure, the French, who had only dispersed themselves among the Indians during the continu- ance of danger, immediately resumed their formet station. The pretext for this expedition was, that the French, by settling in Acadie, had invaded the rights of the English acquired by the first dis- covery of the continent.* The voyages of discovery made by the English and French, to the coast of North America, had been nearly contemporaneous, and they set up conflicting claims to the territory. In 1603, Henry IV. of France (as has already been seen) granted to De Monts a commission as Lieutenant General * Chalmers, Hutchinson,. Marshall's Life of Washington, vol. i., pp. 54, 55. it ' I 12 over that part of America, which lies hetween the 40th and 46th degrees of north latitude, with powers to colonize and to rule it; and in 1606, King James granted to the two Virginia Companies all that territory which lies between the 34th and 45th degrees of north latitude ; in consequence of which, in 1614, Captain Argal attacked and dis- persed the settlements made by the French, on the Bay of Fundy. In 1620, James granted to the Plymouth Company all that territory which lies between the 40th and 48th degrees of north latitude, and in 1621, he, as King of Scotland, granted to Sir William Alexander, under the Title of Nova Scotia, with the consent of the Plymouth Com- pany, the country bounded on the north, and east, and south, by the River St. Lawrence, and the Ocean; and on the west by the River St. Croix. Under these different grants actual settlements had been made by the French as far south and west as the St. Croix, and by the English as far north and east as the Kennocbec or Connecticut River. During the war with France, which broke out in the commencement of the reign of Charles I., that monarch granted a commission to Captain Kirk, for the conquest of the countries in America, occupied by the French, and under that commi;^- sion, in 1629, Canada and Acadie were subdued; but by the Treaty concluded at St. Germain, those places were restored to France, without any 13 description of their limits, and Port Royal, Quebec, and Cape Breton, were severally surrendered by name.* ii^W*'- 'v A i- s." ■■ •h,^MV-':^\\ vy ■i^'.^vy^^v-i'%'4'< '" The Treaty of St. Germain contained not a cession but a restitution^ as will be seen on reference to the terms of it. The circumstances accompany- ing the negociation of this Treaty, so far as Canada and Acadie are concerned, are to be found as well in Charlevoix, Vol. I., p. 173, and seq. as in the beginning of the second book of the Historia Canadensis Creuxii. — The Letters Patent to William Alexander, Earl of Stirling, were anterior to the Treaty of Saint Gennain, his first patent by James I., being of the year 1621, and his second by Charles I., bearing date in 1625, whilst the Treaty of St. Germain is of 1633. The description of Nova Scotia as given in these Letters Patent, is in the following words: — " Omnes et singulas terras continentes et insulas " situatas et jacentes in America, intra Caput seu *' promontorium communiter Cap de Sable appellatum, ''jacensprope latitudinem quadraginta trium graduum " aut eo circa ah equinoctiali lined versus Septentrio- " nem a quo promontorio versus littus maris tendens '* ad Occidentem ad Stationem navium SancttB Maria *' vulgo St. Marys Bay, et deinceps versus Septen- " trionem per directam lineam, introitum sive ostium * Chalmers, Hutchinson, Marshall's Life of Washington, vol. i., pp. 103, 104. ■ 1 1. !i 14 magna illius stationis navium trajicientem qua em- currit in terra Orientalem plagam inter regiones Suriquorum et Hecheminorum vulgo Souriquois et Etchemins ad fluvium vulgo nomine Santa Crucis appellatum, et ad scaturiginem remotissimam sive font em ex occidentali Parte ejusdem, qui se primum pradicto fiuvio immiscet; unde per imaginariam directam lineam qua pergere per terram seu currere versus septentrionem condpietur adproocimam navium stationem fluvium vel scaturiginem in magno fluvio de Canada sese exonerantem et ab eo pergendo versus Orientum per maris or as littorales ejusdem fluvii de Canada, ad Jluvium, stationem navium, par turn aut littus communiter nomine de Gackep6 aut Gaspi notum et appellatum; et deinteps versus Euronotum ad Insulas Baccalaos vel Cape Breton vocatas, re- linquendo easdem insuias ^ dextra et voraginem dicti Jluvii de Canada sive magna stationis navium et terras de Newfoundland cum insulis ad easdem terras pertinentibus h sinistra et deinceps ad Caput sive promontorium de Cap Breton pradictura jacens prope latitudinem, quadraginta quinque graduum aut eo circa, et a dicto promontorio de Cap Breton versus meridiem et occidentem ad pradictum Cap de Sable ubi incepit perambulatio, includens et comprehendens intra pradictas maris oras littorales ac earum cir- cumferentias d mari ad mare, omnes terras conti- nentes cumjiuminibus, torrentibus, sinibus, littoribus, insulis, aut maribus jacentibus prope aut iifra sex leucas ad aliquam earumdem partem, ex Occident 15 ** talif Boreali vel Orientali partibus orarum littoralium ; << et prcecinctuum earumdum^ et ab Euronoto ubi jacet ^* Cap Breton, et eu. Australi parte ejusdem fitbi est *' Cap de SableJ omnia maria ax: inaulas versus meri* ** diem intra quadraginta leucas dictarum orarum lit' " toralium earumdem, magnam insulam vulgariter ap- **pellatam Isle de Sable vel Sablon includendoyjacentem ** versus Carbon vulgo south south-east, circa triginta ** leucas cl dicto Cap Breton in mari et existentem **in latitudine quadraginta quatuor graduum aut eo circa^ In the Treaty of St. Germain, there was a formal surrender of all claim to the land described in the Earl of Stirling's Patent, and it was to have been expected, that nothing more would have been heard of that claim. However " Colonial historians (says Chalmers*), " with an inattention or interestedness of which " there are few examples, have always insisted that, "notwithstanding the absolute restitution before "mentioned, certain rights with regard to that territory still remained in England ; and her states- " men, with a credulity and want of wisdom equally " unexampled, have implicitly adopted their sen- " timents.f But in what consists the justice or " policy of preserving latent pretensions which can- " not be defended by candid discussion % The law (( * Chalmers's Political Annals of the Colonies, p. 93. f This appears to have been written before the American Kevolution. I iili ' ''' I F II 1 Hi " of nations reprobatfes wliatsoever contributes to ** disturb their repose ; and the present generation *^ has abundant cause to deplore that system of "mistaken politics, which entailed on this realm ** contentions and debts, that posterity may pos- " sibly regret in vain." No sooner was Acadie restored to France, in 1632, than her Sovereign granted to De Razilly the lands around the Bay and River of St. Croix. The Company of New France conveyed, in 1635, the territory on the banks of the River St. John to St. Etienne de la Tour, the General of that, colony. Massachusetts, as well as the other settlements of New England, beheld with regret the progress of the French on the adjacent coast, and dreaded their ultimate success; and Sedgewick, who was Com- mander-in-chief of Cromwell's forces in New Eng- land, was easily persuaded to attack a people whose religious tenets he detested, and whose country he hated. He acquired Port Royal by capitulation, in August, 1654 ; giving to the inhabitants liberty in their religion, and security for their property, ttnd on these conditions Acadie soon after submitted to his power. * After the conquest of the Peninsula of Nova Scotia by the arms of Cromwell, he issued his Letters Patent, granting to the Sieurs Charles de * Chalmers's Political Annals of the Colonies, pp. 186, 187; Marshall's Life of Washington. ova his de 187; If St. Etienne, Growne, und Temple, the country and territory called Acadie by the following description (ns given in the French translation of it, contained in the ^^Memoires des Cor.imissaires du Roiy et de " ceux de Sa Majesti Britannique sur les possessions " et les droits respectifs des deux Couronnes en Ame- " riquey" cited above). " Le pays et territoire " appell6 TAcadie et partie du pays nomme la " Nouvelle Ecosse depuis Merliguesche du c6t6 de " r ouest jusqu' au Port et Cap de la H^ve rangeant "les cotes de la mer jusqu' au Cap de Sable, et " de\k jusqu' k un certain Port appelI4 le Port la " Tour, et h present nomm6 le Port L'Esmeron, et " dela rangeant les cotes et Isles jusqu' au Cap et " Riviere Sainte Marie, rangeant les cotes de la mer "jusqu 'au Port Royal, et delk rangeant les cotes "jusqu' au fond de la Baie^ et delk rangeant la dite " Baie jusqu' au Fort St. Jean, et de la rangeant " toute la cote jusqu' k Pentagoetet Rivihre St. George " dans Mescourus, situe sur les coniins de la Nou- " velle Angleterre du cote de 1' ouest et en dedans " les terres tout le long des dites cotes jusqu' a cent " lieues de profondeur, et plus avant, jusqu' h. la " premiere habitation faite par les Flamans ou " Francois, ou par les Anglois de la Nouvelle An- "gleterre." In the month of November, 1655, a Treaty was made between the two nations. France demanded the restitution of the country, which had been taken from her. — The English Government set up claims c V ii i 18 to this country. The decision of this controversy was, by the 26th Article of the Treaty of West- minster, referred to Commissioners; but the ques- tion was only ultimately settled by the Treaty of Breda. The restitution of Acadie, and the other possessions of France in America, which had been conquered by the English, was stipulated for by that Treaty made in 1667, and carried into effect in 1670. The Article of the Treaty of Breda relating to the restitution of Acadie, is in the following words : — .** Le ci-devant nomm^ Seigneur le Roi de la Grande <. iwifu:,,' :-\-:. .-. ' ,.'i)^ ^^ '••; •■,■:!: •. \ We now come to the war which ended in the con- quest of Canada in 1759, and in its cession in 1 763. As early as 1 749 the Marquis De La Gallissoniere, then Gov^inor-General of New France, began to act openly. He was only relieved in the month of September in that year, and by that time all his orders had been given. In the Spring he had sent a colony to Detroit, and had established a garrison there. He had afterwards caused other forts to be built ; those of " Baie des Puans> des Scioux, de Toronto," after- wards called Fort Rouille, and that of the River de la Presentation. He had reinforced the forts of Frontenac and Niagara. He had taken measures to transfer the Indian trade from the Englisb fort of Choneguen (now Oswego) to the French posts and forts. He had ordered all English, who should be found trading with the savages within the limits which he prescribed, to be arrested, and several were so. But the most important event which occurred in this year was a solemn proclamation made by the Marquis De La Galissoniere, in the name of the King of France, of the exclusive right of his sove- reign to the whole of Canada. He sent a strong detachment, under the Sieur de Celeron, to deter- 25 mine the limits of Canada, which he fixed at the River Ohio, then called La Belle Riviere. He caused public and authentic possession to be taken of that river in the name of the King of France. He had planted on its banks posts decorated with his King's Arms. He had boundaries planted, and had at- tached to them medals in lead, which represented or recalled to mind that event, with inscriptions establishing and taking possession. He thus de- clared kajplicitly that the fort of Choneguen, and some other English establishments on this side of the River Ohio, were encroachments, from which the English must either withdraw or be expelled. An idea may be formed of the astonishing efforts made within the colony at that time, from some fact& stated by M. Bigot, then Intendant-General of Canada, in his defence upon an accusation of pecu- lation, preferred against him after his return to France, on the conquest of this country in 1759. According to him, (and he could have ha..' o< interest in augmenting the amounts), the stores sent to Louisburg and the Island of St. John, in 1750, amounted to 333,600 livres, 15 sols, and 8 deniers , and the expense for the posts at the River St. John and Chediak for the same year was 297,389 livres, 19 sols, and 4 deniers. It appears in the same memorial that there were sent to the River St. John, in 1751, 800 barrels of flour and 100 barrels of pork by the French Government. The estimate by M. Bigot for the expenses of tut 2d ml the frontier posts of Acadie, for the year 1751, amounts to 826,503 livres, 9 deniers. The expense in that year at the post of the point of Bean Se- jour alone, for provisions distributed, amounts to 60,000 livres. The expenses of 1752 exceeded those of 1751. In 1753 the Marquis Du Quesne attempted to take anew possession of the River Ohio, and built several forts there. The Sieur Marin, whom he sent thither with a numerous body of men, built several forts in that country, and, among the rest, a fort to which the name of the Governor-in- Chief was given. M. Bigot states the expenses incurred for that expedition, up to the 1st of October, 1753, at 2,658,230 livres, 9 sols, and 4 deniers. He stated, in his despatch of that month to the French minis- ter, that he had informed the Marquis du Quesne that, from the manner in which the expedition was carried on, it would cost at least 3,000,000, to which the General had answered " que c'etoit le " salut du Canada et qu'on ne pouvoit en de- partir." Upon the operations ending on the 1st of October, 1753, and stated by M. Bigot to have been paid, is not included the expense of a detachment of 1040 men, who were to proceed under the com- mand of the confidential friend of M. Bigot, M. P^an, to the Bellfl Riviere, nor the wages of the workmen in digging the foundations of, and in building the forts, nor the expenses of the trans- 27 port of 18,000 or 20,000 quintals of merchandize from Presqu'ile to the River aux BcBufs, a distance of eight leagues, which was effected on men's hacks. In 1753 the same efforts were continued, and a large issue of paper currency was depreciated 30 per cent. M. Bigot drew Bills of Exchai^'e on the French Treasury, to the amount of three millions and a half. The expenses in the years 1754 and 1755 of the French Government, in carrying on their project of aggrandizement in North America, were enormous. The Intendant's estimate for the French Posts upon the Ohio alone, in the year 1756, amounted to between two and three miDions of livres. The estimate of the same officer, transmitted from Ca- nada to France on the 29th of August, 1 758, for the following year of 1759, amounted to from thirty- one to thirty-three millions of livres. It appears that twenty-four millions were actually drawn for before the taking of Quebec in September 1759.* The foregoing circumstances are adverted to for the purpose of showing the character of the war which was terminated by the Treaty of 1763, con- taining a cession of all the North American posses- sions of France to Great Britain. It was a war of conquest on both sides, and one wherein each party felt that the question of British or French ascend- ancy in the North American continent womd be finally and irrevocably settled. The efforts made * Mem. pour M. Bigot., Intendt. de la Nouv. France. f i!|iiii ''!„; .„';!!ii 28 by the British nation, and by the colonists of Great Britain, corresponded with the magnitude of the object at stake. The detail of these need not here be entered into, contained, as they are, in historical works in the possession of all. There is one docu- ment, however, of such great intrinsic merit, and disclosing so fully and distinctly the views enter- tained by the leading men in the English North American Colonies of that day, respecting the con- troversy which was just about to be settled by the ultima ratio regum, that I cannot forbear to advert to it : — It is entitled " A Memorial, stating the Nature of '* the Service in North America, and proposing a " General Plan of Operations as founded thereon,'^ and is to be found in the Appendix to a work of Governor Pownal, entitled " The Administration of •• the British Colonies." This document is the more important when it is recollected that the map, commonly called " Mitchell's Map," was compiled by the direction of, and from materials furnished by, the author of this paper, and published about the same time that this paper was written ; — It was, in fact, a war map. The Treaty of 1763 left Great Britain sole and undisputed master of all the territory on this side of Mississippi. The French division lines came to be obliterated. They were, in the language of the Civilians, destroyed per confusionem. It became, then, necessary to establish new 29 provincial lines of division of the conquered ter> ritories. By the Proclamation of 1763, " The Government •' of Quebec is bounded on the Labrador coast by ** the River St. John, and from thence by a line *' drawn from the head of that river, through the ** Lake St. John to the south end of the Lake Nipis- ** sim,from whence the said line, crossing the River ** St. Lawrence and the Lake Champlain, in forty- " five degrees of north latitude, passes along the " highlands which divide the rivers that empty ** themselves into the said River St. Lawrence from *' those which fall into the sea; and also along the *' north coast of the Bay des Chaleurs, and the " coast of the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Cape Rosier, " and from thence crossing the mouth of the River ** St. Lawrence by the west end of the island of ** Anticosti, terminates at the aforesaid River St. "John." There can be no doubt, as well from the tenor of this proclamation as from other evidence, that the intention of His Majesty's Government at that time was to assimilate the new acquisitions on this con- tinent, in religion, laws, and government; to the other dominions of Great Britain in North America. It has so often been asserted that Great Britain was restricted by the terms of capitulation from changing the old laws of the country, that many believe such to be the case. But this is an error, as may be seen upon referring to the capitulation itself. / > lii iih Hi ! ill li 30 It was expected that the conquest of Canada would secure the tranquillity of the North American possessions of England. The very contrary of this happened, and the prediction of the Due de Choi- seul and of Burke was verified. France no longer skirting our old colonies with her well-ordered line of posts, and the warlike Indian trihes of this con- tinent, over which she possessed unlimited control, — the internal discontents of the colonies ceasing to be compressed by a powerful external enemy, burst forth with increased violence. Great Britain had in- curred an enormous expense during the war of 1769, and was desirous of being refunded some portion of it by the colonies. But the colonies themselves had also made immense sacrifices both in men and money. " When Mr. Grenville began to form his system of American Revenue, he stated in the House of Commons that the colonies were then in debt two million six hundred thousand pounds ster- ling money, and was of opinion they would discharge that debt in four years. In this state those untaxed people were actually subject to the payment of taxes lo the amount of six hundred and fifty thousand pounds a year. In fact, however, Mr. Grenville was mistaken. The funds given for sinking the debt did not prove quite so ample as botli the colonies and he expected. The calculation was too sanguine, — " the reduction was not completed till some years after, and at different times in different colonies."* * Burke. ■iiii.r!* 91 I The plan *of taxing the colonies for a revenue to be levied under the authority of the Imperial Par- liament, and to be applied to imperial purposes by it, was first attempted to be carried into effect by Mr. Grenville's act of 1767. The discontents produced by this measure, and the general fermentation in the old colonies, seem to have induced a change in the views of England relative to the new acquisitions on this continent. In the rupture which it was easy now to see must take place, the probability was, that these latter would remain faithful to Great Britain. To assimilate the new acquisitions to the old ones would facilitate their union with the old colonies. To secure to the new subjects their laws and religion was calculated at once to alienate them from the other colonies, and to attach them to Great Britain. Such seems to have been the motive of the provisions of the 14th of the King relative to the old laws and religion of the mass of the inhabitants of the then province of Quebec. The first public document in which we can trace the operation of these new views of policy is in a Report made, in 1769, by His Excellency Brigadier- General Carleton, the Governor-in-Chief of the said Province, to His Majesty in Council, concerning the administration of the laws and the state of justice in the said province, which suggests to His Majesty the reviving of the whole of the French laws in civil matters. Ill 32 The French Settlements could not be considered ^s extending below the Bay des Chaleurs. There was no reason then of policy or justice to extend the French laws in that direction beyond that Bay ; leaving all beyond it towards the Gulf to the Pro- vince of Nova Scotia. The boundaries of the Pro- vince of Quebec, as given in the 14th of the King, are as follows : — \ " All the territories, islands, and countries in " North America, belonging to the Crown of Great " Britain, bounded on the south by a line from the *' Bay of Chaleurs along the highlands which divide ** the rivers that empty themselves into the River ** St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the sea, *' to a point in forty-five degrees of northern lati- ** tude, on the eastern bank of the River Connecticut, *' keeping the said latitude directly west through " the Lake Champlain, until, in the same latitude, *' it meets the River St. Lawrence ; from thence up *• the eastern bank of the said river to the Lake "Ontario; thence through the Lake Ontario and " the river commonly called Niagara, and thence •* along by the eastern and south-eastern bank of " Lake Erie, following the said bank until the same ** shall be intersected by the Northern Boundary, *' granted by the charter of the Province of Penn- " sylvania, in case the same shall be so intersected, ** and from thence along the said Northern and '* Western Boundaries of the said province, until *' the said Western Boundary strikes the Ohio; but 'Hii 33 I " in case the said bank of the said lake shall not be " found to be so intersected, then, following the said " bank until it shall arrive at that point of the said " bank which shall be nearest to the north-western " angle of the said Province of Pennsylvania, and " thence, by a right line, to the said north-western '* angle of the said province, and thence along the " western boundary of the said province until it "strikes the River Ohio, and along the bank of the " said river westward to the banks of the Mississippi, " and northward to the southern boundary of the ** territory granted to the merchant adventurers of " England trading to Hudson's Bay ; and also all ** such territories, islands, and countries, which " have, since the tenth of February, One thousand " seven hundred and sixty-three, been made part '* of the Government of Newfoundland, &c. ; and " they are hereby, during His Majesty's pleasure, •* annexed to, and made part and parcel of, the Pro- '* vince of Quebec, as created and established by " the said Royal Proclamation of the seventh of ** October, One thousand seven hundred and sixty- " three." The Royal Commission which was about the same time granted to Montagu Wilmot, Esquire, appointing him Captain-General and Governor-in- Chief over the Province of Nova Scotia, thus de- scribes the limits of that Province, namely, — *• To the northward, our said province shall be *' bounded by the southern boundary of our Pro- D f In; 34 " vince of Quebec, as far as the western extremity " of the Bay des Chaleurs ; to ihe eastward by the " said bay and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, &c., and " to the westward, although our said province hath " anciently extended, and doth of right extend, as " far as the River Pentagoet or Penobscot, it shall "be bounded by a line drawn from Cape Sable " across the entrance of the Bay of Fundy to the " mouth of the River St. Croix, by the said river to *' its source, and by a line drawn due north from " thence to the [southern boundary of our Colony '• of Quebec." But as well the line running from Cape Rosiers to the height of land, as the line running from the Bay ties Chaleurs to the height of land, are partition- lines, only as between the Province of Nova Scotia and the Province of Quebec. The unfortunate war of the Revolution is known to us all ; and I pass over to the next great epoch in this inquiry, which is the treaty of peace between Great Britain and her old Colonies, concluded at Paris in the year 1783. The main end and object of that treaty was the recognition by Great Britain of the independence of her old Colonies as a separate nation, with all the powers and rights incident to sovereignty. The subordinate provisions of the treaty must then be looked at in relation to this its great end and object. To recognize the old colonists as sovereigns of their own possessions, was one thing ; to surrender the new acquisitions of England to the newly erected State, would have heen another. The war, so far as the Colonies were concerned, had never been a war of conquest ; it was a war of principle. And if it could by any means be looked upon as a war of conquest, it had in that view entirely failed, for the American arms had been repelled from the new pos- sessions of England. These new possessions had remained faithful to their Sovereign. A demand made to Great Britain of a surrender of a portion of her undoubted territories, and an abandonment of her faithful subjects in these Colonies, was one which, if made, would have been instantly rejected as an indignity. ' , . • . The most restricted claim of Great Britain em- braced the St. Croix. The French, whom they now represented, for a long time claimed to the Kennebec. The Penobscot, or Pentagoet, as it is called by the French, was also long in controversy between the two nations, and it is believed that it will be found that the French settlements upon the Penobscot are anterior to the English. This is probably the rea- son why we find the Penobscot in discussion, as a boundary between the two countries, both at the Treaty of 1 783, and at the Treaty of Ghent. The American negociators of the treaty of 1 783, them- selves, felt the force of these obvious reasons. Mr. Adams, one of the negociators of that treaty, in his examination before the Commissioners, under the fifth article of the treaty of 1 794, for determining d2 fmr iiif'i 36 the true St. Croix, produced in evidence on this occasion by the American agent, states as follows : — " The British Commissioners first claimed to Pis- * catrqua River, then to Kennebec, then to PeiiOb- ' scot, and at length to St. Croix, as marked on * Mitchell's map. One of the American Ministers ' at first proposed the River St. John, as marked ' on Mitchell's map ; but his colleagues observing * that as the River St. Croix was the river men- ' tioned in the charter ol Massachusetts Bay, they ' could not justify insisting on the St. John as an * ultimatum, he agreed with them to adhere to the ' charter of Massachussetts Bay." Again, in the secret journals of the old Congress, most opportunely published in Boston, in August, 1821, we find the instructions of Congress to their Commissioners for regulating the Tveaty of 1783, including an original project of the article respect- ing boundaries, from which the following are ex- tracts: — ** These States are bounded north by a line " to be drawn from the north-wcK^t angle of Nova '* Scotia, along the highlands whic^ 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 Con- " necticut River." The southern boundary is made to terminate, as iu the definitive treaty, by a line " drawn along the middle of St. Mary's River to the " Atlantic Ocean." The description continues, *' east oy a line to be on this follows : I to Pis- Peiiob- 'ked on [inisters marked )serving 3r men- ay, Ihey n as an e to the ongress, August, to their rf 1783, respect- are ex- jy a line of Nova le those l,iver St. Atlantic of Con- is made V a line 3r to the ne to be 37 " drawn along the midd'i of St. John's River from •' its source to its mouth, in the Bay of Fundy, *' comprehending all Islands, &c.," as in the defini- tive treaty describing the points where the Boun- daries " respectively touch the Bay of Fnndy and *' the Atlantic Ocean." The object of Great Britain, as well in the Treaty of Utrecht as in the Tre-ity of 1783, so far as regard? this territory, seems to have been to secure the fisheries upon its coasts ; and this object was fully attaiaed by taking the St. Croix as the bowndary. The Marquis de la Galissoni^re, than whom no man was better acquainted with the public affairs of this continent in his day, informs us, that such was the object of the Treaty of Utrecht,, in the twentieth article of the Memorial of the Commis- sioners of His Most Christian Majesty, upon the limits of Acadie, signed by himself and Mr. de Sil- houette, and bearing date the 4th October, 175 1» says, " II est lise de reconnoitie que 1' objet prin- " cipal des Anglois au traits d' Utrecht ^toit de s' " assurer de la peche \ c'est dans cet esprit que " I'Angleterre se fit ceder I'lsle de Terre Neuve c'est " aussi dans le m^me esprit qu 'elle se fit ceder " I'Acad'e ; et que pour donner plus de faveur surtout " aux p6ches de la Nouvelle Angleterre, e'le stipula " la jouissance exclusive des Bancs qui sont situes " vis-a-vis les cotes d' Acadie et qui sontextreme- " ment abondans en poisson. Ce dernier objet se ' ' trouvoit rempli par la cession de 1' Acadie, telle ill i! I ii MMMi ^'lii mm\ l!i milt :l;,;i!ll '!il,i 1 !l>i I! 1 ii!:'^ 'wi 3S " qu 'elle a ete designee dans le cours de ce m^moirc, " k qui puisse convenir cette p^che exclusive ; ni la " cdte des Etchemins, ni aucune de celles du Golfe " St. Laurent, n* ont des Bancs k leur sud-est, sur ** lesquels on puisse p^cher." ywvi; ^a^^^^r The point of departure once settled, the next subject of discussion would be the direction of the line. The first mention which I find made of this line is again in the Marquis De La Galissoniere's Memorial ; it is in the following words : — i ^ i ** L* objection d' incertitude sur ces limites, nc " pent done tomber que sur celles de 1' intdrieur des '• terres ; et cette decision est une preuve de 1' ex- " actitude et la boqne foi que les Commissaires du " Roi se sont propose d' apporter au reglement des " limites, puis que ce qui' ils auroient pu marquer " k cet ^gard, auroit ete arbitraires, n'y ayant jamais " eu dans le fait aucunes limites Mablies dans cette " partie, et c' est la precis^ment 1* objet de ce qui est " ^regler entre les Commissaires respectifs. " Dans de pareils cas, la r^gle la plus usit^e etla " plus convenable, est d' etendre les limites dans 1' '• interieuc cles terres, jusqu' k la source des rivieres '* qui S3 d^chargent k la c6te c' est-a-dire ; que " chaque nation a de son c6te les eaux pendantes ; " c' est ainsi qu 'on en a us^ k la paix des Pyrdn^es " pour fixer les limites entre la France et TEspagne, " et si les Commissaires du Roi connoissoient une *• r^gle plus Equitable, ils la proposeroient aux Com- ** missaires de sa Majeste Britannique." * ' • 39 The Article of the Treaty"of 1783 which relates to this line of boundary is the second Article, and it provides as follows : — " That all disputes which ' might arise in future on the subject of the boun- ' daries of the United States may be prevented : it ' is agreed and declared that the following are and * 8t all be their boundaries, viz. : — From the north- * west angle of Nova Scot'a, viz. : that angle which ' is formed by a line drawn due north from the ' source of the St. Croix River to the highlands, ' along the said highlands, which divide those rivers * that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence ' from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to ' the westernmost head of Connecticut River, thence ' down along the middle of that river to the 45th * degree of north latitude ; from thence by a line ' due west on said latitude, until it strikes the River * Iropuois or Cataraquy." The southern boundary is terminated ** by a line ' down along the middle of St. Mary's River to the * iUlantic Ocean." The boundary is continued ' Oi-t by a line to be drawn along the middle of the • Kh.T St. Croix, from its mouth, in the Bay of " fur: !y, 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 River St. Lawrence, " comprehending all islands within twenty leagues " of any part of the shores of the United States, " and lying between lines to be drawn due east V mm !l!!!!l|!i::| 111 i liii I h 'lllil! iiilliil 40 " from the points where the aforesaid boundaries " between Nova Scotia on the one point, 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.'* Difficulties having arisen between Great Britain and the Hnited States of America, respecting the execution c j Treaty of 1783, and a Treaty of Commerce hav ^.g been agreed upon between the plenipotentiaries of the two countries in 1794, a clause was inserted in the Treaty of Amity and Com- merce in that year, authorizing the nomination of Commissioners to settle all those difficulties. This constitutes the second epoch in the present enquiry, and to it we now proceed. '') ' " '*i 'f ^ 111 HI ■ . 1 1 i ■ ' J I ' 114 ill 1 1 - "1:1 ,;;/]. :/J.i.J';^,0'S >'ji,i.' ., . ;„: .: ». ^.T' V«,|i; .J ■ *Wv: 1 ' '^ t ■ ■ ' - '. ;.";. ._ .■■„> .>'"'. • 1 ; - >'.'.': '■..'■:'': ■■,-'■■/ .^ / ' 'J 1 ■'^ ^!f. TREATY OF AMITY AND COMMERCE BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. PROCEEDING* HAD IN RELATION TO THE BOUND- ARY IN QUESTION) UNDER THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THAT TREATY. The fifth article of the Treaty of 1794 is to the following effect : — " Whereas, doubts have arisen, what river was * truly intended under the name of the River St. ' Croix, mentioned in the said Treaty of Peace, and ' forming a part of the boundary therein described ; ' that question shall be referred to the final decision ' of Commissioners, to be_appointed in the foUow- ' ing manner, viz. :— " One Commissioner shall be named by His Ma- 'jesty, 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 ' shall agree on the choce of a third : or if they ' cannot so agree, they shall each propose one per- ' son, and of the two names so proposed, one shall * be drawn by lot in the presence of the two origi- ' naLCommissioners. And the three Commissioners ' so appointed shall be sworn imparlially to exa- ' mine and decide the said question, according to 11 ! ! i.Kiii ■;,! I ! i 42 " such evidence as shall respectively be laid before " them, on the part of the British Government and *' of the United States. The said Commissioners " shall meet at Halifax, and shall have power to " adjourn to such other place as they shall think " fit. They shall have power to appoint a Secre- '* tary, and to employ such Surveyors or other per- *' sons as they shall judge necessary. The said " Commissioners shall, by a declaration under their " hands and seals, decide what river is the River St. " Croix intended by the Treaty. The said declara- " tion shall contain a description of the said river, " and shall particularize the latitude and longitude •* of its mouth and of its source. DupUcates of this " declaration, and of the statements of their ac- ** counts, and the journal of their proceedings, shall " be delivered by them to the agent of His Majesty, ** and to the aj^ent of the United States, who may " be respectively appointed and authorized to ma- " nage the business on behalf of the respective go- ** vernments ; and both parties agree to consider " such decision as final and conclusive, so as that ** the same shall never thereafter be called into *' question, or made the subject of dispute or difFer- '* ence between them." » ^ * aui ^x^-Ji-wi mi.iminm) i Soon after the making of this Treaty, Thomas Barclay, Esquire, on the part of His Majesty, and David Howell, Esquire, on the part of the United States, were named Commissioners to carry the above clause into eftect. In 1796, Egbert Benson, 43 Esquire, a Judge of the Supreme Court of New York, was appointed as an umpire, by the mutual agreement of both Commissioners, to settle a ques- tion which it seems had arisen, whether the River St. Croix mentioned in the foregoing Treaties was the river now [known by the name of the Magua- davic, as was contended on the part of the United States, or the river now known by the name of the River Schoodic, as was urged on our part. The umpire determined that the River Schoodic was the true St. Croix. Uncertainty as to the highlands described in the Treaty of 1 783 could only be introduced by obtain- ing a point of departure different from that contem- plated by the framers of the Treaty. The more ac- curate the description in the Treaty, the greater would probably be the discrepancy between the line described in the Treaty, and a line drawn from a point of departure other than that of the Treaty. If such assumed point of departure could be carried a certain number of miles to the eastward and northward of the true source of the St. Croix, it would be below the great dividing ridge of high- lands ; and a line running due north from such as- sumed point of departure would never strike these highlands, but would probably terminate at that subordinate range of highlands which border the northern shores of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. That the westernmost source was the true source of the St. Croix, is established, first, by the Letters :!,|iiill iii m '\ lll Iii i"'^ 11! "" iii !i''';i .: i 44 Patent heretofore mentioned ; secondly, by the fact that that stream retains the name of the principal stream, the Schoodic, whilst the Cheputnaticook has its own peculiar name, as is usual in tributary streams ; thirdly, by the award of the American umpire, .■•v'— >■ ^?;'t:i.'.-'i'i:-:<, ; -/•.■ ,;■. ''.'.(i^ '>•;/; »;>rr;"«'.?'''Mi 'f:> It is true that the American umpire, whose award will presently be examined more particularly, fixes the lowest point of the Schoodic Lakes as the source of the St. Croix ; but this, for the purposes of the present argument, is altogether immaterial, for a line run due north from the lowest point of the Schoodic lakes will strike the extremity of the dividing ridge, which may be followed as well from the extremity of such line, as from the extremity of a line drawn from the true source t)f the St. Croix. These two lines may be seen on the map at the end of this paper. No. 3, which map is reduced from the large map signed by the English and American Ministers,. and laid before the King of the Netherlands, as evidence to be used by him in the reference made to him by the two Powers on the 12th day of January, 1829. It was probably with a view of obtaining a point of departure to the eastward of the great dividing ridge, that it was in the first instance pretended on the part of the American commission, that the Ma- guadavic — a river to the eastward of the Schoodic — was the St. Croix River mentioned in the Treaty of 1,783 ; but this pretension was so utterly ground- less, that the American umpire himself rejected it. It has been seen that the American umpire also determined that the westernmost waters of the Schoodic River were its main stream. Yet strange to say, the point of departure was fixed by a wonderful compromise at the head waters of the tributary stream Cheputnaticook, to the east- ward of the dividing ridge, and to the north-east- ward of the true point of departure. The only information to the public at large upon the transactions just adverted to, is to be found in a pamphlet published on the subject of this Bound- ary question, under the signature "Verax," the writer of which had access to the original documents of the commission, and could not have been mis- taken upon a point of such vital importance. „ His words in his first letter are as follows :— - *• The next year after this treaty was concluded, " viz., in the year 1784, a part of the ancient pro- *• vince of Nova Scotia, bordering on the United " States, was erected into the province of New *' Brunswick, and settlements were made by the " king's subjects at St. Andrew's, and on the River " Schoodic, as being the St. Croix, and the boun. ** dary of the treaty. The Americans soon set up *• a claim to the River Maguadavic as the St. " Croix ; and the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and "Navigation, made in the year 1794, commonly " called in the United States Jay's Treaty, provided " for settling this question by a Board of three i!li ';H':;iiii., ilHillliil I iiii'ii'::'! I i ^iii << (( it <( vo countries, under the Treaty of 1794, was a limited power — limited as to the subject of it, and limited as to the form and manner in which it was to be executed. », The matter referred to the Commissioners was to determine '* what river was truly intended, under *' the name of the River St. Croix, mentioned in '• the said Treaty of 1783, and form.ing a part of ** the boundary therein described." — Art. 5. If the Commissioners named should not agree, then the Treaty provides that '* the two Commis- '• sioners shall agree on the choice of a third ; or if ** they cannot so agree, they shall each propose " one person, and of the two names so proposed ** one shall be drawn by lot, in the presence of the " two original Commissioners." : -i> r It has been seen above, that another and very different mode of selection was adopted by the Commissioners, and the important point, that the umpire should be an American citizen, surrendered. The umpire and the Commissioners were next to be sworn " to examine and decide the said ques- " tion according to such evidence as should re- '* spectively be laid before them on the part of the " British Government and the United States." They were then, by a " declaration under their "hands and seals," to "decide what river is the " River St. Croix, intended by the Treaty;" and " this declaration was 'Uo contain a description of " the said river," and was to particularize the " latitude and longitude of its mouth, and of its " source." Duplicates of this declaration, and of "the state- " ments of their accounts, and of the journals of •* their proceedings," were to he delivered by them, to " the agent of His Majesty, and to the agent of •' the United States, who may be respectively ap- " pointed and authorized to manage the business "on behalf of the respective governments;" and then, and then only, both parties agreed " to con- " sider such decision as final and conclusive, so as " that the same shall never thereafter be called " into question, or made the subject of dispute or " difference between them." It appears from the foregoing, that the power of the Commissioners was confined to the determining of the question of what river was the River St. Croix, intended by the Treaty of 1783. That point determined, they were instructed to cause it to be surveyed : what should be considered its source, was not referred to them; and their finding, therefore, upon this question would, even if regular, have been a mere and absolute nullity. rf But there were irregularities in the proceedings (as stated by Verax) which, if the Treaty had given them power to determine, this question would still have vitiated their determination. The umpire was not named in the manner pre- ir^^'^'^i! m scribed by Ibe Treaty. It does not appear that lie was sworn, nor indeed could he have been ; other- wise how, after acknowledging the westernmost waters of the St. Croix to be the St. Croix, could he have placed the point of departure upon the tributary stream of the Cheputnaticook? It does not appear that the declaration under the hand and seal of the Commissioners, required by the Treaty, was ever made. But why go farther, when we have it stated by Verax, that the point of departure was settled by compromise ? Where is there to be found any power to compound or compromise, conferred upon the Commissioners? And is not such compromise again a mere and absolute nullity? Nor can this nullity be covered by the silence of Great Britain, unless full knowledge of the mislo- cation of the point of departure be brought home to His Majesty's Government. It is exceedingly improbable that it was knowti to the King's Ministers; when we consider how subversive it is, in its consequences, to the great ends had in view by the framers of the Treaty of 1783, and how ruinous those consequences are to the just rights of England.) ^f : ?« i To understand the effects which this most un- fortunate error has produced, it is necessary to bear in mind that there are in the southern penin- sula, washed by the waters of the St. Lawrence and the Gulf, three distinct great levels. 'm-M 61 Any ordinary map will show the sources and the courses of the rivers in this Peninsula, and having them, we have the relative elevation of the lands> and the line of these three several levels plainly marked out. The loss of territory incurred by this mislocation of the point of departure is very great. Some idea may be formed of its extent by considering the loss of territory incurred before we reach Mars Hill. There was lost by it, first, the triangular piece of ground lying between the two branches of the Schoodic, having its apex at the confluence of the two branches, and for its base, the line running from the westernmost source of the Schoodic to the source of the Cheputnaticook, being a dis- tance of flfty miles ; for one of its sides, the whole length of the eastern branch of the Schoodic, above the point of confluence, being about sixty miles; and, for its remaining side, the whole west- ernmost branch of the Schoodic, above the point of confluence, being about forty miles, and contain- ing an area, as those rivers run, of about 628,480 acres. Secondly. A territory in form of a trapezium, having for one of its sides twenty miles (from the westernmost source of the Schoodic to the com- mencement of the height of land) ; for another of its sides, fifty miles (the distance in a straight line from the westernmost source of the Schoodic to the easternmost source of the Cheputnaticook) , being the 62 i*iiii', '1^ ' s iili !:!"!! ', ::;li base line of the before-mentioned triangle, having for its thirdside the line extending from the easternmost source of the Cheputnaticook to Mars Hill, and for its fourth side the line which connects the point of . termination at Mars Hill with the point of termina- tion of the first-mentioned line, running from the westernmost source of the St. Croix to the extremity of the height of land. These two tracts will be found to embrace pro- bably one million and a half acres of land ; and this, whether the hypothesis of the British or of the American Government be thought to be the true one. The territory thus surrendered between Mars Hill and the River and Gulf of St. Lawrence is immense ; but it will be lesser or greater as the one or the other of these two hypotheses is adopted. The mischief, however, does not end here. Proceeding from a point so far to the eastward and northward, not only is the second range of highlands struck much lower down than it would otherwise have been, and thus a great extent of territory sacrificed ; but we here come to intersect the St. John at a low point, where its waters are navigable, instead of either not intersecting it at all (if the British hypo- thesis be the true one), or intersecting it only towards its source, as would be the case if the American hypothesis were admitted. So, too, all the waters emptying themselves into the Gulf would, even under the American hypothesis, belong G3 lo Great Britain, as being to the eastward of the River St. John. It will be recollected that the American Com- missioners, in 1783, declined even proposing a surrender of the navigable waters of the St. John to the future republic. It is thus seen (contrary to what is asserted by Verax) that this change in the point of departure had a most material effect upon the interior boundary. The effects of this error upon the claim of Eng- land were attempted to be mitigated by drawing a line from Mars Hill to the main dividing ridge, and to give colour to this pretention a line of highlands between Mars Hill and the dividing ridge was marked upon maps printed and manuscript ; and it is believed that such a mountainous range will be found on the maps in the office of Her Majesty's principal Secretary for Foreign Affairs ; but, in point of fact, there are no such mountains or high- lands. Mars Hill is an insulated hill or mountain, fifteen hundred feet above the level of the St. John at the nearest point of it. The surrounding coun- try is hilly> and its average height above the St. John is not more than three or four hundred feet. The Ristook, or Aristook River, one of the tri- butary streams of the St. John, rises at a point due west from Mars Hill, and is three hundred and thirteen feet only above the level of the St. John at the point last mentioned. As is common through the whole of the North C4 \m mmMi 's V-V'l American continent, the rivers on this great divid- ing ridge, and running in opposite or different di- rections, take their sources very near each other. Thus as the head spring of the St. Lawrence and of the Mississippi have their waters occasionally min- gled with each other, so, on a dividing ridge oi not more than twelve feet in height, do the River Etchemin and the Famine River, a tributary stream of the St. John, tal<:e their rise in the same swamp. It would probably be found that the only high- lands which could, by any possibility, be made to connect any line run due north from the sources of the Cheputnaticook, with the great dividing ridge so often adverted to, should be the line of highlands from which the valley of the River St. John derives its waters ; but it will not fail to be observed that such a line, so far from following the dividing ridge described in the Treaty of 1 783, touches this ridge at a single point only, — to wit, at the source common to the Etchemin and the Famine River. This mislocation of the point of departure was altogether unknown in Lower Canada until soon after the publication of the before-mentioned pam- phlet. It is now many years since rumours first began to be whispered, implying that the American line intersected the route from Halifax to Quebec. The belief that this was the case acquired such a degree of consistency, that upon the close of the m last American War by the Peace of Ghent in 1814, the settlement of this Boundary was made the sub- ject of an Article (Fifth Article) of that Treaty; and this constitutes the third great head of this inquiry. i; 'm\ 70 gociators plainly involves the admission that the boundary claimed by them is not the true boundary. The Commissioners under the Treaty of Ghent thus proceeding from an erroneous point of de- parture, were unsuccessful in their efforts to draw upon the earth's surface the line described in the Treaty of 1783, and as a last resource the matter was referred to the arbitrament of the King of the Netherlands ; and this is the next head of the pre- sent inquiry. : ':ii:i! * i iiiiir i I , -,:.' . < -.-r, r„.«. . :i:, ■K ;^V fyii REFERENCE TO THE KINO OF THE NETHERLANDS. — HIS AWARD. REJECTION OF IT BY THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. m 111 The Convention between His Majesty and the United States of America relative to the reference to arbitration of the disputed points under the fifth Article of the Treaty of Ghent, was signed at Lon- don on the 29th day of September, 1827, and is as follows: — ' " Whereas it is provided by the fifth Article oi the Treaty of Ghent, that in case the Commis- sioners appointed under that Article, for the settle- ment of the Boundary line therein described, should not be able to agree upon such Boundary line, the report or reports of those Commissioners, stating the points on which they had differed, should be submitted to some friendly Sovereign or State ; and that the decision given by such Sovereign or State on such points of difference, should be considered by the contracting parties as final and conclusive. That case having now arisen, and it having there- ilii 72 ^ fore become expedient to proceed to and regulate the reference as above described, His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the United States of America, have for that purpose named their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say : — « " His Majesty, on his part, has appointed the Right Honourable Charles Grant, a Member of Parliament, a Member of his said Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, and President of the Committee of the Privy Council for Affairs of Trade and Foreign Plantations ; and Henry Unwin Ad- dington. Esquire: — " And the President of the United States has appointed Albert Gallatin, their Envoy Extraor- dinary, and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Britannic Majesty : — " Who, after having exchanged their respective Full Povi^ers, found to be in due and proper form, have agreed to and concluded the following Ar- ticles : Article I. " It is agreed that the points of difference which have arisen in the settlement of the Boundary be- tween the British and American Dominions, as de- scribed in the fifth Article of the Treaty of Ghent, shall be referred, as therein provided, to some friendly Sovereign or State, who shall be invited to 7^ • ■ investigate, and make a decision upon such points of difierence. v " The two contracting Powers engage to proceed in concert to the choice of such friendly Sovereign or State, as soon as the ratifications of this Convention shall have been exchanged, and to use their best endeavours to obtain a decision, if practicable, within two years after the Arbiter shall have signified his consent to act as such. > I' f^ \ ; Article II. . " The reports, and documents thereunto annexed, of the Commissioners appointed to carry into exe- cution the fifth Article of the Treaty of Ghent, be- ing so voluminous and complicated as to render it improbable that any Sovereign or State should be willing or able to undertake the office of investigat- ing and arbitrating upon them, it is hereby agreed to substitute for those reports new and separate statements of the respective cases, severally drawn up by each of the contracting parties, in such form and terms as each may think fit. " The said statements, when prepared, shall be mutually communicated to each other by the con- tracting parties ; that is to say, by Great Britain to the Minister, or Charge d'Aifaires, of the United States at London; and by the United States to His Britannic Majesty's Minister, or Charg^ d'Af- V'-yl ll' '' m I 'pi; -• \ 74 faires, at Washington, within fifteen months after the exchange of the ratifications of the present Convention. " /.fter such communication shall have taken place, each party shall have the power of drawing up a second and definitive statement, if it thinks fit so to do, in reply to the statement of the other party so communicated, which definitive state- ment shall also be mutually communicated, in the same manner as aforesaid, to each other, by the contracting parties, within twenty-one months after the exchange of the ratifications of the present con- vention. ! t Article III. " Each of the contracting parties shall, within nine months after the exchange of ratifications of this convention, communicate to the other, in the same manner as aforesaid, all the evidence intended to be brought in support of its claim, beyond that which is contained in the report of the Commis- sioners, or papers thereunto annexed, and other written documents laid before the commission under thefith Article of the Treaty of Ghent. *• Each of the contracting parties shall be bound, on the application of the other party, made within six months after the exchange of the ratifications of this convention, to give authentic copies of such in- 75 dividually specified Acts of a public nature, relating to the territory in question, intended to be laid as evidence before the Arbiter, as have been issued under the authority, or are in the exclusive posses- sion, of each party. ,. " No maps, surveys, or topographical evidence of any description, shall be adduced by either party beyond that ^which is hereinafter stipulated ; nor shall any fresh evidence, of any description, be ad- duced or adverted to, by either party, other than that mutually communicated or applied for, as aforesaid ' - ' v • v, r 70 . - r " Each party shall have full power to incorporate in, or annex to, either its first or second statement, any portion of the reports of the Commissioners, or papers thereunto annexed, and other written docu- ments laid before the commission under the fifth Article of the Treaty of Ghent, or of the other evi- dence mutually communicated or applied for, as above provided, which it may think fit. Article IV. " The map, called Mitchell's map, by which the framers of the Treaty of 1 783 are acknowledged to have regulated their joint and official proceedings, and the map A, which has been agreed on by the contracting parties, as a delineation of the water- courses, and of the boundary lines in reference ta M 76 the said water courses, as contended for by each party respectively, and which has accordingly been signed by the above-named Plenipotentiaries at the same time with this convention, shall be annexed to the statements of the contracting parties, and be the only maps that shall be considered as evidence, mutually acknowledged by the contracting parties, of the topography of the country. i ,: . , " It shall, however, be lawful for either party to annex to its respective first statement, for the pur- poses of general illustration, any one of the maps, surveys, or topographical delineations which were filed with the Commissioners under the fifth Article of the Treaty of Ghent, any engraved map hereto- fore published, and also a transcript of the above- mentioned map A, or of a section thereof, in which transcript each party may lay down the highlands, or , other features of the country, as k shall think fit ; the water courses, and the boundary lines, as claimed by each party, remaining as laid down in the said map A. " But this transcript, as well as all the other maps, surveys, or topographical delineations, other than the map A, and Mitcheirs map, intended to be thus annexed by either party to the respective statements, shall be communicated to the other party, in the same manner as aforesaid, within nine months after the exchange of the ratifications of this convention, and shall be subject to such objections and observa- tions as the other contracting party may deem it 77 expedient to make thereto, and shall annex to his first statement, either in tlie margin of such tran- script, map or maps, or otherwise. -^ \( .lUlI, Article V. ** All the statements, papers, maps, and documents above mentioned, and which shall have been mutu- ally communicated as aforesaid, shall, without any addition, subtraction, or alteration whatever, be jointly and simultaneously delivered in to the ar- bitrating Sovereign or State, within two years after the exchange of ratifications of this Convention, unless the Arbiter should not, within that time, have consented to act as such ; in which case all the said statements, papers, maps, and documents shall be laid before him within six months after the time when he shall have consented so to act. No other statements, papers, maps, or documents shall ever be laid before the Arbiter, except as hereinafter pro- vided. Article VI. ^* In order to facilitate the attainment of a just and sound decision on the part of the Arbiter, it is agreed that, in case the said Arbiter should desire further elucidation or evidence, in regard to any specific point contained in any of the said statements sub- mitted to him, the requisition for such elucidation or evidence shall be simultaneously made to both 78 parties, wlio shall thereupon be permitted to bring further evidence, if required, and to make each a written reply to the specific questions submitted by the said Arbiter, but no further ; and such evidence and replies shall be immediately communicated by each party to the other. " And in case the Arbiter should find the topogra- phical evidence laid, as aforesaid, before him, insuf- ficient for the purposes of a sound and just decision, he shall have the power of ordering additional sur- veys to be made of any portions of the disputed boundary line or territory, as he may think fit ; which surveys shall be made at the joint expense of the contracting parties, and be considered as con- clusive by them. I m Article VII. " The decision of the Arbiter, when given, shall be taken as final and conclusive ; and it shall be carried, without reserve, into immediate effect, by Commissioners appointed, for that purpose, by the contracting parties. Article VIII. " This convention shall be ratified, and the ratifi- cations shall be exchanged in nine months from the date hereof, or sooner, if possible. " In witness whereof, we, the respective Plenipo- 7^ tentiaries, have signed the same, and liave affixed thereto the Seals of our Arms. " Done at London, the twenty-ninth day of Sep- tember, in the year of our Lord, One thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven. " (L.S.) CHA. GRANT, (L.S.) HENRY UNWIN ADDINGTON, (L.S.) ALBERT GALLATIN." On the reference made to the King of the Nether- lands, justice could not be done the claim of Eng- land without bringing under his consideration the mislocation of the point of departure, and the con- sequences which would flow from its establishment at the true source of the St. Croix, mentioned in the Treaty of 1783. And here a question arises of deep importance, and which will present itself anew under a somewhat different form hereafter. What was the effect of the compromise under which the point of departure had been taken at the head of the Cheputnaticook, instead of at the head of the St. Croix or Schoodic l Was this assumed point of departure to be taken as the true point of departure to all intents and for all purposes ? And was Great Britain estopped from referring to the true point of departure. , To answer these questions fully it would be ne- cesary to have access to the Correspondence and public Acts of the two Governments, in relation to this assumption of a point of departure different 80 from that in the Treaty of 1783; there in, however, enough in the naked fact, that this point was settled by a compromise, to enable us to reach the conclu- sion, that Great Britain was not barred from setting up her title to the highlands described in the Treaty of 1783 by the compromise. The compromise may have operat*>d a surrender of the territory lying between the Schoodic and Cheputnaticook Rivers; but the highlands men- tioned in the Treaty of 1783, as an object in nature, remained the same after as before the compromise. The intention of the framers of the Treaty of 1783 was to be sought for and determined without re- ference to the compromise; and the true line, in this view of the subject, would be the shortest line from the monument at the head of the Cheputnati- cook to the highlands described in the Treaty of 1783. It does not appear that this part of the subject was brought under the consideration of the King of the Netherlands. I am led to believe, from a perusal of the award of the 7 t of the Nether- lands, that if this part of the sui. ^^ had received proper explanation, that award wj. i^ have been in favour of Great Britain. The award is as follows : — " We, William, by the Grace of God King of the Netherlai 's. Prince of Orange-Nassau, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, &c. &c. &c. ^ " Having accepted the functions of Arbitrator, .1 ■ "; 8i which were conferred upon us by the notes addressed to our Minister for Foreign Aifairs by the Ambas- sador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Great Britain, and by the Charg^ d' Affaires of the United States of America, on the 12th of January, 1829, according to the fifth Article of the Treaty of Ghent, of the 24th December, 1814, and the first Article of the Convention concluded between those Powers at London on the 29th of September, 1827, in the difference which has arisen between them on the subject of the Boundaries of their respective posses- sions : " Animated by a sincere desire to make, by a scnipuloaa and impartial decision, a suitable return foe the confidence which they have shown us, and thus to afford them a new pledge of the high value winch we set upon it : " Having for this purpose duly examined and mHtiirely weighed the contents of the first statement as Wf'll as of the definitive statement of the said difference, which the Ambassador Extraordinary and Pleaipoteiniary of his Britannic Majesty and the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America respectively deli- vered to us on the 1st of April of the year 1830, together with all the documents thereunto annexed ill support of the same : '< s . " Desiring now to fulfil the obligations which we have contracted, by the acceptance of the functions of arbitrator in the above-mentioned difference, by G ■'•< ■]f"-m m ft) '*_ lyinEJiW'!'. 82 communicating to the two high parties concerned the result of our examination, and our opinion upon the three points into which, by their common agree- ment, the question in dispute is divided : " Considering that the three points above referred to are to be determined according to the two Treaties, Acts, and Conventions, concluded between the two Powers, that is to say, the Treaty of Peace of 1783, the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, of 1794, the Declaration relative to the River St. Croix of 1798, the Treaty of Peace signed at Ghent in 1814, the Convention of the 29th of Septembfer, 1827, and Mitchell's map, and the map (A.) referred to in that Convention : .. . ■ " We declare, — " That with regard to the first point, that is to say. Which is the spot designated in the Treaties as the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, and which are the highlands dividing the livers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those falling into the Atlantic Ocean, along which high- lands is to be drawn the line of Boundary from that angle to the north-west head of the Connecti- cut River: " Considering, — "That the high parties concerned respectively claim this line of Boundary, the one to the south and the other to the north of the River St. John, and have each marked upon the map (A.) the line which they demand: 1 83 *' Considering, — . ^ " That according to the instances which are ad- duced, the term highlands is applied not only to a hilly or elevated country, but likewise to a tract of land which, without being hilly, divides waters flowing in different directions, and that thus the more or less hilly and elevated character of the country, across which are drawn the two lines re- spectivel}^ claimed to the north and to the south of the River Bt. John, could not form the ground of a choice betAveen them : " That the text of the second Article of the Treaty of Peace of 1783 repeats in part the expres- sions which were previously employed in the Pro- clamation of 1763, and in the Quebec Act of 1774, to denote the southern limits of the Government of Quebec, commencing from Lake Champlain, * in * forty-five degrees of north latitude along the high- Mands which divide the rivers that empty them- * selves into the River St. Lawrence from those ^ which fall into the sea, and also along the north * coast of the Bay des Chaleurs.' « That in 1763, 1765, 1773, and 1782, it was laid down that Nova Scotia should be bounded to the nortu, as far as the western extremity of the Bay of Chaleurs, by the southern Boundary of the Province of Quebec ; that this definition of Boundary is found again for the Province of Quebec in the commission of the Governor-General of Quebec of 1786, in which the terms of the Proclamation of 1763, and of the Quebec Act of 1774, are employed ; and for . rJN.' " 84 the Province of New Brunswick, in the commissions of the Governors of that Province of 1786, and of a later period, as also in a great number of maps antecedent and subsequent to the Treaty of 1783, and that the first Article of the said Treaty recites by name the States, of which the independence is recognized : " But that this mention thereof does not imply that the Boundaries between the two Powers, which were settled by the succeeding Article, entirely coincide with the ancient definition of Boundary of the English Provinces, the maintenance of which is not mentioned in the Treaty of 1783, and which, by its continual variations, and by the uncertainty which continued to exist with respect to it, gave rise from time to time to differences between the Provincial authorities : a i;.i. •;:;.!) >..!'»?>,' "That the line drawn by the Treaty of 1783, across the Great Lakes to the west of the River St. Lawrence, produces a deviation from the ancient Provincial charters in regard to Boundaries; ' -^ ' " That it would be vain to attempt to explain why, if it were intended to maintain the ancient Provincial Boundary, Mitchell's map, which was published in 1755, and which was therefore antece- dent to the Proclamation of 1763, and to the Quebec Act of 1774, should exactly have been chosen for use in the negooiation of 1783: " That Great Britain, in the first instance, pro- posed the River Rscataqua for the eastern Boundary of the United States, and subsequently did not 85 accept the proposition for the postponement of the fixing of the Boundary of Maine, or of Massachu- setts Bay, to a later period : k ,\ tn : t , r i 'fir ; i • "That the Treaty of Ghent stipulated a new survey on the spot, which could not apply to a Boundary recorded in history, or defined by inter- nal administration ; and that, consequently, neither does the ancient definition of Boundary of the English Provinces offer a ground of decision : "That the longitude of the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, which is to coincide with that of the source of the River St. Croix, was only settled by the Declaration of 1798, which designated which was that river : ' . ,. - • r "That the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, of 1794, mentions the doubt which had arisen with regard to the River St. Croix ; and that the first instructions of the Congress, at the time of the negociations which produced the Treaty of 1783, place the said angle at the source of the River St. John: "That the latitude of this angle, according to Mitchell's map, which is allowed to have directed the joint and official labours of the negociators of the Treaty of 1783, is to be found on the banks of the St. Lawrence ; whereas, according to the Bound- ary of the Government of Quebec, it ought to be sought for at the highlands, dividing the rivers which empty themselves into the River St. Law- rence from those falling into the sea: i i* 9^n| ill 86 " That the nature of the tract of country to the east of the angle referred to, not having been described in the Treaty of 1783, no argument can thence be drawn for laying it down in one place rather than in another: ' ' " That, besides, if it were thought necessary to bring it nearer to the source of the River St. Croix, and to look for it, for instance, at Mars Hill, it would be by so much the more possible that the Boundary of New Brunswick, drawn from thence to the north-east, would give to that Province several north-west angles, situate more to the north and to the east, according to their greater distance from Mars Hill, since the number of degrees of the angle mentioned in the Treaty has been passed over in silence : " That, consequently, the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, which is here in question, having been unknown in 1783, and the Treaty of Ghent having declared it to be still unascertained, the mention of this angle in the Treaty of 1783, as a known point, is to be considered as an assumption of a fact which does not afford any ground for decision ; whilst, if it be considered as a topographical point, with re- ference to the definition, viz. *that angle which is * formed by a line drawn due north from the source * of the St. Croix River to the highlands,' it merely forms the extreme point of the line * along the said * highlands, which divide those rivers which empty * themselves into the River St. Lawrence from those 87 * wrhich fall into Uie Atlantic/ an extreme point, which the mention of the north-west angle of Nova Scotia does not contribute to establish, since that angle being itself to be found, cannot lead to the discovery of the line which it terminates : ^ ■ ** Finally, that the arguments drawn from the exercise of the rights of Sovereignty over the Fief of Madawaska, and over the Madawaska Settle- ment, even admitting that exercise to be sufficiently proved, cannot decide the question, because those two establishments comprise only a portion of the territory in dispute ; because the High Parties con- cerned have recognized the country situate between the lines respectively claimed by them as constitut- ing an object of controversy ; and because in this view possession cannot be considered as detracting from right; and because, if the ancient Boundary line of the Provinces adduced in favour of the line claimed to the north of the River St. John, and especially that mentioned in the Proclamation of 1763, and in the Quebec Act of 1774, be set aside, there cannot be admitted, in support of the line claimed to the south of the River St. John, argu- ments tending to prove that such or such portion of the disputed territory belongs to Canada or to New Brunswick: , " Considering, — " That the question, stripped of the inconclusive arguments derived from the more or less hilly character of the tract of country, from the ancient y ', 'V, . H'S 'I '•4' i it i 68 Boundary line of the Provinces, from the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, and from the state of posses- sion, is reduced at last to these questions. Which is the line drawn due north from the source of the River St. Croix, and which is the tract of country, no matter whether it be hilly and elevated or not, which, from that line to the north-west head of the Connecticut River, divides the rivers emptying themselves into the River St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean ; that the High Parties concerne 1 are only agreed as to the circum- stance that the Boundary to be found is to be settled by some such line and by some such tract of country ; that they have further agreed, since the Declaration of 1798, as to the answer to be given to the first question, except with regard to the latitude at which the line drawn due north from the source of the River St. Croix is to terminate ; that this latitude coincides with the extremity of the tract of country which, from that line to the north-west head of the Connecticut River, divides the rivers emptying themselves into the River St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, and that, con- sequently, it only remains to determine which is that tract of country : " That on entering upon this operation, it is found on the one hand, — " First, That if by the adoption of the line claimed to the north of the River St. John, Great Britain could not be deemed to obtain a tract of country of « m\ it IS 89 less value than if she had accepted in 1783 tlie River St. John for a Boundary, regard being had to the situation of the country between the Rivers St. John and St. Croix in the vicinity of the sea, and to the possession of both banks of the River St. John in the latter part of its course ; that compen- sation would nevertheless be destroyed by the in- terruption of the communication between Lower Canada and New Brunswick, especially between Quebec and Fredericton, and that the motives would in vain be sought for which could have determined the Court of London to consent to such an inter- ruption : " That, in the second place, if, according to the language usually employed in geography, the gene- ric term of rivers falling into the Atlantic Ocean, could with propriety be applied to the rivers falling into the Bays of Fund\ and Chaleurs, as well as to those v^hich discharge '' emselves directly into the Atlantic Ocean, still it w iild be hazardous to class under this denomination the Rivers St. John and Ristigouche, which the line claimed lo the north of the River St. John divides immediately from the rivers discharging themselves into the St. Lnwrence, not in company with other rivers flowing into the Atlantic Ocean, but by themselvt s alone ; and thus in interpreting a definition of Boundary fixed by Treaty, in which every expression ought to be taken into account, to ypply to two cases which are exclu- sively specific, cuid which there is no ouestion as to :m IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 5« /. /. % 1.0 I.I _|2£ |25 1^ Ki2 12.2 IM II 2.0 1.8 1.25 II U III 1.6 < — ^ 6" ► <% y] &j^\^ ''^j>v /: '^> J ^ '/ Photographic Sciences Corporation 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTt^i, S.Y. 14580 (716) S72->#503 \ s^ \\ [v 1 .--H:--', ' ■ '■ '"•.. ?'/'|- _._■;!'"■ „ -.' i '.: . -.,.- ■ ""■ ■■":' ^'7 ■ ■ ':- ^ 1 ■"; k . '^' -:■-. '" "^r-'"'-- . . . ■■ :'i'\. .;"'.;;. -•^f;.. 1 ;';'-■,. ;:;■':, vi^£.^^ ■■--■■;•■.■-.■;,>.■:-■-■ .■;■ \- =Jh;;j^ -.': '-',''■■■.- % ' ' ■ - .{;.,. "-■' --, >v.}^ -- '-- --:-'- --^/r --:"---- ■';"■ ' ,il ''■■'--■■''""■■■■'■'■■ " '^ ^- ^'":->^'-.v ^'■■■■" ^ ■ - \ -^ i 90 genus, a generic expreseion which would give to them a wider signification^ or which, if extended to the Scondiac Lakes, the Penobscott, and the Ken- nebec, which dischaige themselves directly into the Atlantic Ocean, would establish the principle, that the Tre*;.,/ of 1783 contemplated Highlands divid- ing mediately as well as immediately the rivers dis- chaiging themselves into the St. Lawrence, from those which iell into the Atlantic Ocean, a princi- ple equally realized by both lines: ^ ** Thirdly, that the line claimed to the north of the River St. John does not, except in its latter part, near the sources of the St. John, divide the riyers that empty themsdves into the St. Lawrence immediately from the Rivers St. John and Risti- gouche, but only from the rivers which fall into the St. John and Ristagouche ; Mid thus, that the rivers which this line divides from those dischai^ng them- selves into the St Lawrence, require, all of them, in order to reach the Atlantic Ocedn, two interme- diate aids — the one set at the River St. John and the Bay of Fimdy ; the other set, the River Risti- gouche and the Bay of Chaleurs : ^ , ^^, ^i.^ ** And, on the other hand, — ** Hiat it cannot be sufficiently explained how, if die High Contracting Parties intended in 1783 to establish the Boundary to the south of the River St. John, that river, to which the territory in dis- pute owes in a great degree its distinguishing cha- racter, was neutralized and put out of the question : 91 "■■^— '■■'; ''That the verb 'divide' appears to require conti- guity in the objects which are to be 'divided:' "That the said Bonndary forms only at its western extremity the immediate division between the River Mettjarmette and the north-west source of the Penobscott, and only divides mediately the riven emptying themselves into the River St. Law- rence fnnn the waters of the Kennebec, and of the Penobscott, and from the Scondiac Lakes; whilst the Boundary claimed to the north of the River St. John separates immediately the waters of the Rivers Ristigouche and St. John, and mediatdy, the Scon- diac Lakes, and the waters of the Rivers Penobscott and Kennebec, from the rivers emptying themselves into the River St. Lawrence, that is to say, fVom the Rivers Beaver, Metis, Rimouski, Trois Pistoles, Oreen, du Loup, Kamouraska, Quelle, Bras, St. Nicholas, du Sud, la Famine, and Chaudi^re: ^ " That even putting the Rivers Ristigouche and St. John out of the question, on the ground that they cannot be considered to fall into the Atlantic Ocean, the north line would still be found as near to tiie Scondiac Lakes, and to the waters of the Penobscott and of the Kennebec, as the south bne would be to the Rivers Beaver, Metis, Rimouski, and others, emptying themselves into the River St. Lawrence, and would, as well as the other line, form a mediate separation between these last-named rivers, and the rivers falling into the Atlantic Ocean : " That the circumstance of the southern Boundary ^ s . 92 being the first that is met with in drawing a line north from the source of the River St. Croix, could afford that Boundary aii incidental advantage over the oth<»ry only in -case that both Boundaries should comprise in the same degree the qualities required by the Treaties : - » " And thalt the manner i A which the Connecticut and even the St. Lawrence are disposed of in the Treaty of 1783, does away 'with the supposition that the two Powers could have intended that the entire course of each river, from its source to its mouth, should fall to the share of either one or other of them: " Considering, — • \ ■ ■ ■ . . '* That, according to what is premised, the argu- ments adduced on either side, and the documents offe]:ed in their support, cannot be considered suffi- ciently preponderant to decide the preference in favour of either of the two lines respectively claimed by the High Parties concerned, as Boundaries of their possessions, from the source of the River St. Croix to the north-west head of the Cdnnecticut River ; and that the nature of the difference, and the vague and insufficiently defined stipulations of the .Treaty of 1783, do not allow the adjudidatiou of one or the other of these lines to one of the said parties, without departing from the principles of justice and of equity towards the other: not' "Considering,— ^hbnr^m^W ;j^j"That the question is reduced, as has been snid above, to a choice to be made of a tract of country separating the rivers discharging themselves into the River St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean ; that the High Parties concerned have come to an understanding with regard to the water-courses, which are marked by common con- sent upon the map (A.), and which offer the only element of decision; and that, consequently, the circumstances on which this decision depends, can- not be further elucidated by means of topographical researches, nor by the production of new docu- '■r-' i.>,;^iiiK.^-'- ments: "We are of opinion, — it1t%f^« »iitiK>l« ^ "That it will be proper to adopt ior the Bound- ary of the two States a line drawn due north from the source of the River St. Croix to the point where such line intersects the middle of the bed CthalwegJ of the River St. John ; thence the middle of the bed of that river, ascending it to the point where the River St. Francis empties itself into the St. John ; thence the middle of the bed of the River St. Francis, ascending it to the source of its south- westernmost branch, which source we mark on the map (A.) by the letter (X.), authenticated by the signature of our Minister for Foreign Aflltirs ; thence a line drawn due west to the point where it joins the line claimed by the United States of America, and traced on the map (A.) ; thence that line to the point at which, according to that map, it falls in with that claimed by Great Britain ; and thence mm 'mm:: 94 the line, marked on the said map by both the two Powers, to the north-westernmost head of the Con- necticut Biver: ** With regard to the second point, that is to say, Which is the north-westernmost head of the Con- necticut River 1 » "Considering,— ** That, in order to solve this question, a choice is to be made between the river of Connecticut Lake, Perry*8 Stream, Indian Stream, and HalVs Stream : " Considering,—* *' " That according to the practice adopted in geo- graphy, the source and the bed of a river are pointed out by the name of the river affixed to that source and to that bed, and by their greater relative im- portance compared with other waters communicat- ing with that river: ** Considering,— " That in an official letter, so early us 1772, men- tion is made of the name of Hall's Brook, and in an official letter of a later date, m the same year, from the same Surveyor, Hall's Brook is described as a little river falling into the Connecticut: " That the river in which Connecticut Lake is found appears to be more considerable than Hall's, Indian, or Perry's Stream ; that Connecticut Lake, and the two lakes situate to the north of the same, appear to give to it a greater volume of water than belongs to the three other rivers; and that by admitting it to be the bed of the Connecticut, that :Jt''K^^- ' _»J^/ s\-^4- 9S nver is prolonged to a greater extent than if the preference were given to either of the other three rivers: " Finally, that the map (A.) having heen recog- nized in the Convention of 1827 as indicating the course of the waters, the authority of that map appears to extend equally to their names; seeing that in case of dispute, any name of river or lake respecting which the parties had not heen agreed, might have heen omitted ; that the said map men- tions Connecticut Lake; and that the name of Connecticut Lake implies the application of the name Connecticut to the river which passes through the said Lake : i " We are of opinion, — ^ /'That the rivulet situate farthest to the north- west of those which flow into the most northern of the three lakes, of which the last bears the name of Connecticut Lake, is to be considered as the north- westernmost head of the Connecticut : •^ ''And with regard to the third point, that is to say. Which is the Boundary to be traced from the River Connecticut along the parallel of the 45th degree of north latitude to the River St. Lawrence, called in the Treaties Iroquois or Cataraguy 1 " Considering, — " That the High Parties concerned difier in ojh- nion upon the question. Whether the Treaties re- quire a new survey of the whole Line of Boundary from the River Connecticut to the River St. Law- reiice, called in the Treaties, Iroquois or Cataraguy, or only the completion of the ancient provincial surveys: •* Considering, — ^^^ Eighteenth of our Reign. u^l^ (Signed) WILLIAM. ' The Minister for Foreign Affairs, (Signed) VERSTOLK DE SOELEN." m On receiving this award the Minister or Charg^ d' Affaires for the United States of America, at the Court of the King of the Netherlands, in his letter to the Baron Verstolk de Soelen, bearing date the 12th day of January, 1831 (See " Correspondence re- lating to the Boundary between the British Pos- sessions in North America and the Unitd States of America, under the Treaty of 1783, subse- quently to the reference to Arbitration of the disputed points of Boundary under the Conven- tion of the 29th September, 1827; and the fifth Article of the Treaty of Ghent, with an ^Ap- 98 pendix, presented to both Houses of Parliament^ by command of Her Majesty, 1838," pp. 1, 2, 3), protested against it on the ground that the Arbi- trator had exceeded the power conferred upon him by abandoning altogether the Boundaries of the Treaty of 1783, and substituting for them a distinct and different line of demarcation. As by the Constitution of the United States of America, the President has power only "by and i* with the advice and consent of the Senate to " make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators ** present concur (Constitution of the United States of America, Art. 2, Sect. 2), he was under the necessity of referring this matter to the Senate, and the Senate refused to sanction the acquiescence, on the part of the President of the United States of America, to the award of the King of the Nether- lands on the disputed territory (Correspondence, &c.. No. 15). It will be superfluous to enquire how far the Senate was justifiable in coming to this con- clusion. To account for the King of the Netherlands having taken upon himself the powers of a Media- tor, it may be observed that, in the continental sys- tems of law, they have no term corresponding to the English term Arbitrator. The Arbitre of the French law is as strictly bound by the rules of law, even in forms of proceeding, as the public Judge is ; whilst the Arbitrateur or Arbitrateur et Amiable Compositeur y as he is sometimes called, performs the functions of a Mediator, and his decision is final and conclusive ■99 between the parties upon the subject referred to him, without reference to legal forms or legal rights The King of the Netherlands, doubtless, considered himself as vested with the powers of an Arbitrateur. But, at the same time that the Senate of the United States determined to consider the decision referred to as not obligatory on the part of the United States, and refused to advise and consent to its being carried into effect, that body passed a resolution advising the Executive to open a new negociation with the British Government, for the purpose of determining the Boundary in question. This new negociation forms the next head of tho present enquiry. Before proceeding to the history of this negocia- tion, it will be proper to examine the proceedings had by the Legislatures of Maine and Massachu- setts relating to the Boundary in question, between the period of the making of the foregoing Conven- tion of 1827, and the ultimate rejection of the award of the King of the Netherlands. tidi ii , ft h2 \ m .1* NBOOCIATION BETWEEN THE OOVBRNMBNT 07 GREAT BRITAIN AND THAT OF THE UNITED STATES OP AMERICA RESPECTING THE BOUNDARY IN QUES- TION. PROPOSAL OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A ■CONVENTIONAL LINE OF BOUNDARY. NEGOCIA- TION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Vl^ITH THE STATE OF MAINE. FINAL RESULT THEREOF. •3rttJ i I At the same time that Mr. Livingston, the American Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his letter of the 21st July, 1832 (Correspondence, &c.. No. 1 6) , informed the British Minister at Washington of the determination, on the part of the Senate, not to consider the decision of the King of the Nether- lands as obligatory, and of the resolution of that body advising the President to open a new nego- ciation with his Britannic Majesty's Government for the ascertainment of the Boundary between the possessions of the United States and those of Great Britain, on the north-eastern frontier of the United States, according to the Treaty of Peace of 1783, he intimated to the British Minister that even if the negociators of the two parties should be unable to V .' 101 '" '•■■ ■■ (f agree on the true line designated by the Treaty of 1 783, means would probably be found of avoiding the constitutional difficulties that had, down to that time, attended the establishment of a boundary, more convenient to both parties than that desig> nated by the Treaty, or that recommended by His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, and that an arrangement was then in progress, with every pro- bability of a speedy conclusion between the United States and the State of Maine, by which the United States would be clothed with more ample powers than it had before possessed to effect that end. He intimated further, that should a negociation be opened on this principal point, it would naturally embrace, as connected with it, the right of navi- gating the St. John, an object which he considered of scarcely less importance to the convenience and future harmony of the two nations than the desig- nation of the boundary, it being the wish of the President, and as he had the best reason to believe that of His Britannic Majesty's Government, to re- move all causes of misunderstanding between the two countries, by a previous settlement of all points upon which they might probably arie^e. The British ChargS d' Affaires was in consequence instructed (Letter of Viscount Palmerston to Sir C. R. Vaughan, dated 25th February, 1833, Corre- spondence, &c., No. 21) to lose no time in endeavour- ing to ascertain from Mr. Livingston, in the first place, what was the principlle of the plan of boundary, 102 t which the American Government appeared to con- template, as likely to be more convenient to both parties than those hitherto discussed ; and, secondly, whether any, and whnt arrangement such as Mr. Livingston alluded to for avoiding the constitutional difficulty, had been concluded between the General Government and the State of Maine. In the same despatch Lord Palmerston distinctly declares, in answer to that part of Mr. Livingston's note in which he expressed for the first time the wish of the American Government to connect, with the discussion of the Boundary Question, that of the navigation of the River St. John, that it would be impossible for H'is Majesty to admit the principle upon which it was attempted to treat these two questions, as necessarily connected with each other : and that whatever might be the eventual decision of His Majesty upon the latter question, if treated sepa- rately, and whatever might be His Majesty's disposi- tion to promote the harmony so happily subsisting oetween the two countries by any arrangements which might tend to the convenience of the citizens of the United States, without being prejudicial to the essential interests of His Majesty's subjects. His Majesty could not admit any claim of right, on the part of the citizens of Maine, to the navigation of the St. John, nor could he consider a negociation on that point as necessarily growing out of the question of Boundary. The American Charge d'Af aires, by his note ""--''■■■ 103 '■'■>' addressed to Viscount Palmerston^ and dated 3rd April, 1833, says that with regard to the enquiries made by Lord Palmerston, in conversation with him, respecting the nature of the propositions to be brought forward on the part of the United States, in relation to the Boundary itself, the character of the arrangement which might be effected with the State of Maine, and the wishes of the American Govern- ment respecting the navigation of the River St. John, he (the American Charge d' Affaires) was in- structed to say that these being the very points which were to be made the subject of negociation, after the parties should have agreed to open one, he could scarcely require to be developed as a preli- minary on the simple question, whether the parties were willing to negociate ; and that to enter upon the consideration of those points at the [)resent stage of the business, further than has in general terms been done in the overture made on the part of the United States, would be to anticipate the negociation itself. The American ChargS d' Affaires added that he was further instructed to state to Lord Palmerston that the proposition submitted by the United States was made, and was there repeated, under the belief that an affirmative answer to it would lead to such an adjustment of this long- pending subject of dif- ference as would prove satisfactory to both parties. Mr. Livingston, in his letter of the 30th April, 1833, informed the British Minister at Washington p; i M Ji m I. ^? j':. Jmi li'^ ^ti\ J 1* i ■ i&B }' j|>i f 1 ■1 1 1' ^ li 104 that when the note of him (Mr. Livingston) in July 1832 was written, reasonable hopes were enter- tained that the arrangement therein spoken of, by which the Government of the United States might be enabled to treat for a more convenient boundary, would, before that time, have taken place ; — that the anticipations then entertained had not as yet been realized, and the Government of the United States could only, in the then present state of things, treat on the basis of the establishment of the boundary presented by the Treaty ; — and lastly, that, as the suggestion in relation to the navigation of the St. John was introduced only in the view of forming a part of the system of compensations in the negociation for a more convenient boundary, if that of the Treaty of 1783 should be abandoned, it was no further insisted on. Sir C. R. Vaughan, in his letter to Viscount Pal- merston of the 4th June, 1833, informs his lordship that constitutional difhculties, said to be insur- mountable, restricted the President from treating for a boundary more satisfactory to both parties than the one suggested by the King of the Nether- lands ; — that the State of Maine chose to insist upon the whole disputed territory having been vested, by the Treaty of 1783, in the United States, according to the construction put upon that Treaty by the people of that State, to whose lot the terri- tory would fall, it being situated on their frontier ; — that Maine denied the power of Congress to dispose imi rli M 105 )Ose of any part of it by an arrangement with Great Britain ; and that thus the proposed alteration in the mode of seeking the termination of the boun- dary according to Treaty, was the only concession we could expect at present from the General Gro- vernment. The British Minister at Washington, in his letter to the American Minister of State for Foreign Af- fairs, of the 3 1st day of May, 1833, states his opinion that the time had arrived when this perplexed and hitherto interminable question could only be set at rest by an abandonment of the defective description of Boundary contained in the Treaty, by the two Governments mutually agreeing upon a conventional line of boundary, more convenient to both parties than those insisted upon by the CommisBioners of Boundary under the fifth Article of the Treaty of Ghent, or the line suggested by the King of the Netherlands. But as a conventional line of bound- ary, south of the supposed true line of the Treaty, would deprive the State of Maine of territory, and the American Minister said that it could not be adopted, unless on grounds of greater public neces- sity than then existed, without the consent of that State, which it was not probable would be given, while there remained a reasonable prospect of dis- covering the line of boundary of the Treaty of 1783, and without such consent the President, after the proceedings of the Senate in 1832, was not autho- rized to agree to a conventional line. And the American Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in 106 i:.'J: P' ■: ■> .1!; ]>"i!l m a subsequent letter, expresses himself to the same effect. It cannot, he says, be too often repeated, or too forcibly impressed upon the mind of Sir Charles R. Vaughan, and upon the consideration of his Government, that any attempt to procure the consent of the State of Maine to a new conventional line, after the proceedings of the Senate, and while, in the opinion of so large a portion of that body, the ascertainment of the line called foi by the Treaty of 1783 was practicable, would have been utterly hopeless. The British Minister still urging the establishment of such conventional line, the American Secretary of State, in his letter of the 28th April, 1835, re- quested that as the President did not possess the power to establish a conventional boundary without the consent of the State of Maine, it would be greatly conducive to the preservation of that har- mony between the two countries both are so de- sirous to cherish, and which is so liable to be im- paired by unavailing negociations, that whatever proposition His Majesty's Government might feel disposed to make, should, before its submission to the authorities of that state, receive a form suffi- ciently definite to enable the President to take their sense upon it without embarrassment, and with the least possible delay (Correspondence, &c., &c.) ; to which proposition it was answered, that as to any proposition which it might be the wish of the Government of the United States to receive from n t , ;•.;■.. \xv' ■ i . V1 1 ; j,T • ■--■•-■ ■■ •■'■I'.Jt.s'i.v: ■;■;.? > ■-.• ' :.'■ 5,' "'•' ■' Jiik i'-J ■- -i >*.. :ij.-: ir' ^ 1 ■' ; ::;.V1>-1 ■(•;■''_ ■T'^-- S; s iirff. '■{{ iiUs ' ■'■-'■ < .'i '.■■ ■:' ■ ■ U:-y, .K K: r- -,,1, ■vi i'':;^rMt«o , h'r", ... '• :•,..-■' : . , ' ■ . 1 ^ .' ■• |: u'i !;^ ii^-:;.y^-i'r^r^ M-^'-'if^^ii, • " V ■■ • ■ • --:'- ,-:„{.»■. V ,* . ' "'/ •''• :,y-^\'j'-'\-'y-t}: -i r^.'l':,. ^rhyimh -rtntl' II ■;■; w. . f ..,,••■;' 4 I 'I CONSIDERATION OF THIS BOUNDARY, AS SETTLED BY THE TREATY OF 1783, RESUMED. Before proceeding to the consideration of the proposal of Mr. Livingston, and the correspondence between the two Governments in relation thereto, it will be necessary to revert to the subject of the natural boundary of the great peninsula of the Gulf of St. LAwrence, as settled by the Treaty of 1783 ; and also to offer some observations upon this con- troversy, as the United States, and as the particular States of Massachusetts and of Maine, are affected thereby. This line of boundary has hitherto been looked at by me principally with reference to the words o the Treaty, and to the construction of those consi- dered simply as an ordinuy contract. It has been looked at, too, by me, principally with reference to present times and present circumstances. It being generally assumed that the framers of the Treaty were altogether ignorant of the territory which they divided, it must also be assumed that the British Ministry of 1783 were equally unin- 1 .1 ';-'■ 127 formed with respect to this matter. Now if the historical events which occurred upon the North American continent during the thirty years preced- ing the Treaty of 1783— if the public characters who figured on this and on the other side of the Atlantic during that eventful period of time be examined, it will be found that there is no adequate cause for imputing to the framers of the Treaty, or the Mi- nistry of 1783, this gross ignorance. Of the public men of North America of that day, Franklin alone need be mentioned, although he was aided in his labours by the experience and wisdom of the then American Congress— that is, of all the men of that day who had most distinguished themselves in the efforts made by the whole people, in the field and in the cabinet, to aggrandize the power of the Bri- tish, at the expense of the French colonies. There is nothing in the life and character of that man that would justify the belief that he had wilfully inserted an unintelligible description of this line of boundary for the purpose of procuring the aggran- dizement of his own nation. He was too wise a man wilfully to provide before-hand a cause or pre- text for war to his nation with any other, and still less with a nation of the power and resources of England, wherewith no man was better acquainted than he was. Let one other man on the other side of the question be looked at— I mean Governor Pownall. He had been for several years Captain- General of the four New England States ; had sat 128 M 4 em in the council convened at Albany in 1757, for the purpose of devising means to repress the power of the French Colonies ; had transmitted to the Earl of Halifax in that year a plan of operations for the conquest of the French Colonies, which was adopted and acted upon in the American campaign of 1759. Sensible of the importance of an intimate geogra- phical knowledge of that continent, he had, in the Colonial Office in Downing Street, collected all the information that could be procured in the old colo- nies respecting the geography of the country, and had compiled under his superintendence the map commonly called Mitchell's Map, which bears his signature ; he was upon terms of confidential com- n^unication respecting American affairs with Mr. Grenville and the other leading men of his day here. He was a man of most powerful and original mind, matured by great experience in the conduct of difficult affairs. Mr. Grenville, Mr. Burke, the Earl of Chatham, the Earl of Shelbourne, and many others, had devoted much attention to American poli- tics. In the wars of 1 759 France had been conquered in Germany and America. Though the seat of the war was America, and though the immediate and local interests of America could not but be materially af- fected by its result, the war was a national war, and carried on there with all the energies of the nation. Without entering into details to be met with in the common historians, the fact that of the present national debt of England one hundred millions is 129 chargeable to this head of account, sufficiently shows the interest which was taken here in the con- test ; and it would be difficult to believe that this boundary, so distinctly marked in nature, so essen- tial to the maintenance of the dominion of England over this peninsula and over the gulf, could have been overlooked ; considered in reference to the lakes, and to the long line of boundary extending from the Lake of the Woods to the mouth of the River St. Croix, its importance was too palpable not to be seen. But the profitable attention given to this line of water communication by the men of that day is not left to conjecture : we have, in the plan of operations sent by Governor Pownall to the Duke of Cumberland in 1 756, heretofore adverted to, one instance of the attention which was then given to this general line of boundary. So much of the paper as relates to the site of the country is here given. ,^". -',.-■'■ -"■.:-.s,--'-^"- '■ '*' ' ' ^ '-■: ■■-'*-■■ ^ ** First, Prior to any observations on the settlers and settlements, it will be necessary to take some notice of the peculiar state and site of the countries in which they are settled ; for it is the site and cir- cumstances (I mean those that are unchangeable) of a country which give the characteristic form to the state and nature of the people \>ho inhabit it. " The consideration of the continent of America may be properly divided into two parts, from the two very different and distinct ideas that the face of the country presents ; but more especially from the K Iff >^ P.'X: '2 130 two distinct effects vhich must necessarily, and have actually arisen, from the two very different sorts of circumstances to be found in each tract of country. \, * ' All the continent of North America, as far as known to the Europeans, is to the westward of the endless mountains a high level plane ; all to the south-east of these mountains slopes away south- easterly down to the Atlantic Ocean. By a level plane I must not be understood as if I thought there were no hills, or valleys, or mountains in it, but that the plane of a section, parallel to the main face of the country, would be nearly an horizontal plane, at the plane of a like section of this other part would be inclined to the horizon, with a large slope to the Atlantic Ocean. The line that divides these two tracts, that is, the south-east edge of these planes, or the highest part of this slope, may in ge- neral be said to run from Onondago, along the west- ernmost Allegehani ridge of the endless mountains, to Apalatche in the Gulf of Mexico, ** Secondly, — In considering first the main conii' nent, this high plain, it may be observed, with very few exceptions in comparison *o the whole, that the multitude of waters found in it iS; properly speak- ing, but of two masses ; the one composed of the waters of the lakes and their suite, which disem- bogue by the River St. Lawrence ; the other that multitude of waters which all lead into the Missis- sippi, and from thence to the ocea.i ; thgae themselves into the River St. Lawrence, the whole embouchure of this multitude of waters is not larger than the Seine* at Paris. The waters of * About 12 French leagues above Quebec, over against a place called La Loubiniere, the River St. Lawience appears to k2 11 153^ I!« i \im ■-■sr» 132 each respective mass (not only the lesser streams, but the main general body of each) going through this continent in every course and direction, have, by their approach to each other, by their interlock- ing with each other, by their communication to every quarter and in every direction, an alliance and unity, and form one mass, a one whole. " Let any one raise in his mind the idea of some low country incapable of being travelled, except on the artificial roads, causeways, dykes, &c., that have been made through it, and that these roads havs throughout the whole country a communication wnich connects and forms them into a one system of design, a one whole, such person will readily con- ceive how easily, and with what few numbers, a General may take possession and hold the com- mand of this country, and when once possessed, how easily he may defend it, by fortifying with re- doubts and such works the strong holds and passes in it, and at what an almost insurmountable 'ilisad- vantage any one who aims to recover it must act even with twenty times the numbers. If these roads and Imes have thus a communication forming a one vhole, thev are the foundation or basis of a be of a very considerable breadth ; but when the tide, which runs up much higher than that place, has its ebb entirely re- tired, that breadth, which one would have judged to have been that of the St. Lawrence River, remains all dry, except a small channel in the middle, which does not appear to be much larger than the Seine at Paris, nor the waters of it that pass there to have a greater current. 133 which rely re- ve been a small larger there to coininand throughout the whole country, and who* ever becomes possessed of them has the command of that country. " Now let any one behold and consider the con- tinent of America as it really is, a wilderness of woods and mountains, incapable of land carriage in Its present natural unwrought form, and not even to be travelled on foot, unless by the good-will of the inhabitants, as such travelling in those woods and mountains is perpetually and unavoidably lia- ble to ambuscades, and to the having the commu> nication from the one part to the other cut off : — let such person also know that the waters for these reasons have ever been the only roads that the in- habitants use, and, until art and force make others, are the only roads that any body of people can in general take. Compare this state of country with what is above described, and the same conclusion, mutatis mutandis, will be found to be derived from it. " Seeing this as fact and experience shows it to be, hi such person then recollect what is said above of ^ ■ < communication and alliance amongst the seve- rd w acers of this continent — of the unity, one mass, and one whole, which they form— he will see in a strong light how the watery element claims and holds dominion over this extent of land,— that the great lakes which lie upon its bosom on one hand and the great River Mississippi, and the multitude of waters which run into it, form there a communi- :atioiJ, — an alliance or dominion of the watery ele- 5 Mi "'fi 134 ment, that commands throughout the whole, — that these great lakes appear to he the throne, the centre of a dominion, whose influence, by an infinite ni:im-> her of rivers, creeks, and streams^, extends itself through all and every part of the continent, sup-> ported by the communication of, and alliance with, the waters of Mississippi. ''- - ;; * i ** If we give attention to the nature of this coun-' ':ry, and the one united command and dominion which thv ' rs hold throughout it, we shall not be surprised i j find the French (though so few in number) in possession of a power which commands this country; nor, on the other hand, when we come to consider the nature of this eastern part of America, on which the English are settled, if we give any degree of attention to the facts, shall we be surprised to find them, though so numerous, to have so little and languid a power of command, even within the country where they are actually settled. I say a very strong reason for this fact arises out of the different nature of the country prior to any consideration of the difierence arising from the nature of their government, and their me- thod of taking possession of this country. . " This country, by a communication of waters, which are extended throughout, and by an alliance of all these into a one whole, is capable of being, and is naturally, a foundation of a one system of command : accordingly, such a system would, and has actually taken root in it, under the French. 135 Their various possessions throug" out this country Lave an order, a connexion and conamunication, an unity, a system, forming fast into a one govern- ment, as will be seen by and by ; whereas the English settlements have naturally neither order, connexion, communication, unity, nor system. The waters of the tract on which the English are settled are a number of rivers and bays, unconnected with, and independent of each other, either in interest or natural communication within land. The vague, dissipated, random settlements, therefore (scattered up and down these), will have no more communica- tion or connexion amongst themselves than there is amongst the various independent streams they are settled upon. This country, instead of being united and strengthened by the alliance of the waters which run in it, is divided by these several various streams (detached from, and independent of each other) into many separate detached tracts, that do natu- rally, and have actually become the foundation of as many separate and independent interests. '* As far as the communion of the waters of any river, or the communion there may be between any two rivers, extends, so far extended will arise a com- munication of system, of interest, and command ; the settlements, therefore, on this tract of country would be naturally, as they are actually, divided into numbers of little, weak, unconnected, inde pendent governments. Were I to point out the natural division of these tracts and interests, it ii Hi |l%!!' ' 136 would point out a new division of the governments of the colonies, which is not the purport of this paper. • " The consideration of this country, so far as it is connected with, or has any effect upon, the in- terests and politics of the English settlements, pre- sents itself to view, divided in two ideas, — ^First, The country between the sea and the mountains ; Secondly, — ^The mountains themselves. The first part is almost throughout the whole capable of culture, and is entirely settled ; the second a wilder- ness, in which are found here and there (in small portions in comparison of the whole) solitary de- tached spots of ground fit for settlements ; the rest is nothing but cover for vermin and rapine, a den for wild beasts, and the more wild savages who wander in it. ' >.--.». . = - - .«. ** Thus far of the site of the country as it be- comes the foundation of a natural difierence be- tween the English and French possessions in America." Governor Pownall also laid before the Govern- ment, in 1 759, a memorial containing observations on a line of demarcation between the English and French in North America, so far as it respects that continent only, which will be found at the end of his work on the Administration of the British Co- lonies. In his war map called Mitchell's Map, he fixes the boundary in the peninsula beyond the highlands of the dividing ridge, and at the high- 137 ,, lands of the gulf, because he could not but know that barrier would soon be broken by the Power inhabiting the intermediate country, and that the sortie of the great lakes would, with the gulf itself» fall under the control of the Power of which he was so able and faithful a subject. And this is the view which he and men like him must have taken in 1783 of the boundary to divide the territories of the United States from the possessions of England in North America. Accordingly, all men agree that the boundary laid down in Mitchell's Map does not correspond with the boundary described in the Treaty of J 783, whilst it appears to be equally clear that the dividing ridge corresponds with the letter and spirit of the Treaty, and forms an appropriate termination to the line of boundary which com- mences at the Lake of the Woods, and is drawn through the middle of the great lakes until it strikes the 45th degree of north latitude. M . 'iMii •'■i£: •t.Vj ;,->•-■ •- i,_ , .1-: ,-, ' ■. ■, ■■ \ . ..... . r, OF THE NEGOCIATIONS BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE STATES OF MAINE AND MASSACHUSETTS, RESPECT- ING A CONVENTIONAL LINE OF BOUNDARY TO BE SUBSTITUTED IN THE PLACE OF THAT OF THE TREATY OF PEACE OF 1783, ON THE SUPPOSITION THAT THIS LAST WAS IMPOSSIBLE. c :■ .': ■ ,■; :'■■: f \V ^ .',''' 4- .\> ii ,« .,■.,- •.'■.; !•< -' .» ( The Government of the United States of Ame- rica does not appear to have any interest in the establishment of the boundary claimed by Maine and Massachusetts ; on the contrary, that Govern- ment has the same interest as the British Govern- ment in having as the boundary the dividing ridge. If the former boundary should be adopted, there would be danger of collision between the people of the two nations. The General Government would be put to the trouble and expense of settling these differences. The policy of the United States is, or ought to be peaceful ; if the boundary claimed by Maine and Massachusetts were established, the Go- vernment of the United States, considering the peculiar character of its institutions, could not be sure of maintaining peace with England for any length of time. The United States might be forced into a war 139 ,, with Great Britain, or subjected to disagreeable in- ternal dissentions arising from this source ; the ter- ritory in question is of no assignable value to the United States as a whole people. Thinking men there well know that their territory is already too large ; then as the property in the soil of the territory lying betweeen the dividing ridge and the mountains of the Gulf, would be in the States of Maine and Massachusetts, the General Government would derive no revenue from its sale. In fact, for the last forty years the General Government has been put to the expense and trouble of a vexatious negociation in supporting a claim wherein Maine and Massachusetts are alone interested. ^ <: But as to Maine and Massachusetts it is far otherwise ; the lands, if surrendered by England, would come to be held by those two States by equal moieties ; the produce of the sale of six millions of acres of ground would be poured into their trea- suries in the same proportions ; they would, with- out taxing their constituents, have put into their hands large sums of money, which might either be made the means of relieving them for a time from the whole or a part of the taxes they now pay, or might be applied to the improvement of their in- ternal communications, or to other objects of public and general utility. The timber which now covers this tract of country would become the subject of large and profitable speculation, its acquisition i 1 ■■>-®t w- m i "', II i jraij i fflul ill IIIIh 140 would add much directly, and indirectly more, to the wealth of every family in those States. ' The question of surrender of any portion of their claim has been looked at by both Maine and Mas- sachusetts with much jealousy, and it has been pro- secuted with all the fierceness and recklessness of consequences which belong to protracted litigations of private individuals, when the subject in contro- versy is deemed to be of large value. ' One difference, however, is to be observed be- tween the conduct of these States : it has been seen, in a previous part of this paper, that in 1832 the State of Maine agreed to surrender a portion of her interest in the lands in question, but that the State of Massachusetts refused. The cause of this difference in their conduct is probably to be found in the circumstance that amongst the leading men in the State of Maine, there are men who understand the question better than it is understood in Massachusetts, and that those men succeeded in influencing the votes of the Legislature on that occasion, without being under the necessity of committing the case, by indis- creet disclosures as to the nature and strength oi their title ; whilst, on the other hand, the Legisla- ture of the State of Massachusetts is so numerous, consisting, as is believed, of above 600 members, that such communications could not have been made with safety to that body ; accordingly the 141 immediate cause of the rejection by Massa- chusetts of the proposal, was the refusal on the part of the State of Maine, to communicate to the fetate of Massachusetts certain private correspond- ence relating to this matter, in the possession of the State of Maine, the nature of which private correspondence may be conjectured with tolerable certainty. |r>. '>'. ^■ PROCEEDINGS OF THE STATES OF MAINE AND MASSACHUSETTS, BETWEEN THE PERIOD OF THE CONVENTION OF 1827 AND THE RESOLU- TION OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES REJECTING THE AWARD OF THE KING OF THE NETHERLANDS. p If I '- 'i. In the year 1827 discussions and correspondence took place between the General Government and the State of Maine, respecting the reference then made, or about to be made, to the King of the Ne- therlands ; and a protest was in that year made by the State of Maine against the General Government assuming the right, under the Constitution, to cede or transfer any portion of the territory of any State ; and the General Government was reminded that the State of Maine had already declared their views of the Convention of 1827, the authority of which they never admitted, and that they should not con- sider themselves bound by any decision under it. (Correspondence, &c. No. 5.) On the 24th February, 1832, a message was de- livered by the Governor of Maine to the House of Representatives of that State, informing them that he had been given to understand that the award of the Arbiter would be eventually adopted by the 143 General Government, and that it had been proposed that Maine should cede to the United States the claim to the territory which lies northward and eastward of the line recommended by the Arbiter for an ample indemnity, in order that the General Government might make such arrano;ement with Great Britain as should comport with the interests of the United States. The Governor therefore sub- mitted to the Legislature the expediency of author- izing tLeir Agent at Washington to make an ar- rangement for an indemnity with the General Go- vernment, which would relieve their relations with Great Britain from much embarrassment, and put an end to those collisions with the British authori- ties, which, if continued, must inevitably prevent the settlement of the territory, and endanger the peace of the nation. It was declared by the Go- vernor that it was the decided and unanimous opinion of the Agent at Washington and of the delegation of the State in Congress, that such an arrangement should be made, by which the State would be amply remunerated in a pecuniary point of view for the loss to be sustained ; and the princi- ple would not be abandoned, in which the State had contended that the United States and the General Government have not the constitutional power to alienate any portion of the territory of a State with- out its consent. It was at the same time recom- mended by the Governor, that the State of Massa- chusetts should be invited to unite in the proposed m V -'i-m 144 arrangement. The Avhole territory of the State of Maine was formerly a part of Massachusetts, which purchased, in the year 1674, the grant of Charles I. of the province or county of Maine to Feniando Gorges ; and that State, by the Act of Separation, claimed the fee simple of a moiety of the wild lands ; but the residue, and the entire sovereignty and jurisdiction, were vested in Maine, which was admitted into the Union on the 15th of March, 1820, having been thus constituted a separate State by a cession of a part of Massachusetts. "- The Legislature of Maine promptly acceded to the measure recommended by their Governor ; but the Legislature of Massachusetts declined to co- operate, as the Governor cr Maine refused to com- municate some confidential letters received from their Agent at Washington. (Correspondence, &c.. No. 40, pp. 66 and 67.) In the yeai 1832 the Legislature of the State of Maine passed several resolutions with reference to the decision of the King of the Netherlands upon the north-eastern boundary ; a. id appointed Mr. Preble, who had then recently returned from Hol- land, to present them to the Senate of the L^nited States. Mr. Preble proceeded forthwith ^o Wash- ington, where he remained for some time charged by the Stnte of Maine to protect their interests re- specting the boundary between that State and New Brunswick. The proceedings of the secret session of the Council and House of Representatives of 145 Maine, were subsequently disclosed to the public ; and it appears that an agreement had taken place, subscribing, under certain conditions, to the decision of the King of the Netherlands. Those conditions, as given in the Maine newspa- pers, were, that Commissioners on the part of the United States and on the part of the State of Maine were to be appointed, in order to negociate as to the indemnity to be given by the former to the latter, for the loss which she alleged she would suffer by her acceptance of the Netherland arbitration ; — that the result of this commission was to be laid before the Legislature for their acceptance or rejection. The result of all these proceedings was, as has been already stated, the refusal of the Senate of the United States to recommend to the President to j,cquiesce in the decision of the King of the Netherlands. M M 'If r d'f-^i-i' PROPOSAL OF MR. LIVINGSTON. *M\ '.;^f''>' »i, t i .i'..JV. r..-f* t>( The establishment of a conventional line of bound- ary having thus become hopeless, the only remaining subject of consideration now is the proposal of Mr. Livingston, and the proceedings had thereupon. Its importance renders it necessary that it should be given in the words of Mr. Livingston himself. The letter of Mr. Livingston, in which this proposal was first made, shortly followed the rejection of the award of the King of the Netherlands by the Senate of the United State, and bears date April 30th, 1833, and is as follows : — The Hon. Edward Livingston to Sir C. R. Vaughan. " Department of State, Washington, April 30, 1833. " The undersigned, &c., has had the honour to receive from Sir Charles Vaughan, &c., his note of the 14th instant, communicating the substance of the instructions given by His Britannic Majesty's Government, in relation to the disputed question of the boundary between the United States and the British Province of New Brunswick ; and has laid 147 the same before the President, who has directed the undersigned to say, that he sees with great pleasure that the British Government concurs, with that of the United States, in the position, that His Nether- land Majesty had not decided the question sub- mitted to him, since by Sir C. Vaughan's note it is acknowledged, * that the arbitrator, furnished by each claimant with every fact and argument that had been adduced on either side of the question, had declared the impossibility of tracing, in con- formity with the description contained in the Treaty of 1783,' the boundary line in question ; and as the determination of that line, according to the Treaty of 1 783, was the only question submitted to the august arbitrator, and he having declared that he found it impossible to trace it in conformity with the Treaty, it follows, that his inability to de- cide the point submitted to him, lep s the high parties to the submission precisely in me situation in which they were prior to the selection of Tlis Netherland Majesty to be the arbitrator between them, that is to say, they are thrown back to the Convention of the 29th September, 1827. By that Convention it was agreed to submit the question, which was the true boundary according to the Treaty of 1783, to the decision of an arbitrator ta be chosen between them. The arbitrator selected having declared himself unable to perform the trust, it is as if none had been selected, and it would seem as if the parties to the submission were l2 I i 148 h\ m bound by tueir contract to select another; but this would be useless if the position assumed by the Government of His Britannic Majesty be correct, ' that it would be utterly hopeless at this time of day to attempt to find out, by means of a new nego- ciation, an assumed line of boundary, which suc- cessive negociators, and which Commissioners em- ployed on the spot, have during so many years failed to discover.* The American Government, how- ever, while they acknowledge that the task is not without its difficulties, do not consider its execu- tion as hopeless. They still trust that a negociation, opened and conducted in a spirit of frankness, and with a sincere desire to put an end to one of the few questions which divide two nations, whose mutual interest it will always be to cultivate the relations of amity, and a cordial good understanding with each other, may, contrary to the anticipations of His Britannic Majesty's Government, yet have a happy result; but if this should unfortunately fail, i)ther means still untried remain. It was, perhaps, natural to suppose that negociators of the two Powers coming to the discussion with honest prejudices, each in favour of the construction adopted by his own nation on a matter of great import to both, should separate without coming to a decision. The same observations may apply to commissioners, citizens, or subjects of the contending parties, not having an impartial uiripire to decide between them ; and, although the selection of a sovereign arbiter im 149 would seem to have avoided these difficulties, yet this advantage may have heen more than counter- vailed by the want of local knowledge. All the disadvantages of these modes of settlement, hereto- fore adopted, might, as it appears to the American Grovernment, be avoided by appointing a new com- mission, consisting of an equal number of Commis- sioners, with an umpire selected by some friendly Sovereign from among the most skilful men in Europe, to decide on all points on which they dis- agree, or by a commission entirely composed of such men so selected, to be attended in the survey and view of the country by agents appointed by the parties. Impartiality, local knowledge, and high professional skill would thus be employed, which, although heretofore separately called into the ser- vice, have never before been combined for the so- lution of the question. This is one mode, and per- haps others might occur in th.- course of the discus- sion, should the negociators fail in agreeing on the true boundary. An opinion, however, is entertained, and has been hereinbefore expressed, that a view of the subject, not hitherto taken, might lead to another and more favourable result. " A free disclosure of this view might, according to the dictates of ordinary diplomacy, with more propriety, perhaps, be deferred until those of His Britannic Majesty's Government should be more {ul^f known, or, at least, until that Government had consented to open a negociation for determin- t M 150 ing the boundary; but the plain dealing with \^hich the President desires this and all his other commu- nications with Foreign Governments to be con- ducted, has induced a developement of the princi- ple for the consideration of His Britannic Majesty's Government. jj, i^,^; "Boundaries of tracts and countries where the region through which the line is to pass is unex- plored, are frequently designated by natural objects, the precise situation of which is not known, but which ci^e supposed to be in the direction of a par- ticular point of the compass. Where the natural object is found in the designated direction no ques- tion can arise. Where the course will not touch the natural boundary the rule universally adopted is, not to consider the boundary as one impossible to be traced, but to preserve the natural boundary, and to reach it by the nearest direct course. Thus, if after more accurate surveys shall have been made it should be found that the north course from the head^ of the %t Croix should not reach the high- lands which answer the description of those desig- nated in the Treaty of 1783, then a direct line from the head of the St. Croix, whatever may be its di- rection to such highlands, ought to be adopted, and the line would still be conformable to the Treaty. . " As this principle does not seem hitherto to have been adopted, it appears to the Government of the United States to offer to the Commissioners who may be appointed the means of an amicable adjustment. 151 '* When the note of the undersigned to Mr. Bank- head in July last was written, reasonable hopes were entertained that the arrangement therein spoken of, by which the Government of the United States might be enabled to treat for a more convenient boundary, would, ere this, have taken place. The anticipations then entertained have not as yet been realized, and the Government of the United States can only, in the present state of things, treat on the basis of the estabhshment of the boundary pre- sented by the Treaty. , " As the suggestion in relation to the navigation of the St. John was introduced only in the view of its forming a part of the system of compensations in the negociation for a more convenient boundary, if that of the Treaty of 1783 should be abandoned, it is not now insisted on. " In conclusion, the President has remarked with sincere pleasure in Sir C. Vaughan's note the ex- pression of a desire on the part of his Government to cultivate and increase the harmony and good understanding which so happily subsist between the two countries, and to put an end to all ques- tions that may in the least degree interrupt it, a disposition which is warmly reciprocated by the President. , " The undersigned, &c. . . '-']Z I "(Signed) "EDWARD LIVINGSTON. "Right Hon. Sir C. R. Vaugimn, , .-^ . 152 The letter of Sir C. R. Vaughan to Mr. Living- ston, in answer to this letter, bears date the Uth May, 1833, and is as follows : — ''v •,■.', ,. > \ Sir C. R. Vaughan to the Han. Edward Livingston. " Washington, May 11, 1833. ** The undersigned, &c., has the honour to ac- knowledge the receipt, on the 5th instant, of the note of the Secretary of State of the United States, dated the 30th April, in answer to the communica- tion made by the undersigned, of the instructions which he has received from his Government, rela- tive to the disputed boundary, and he begs leave to make some observations before he submits it to the consideration of the British Government, v ''-^' ' "With regard to the entire concurrence of the British Government with that of the United States in the position that His Netherland Majesty has not decided the question submitted to him, because he had declared it impossible to trace the boundary according to the Treaty of 1783, though both Go- vernments must agree in the impossibility of tracing a boundary line by the defective description of it in that Treaty, the two Governments took very different views of the nature of the obligations which they had incurred in common under the Convention of Arbitration. Great Britain felt bound to accept the award of the arbitrator who suggested a line of boundary, having been unable to trace that described in the Treaty, notwithstanding that the acceptance 153 would cause a great sacrifice of territory, hitherto considered as belonging to the British Crown. According to the note of Mr. Livingston of the 2l8t July, 1832, the Senate of the United States 'determined not to consider the decision of the King of the Netherlands as obligatory, and they refused to advise and consent to its execution.' " This rejection of the decision of the arbitrator by the Grovernment of the United States, has thrown the parties, as Mr. Livingston observes, into the situation in which they were, prior to the selection of His Netherland Majesty to be the arbitrator between them. It may be observed also, that though the tracing of the boundary line according to the Treaty of 1783, appeared, from the statements delivered by the respective par- ties, to be the principal object of arbitration, the King of the Netherlands was invited in general terms 'to be pleased to take upon himself the office of arbitration of the difference between the two Governments.' " It was a measure adopted in order to put an end to tedious and unsatisfactory negociations which had occupied the attention of the two Govern- ments for more than forty years, and by the Vllth Article of the Convention it was agreed, ' that the dticision of the arbiter when given, shall be taken as final and conclusivCj and shall be carried without reserve into immediate effect.' ' s^r < 'i^v ' ^ ; i r^p^ • " The undersigned cannot but regret the rejec- i1 Sllv'i ^■■'1 154 tion of the decision of the King of the Netherlands, when he sees throughout the note of Mr. Living- ston, all the difficulties which attend the endeavours of the two Governments, actuated hy the most frank and friendly spirit, to devise any reasonable means of settling this question. " Mr. Livingston seems to be persuaded that a renewed negociation may yet have a happy result, and the undersigned observes with satisfaction, that the Gk)vernment of the United States has con- sented not now to insist upon the navigation of the St. John's River, a claim which the British Govern- ment refused to consider in connexion with the boundary question. ( t it5i ; i-idi gs^I. ** But the arrangement in progress last summer having failed, which was to result in enabling the Government of the United States to treat for a more convenient boundary, that Grovernment in the present state of things can only treat on the basis of the establishment of the boundary pre- sented by the Treaty. .".,..-. " " The undersigned is convinced, that it is hopeless to expect a favourable result from a renewed nego- ciation upon that basis. With regard to Mr. Living- ston's proposal, that in the event of negociation failing, the two Governments may have recourse to a commission of boundary, composed of equal num- bers selected by each party, to be attended by an umpire, chosen by a friendly Sovereign, to decide at once all disputed points, — or that a commission 155 of some of the most skilful men in Europe should he selected hy a friendly Sovereign, and should he sent to view and survey the disputed territory, at- tended hy agents appointed by the parties,-^the undersigned can only express his conviction, that after the expence, delay, and unsatisfactory result of the commission of boundary under the Vth Ar- ticle of the Treaty of Ghent, it must be with great reluctance that the British Government consents to have recourse to such a measure. » -^^ r»-,^i-f .wi -^f'- "He does not conceive that it would be an easy task, to engage in such a service, all the im- partiality, local knowledge, and high professional skill, ' which it would be necessary to combine for 'the solution of the question' to be submitted, which either the umpire in one instance, or the commission of scientific persons in the other, were to decide peremptorily. ' « ■ " The undersigned does not sufficiently compre- hend the other view which Mr. Livingston has par- tially developed in his note, and which the latter conceives might lead to a more favourable result ; it seems applicable to the manner in which the line due north from the sources of the St. Croix River may be drawn, in conformity with the Treaty of 1783, though not strictly according to the terms in which that Article is drawn up. The natural fea- ture of the boundary which Mr. livington supposes to exist, and to which the line in question is to be drawn, it is presumed, are the highlands mentioned ' W'' ■IS : ■ f' ■ 156 in the Treaty, the fixing the position of which high> lands has formed the principal difficulty hitherto in adjusting the boundary. A deviation from the direct north line laid down in the Treaty, might lead to an oblique line being drawn to mountains to the eastward of it, which would trench upon His Majesty's territories of New Brunswick. " The undersigned does not however venture, with the imperfect knowledge which he has of all the bearings of the view developed by Mr. Living- ston, to do more than suggest a doubt of its advan- tages. The rejection of the award of the arbitrator, by the Government of the United States, revives to their full extent the pretensions of Great Britain, and it becomes an object of great importance to put an end to this question of boundary ; ' one of ' the few questions,' as Mr. Livingston observes, ' which divide two nations, whose mutual interest ' it will always be to cultivate the relations of * amity and a cordial good understanding with each • other.' " It is the duty of the undersigned to transmit to his Government immediately the note of Mr. Livingston, but at the same time he cannot resist from inviting the Secretary of the United States to offer, without waiting the result of that reference, some more prompt and effective measure for the settlement of the boundary than the renewal of a negociation on an inadmissible basis, or recourse again to commissions of boundary, which, though 157 upon an improved plan, so far as the insuring of a final result may be concerned, are too complicated in their nature to bring about a speedy or a satis- factory decision. v . ? ►> f i ^ '■"' " The Undersigned, &c., '^ " (Signed) CHAS. R. VAUGHAN. " The Hon. Edward Livingston, , . ,. „ ) Ik.. 3... The following letter, bearing date the 28th May, 1 833, is Mr. Livingston's reply to the last-mentioned letter of Sir C. R. Vaughan : — . '>^'S'. « . ^ The Hon. Edward Livingston to Sir C. R. Vaughan. ** Department of State, Washington, May 28, 1833. "Sib, . " In the two conversations we have had, on the 13th and 27th instant, you requested some fur- ther developement of the propositions contained in my note of the 30th April. " The prip'^ipal object of that note was to show, that the failure of the several endeavours which had been made, to ascertain the true boundary be- tween the United States and the British Provinces ol' New Brunswick and Lower Canada, ought not, as is thought by His Britannic Majesty's Govern- ment, to be attributed to cny insuperable difficulty, but rather to the inefficiency of the means hereto- fore resorted to, in order to secure such a decision 158 S' as should be binding on both parties, and to the want of attention by the commissioners and arbiter seve- rally employed for that purpose, to an established rule in the settlement of boundaries. ^ *' The first point seems to be fully explained in my note above referred to, and I repeat, th?-t the President will agree to either of the modes therein suggested, to secure a final decision of the question. The reasons why, under the present circumstances, he cannot undertake to negociate upon any other basis than that of the Treaty of 1 783, drawn from the nature of o'lr Government, were fully explained to you in those conversations ; and the probability of ascertaining the boundary according to that Treaty, by applying the principle, to which I per- haps too briefly alluded in my note, was farther de- veloped. That you may present it in a more pre- cise form to your Government, I now repeat the substance of my observations. " The boundary, as far as the head of the St. Croix, is ascertained and agreed upon b)^ both na- tions. The monument erected there is then a fixed point of departure. From thence we have a two- fold description of boundary ; a line in a certain direction, and a natural object to which it was sup- posed a line in that direction would lead, ' A line * from the source of the River St. Croix directly ' north,' and * the highlands which divide the waters ' that flow into the Atlantic Ocean from those ' which flow into the River St. Lawrence.' The 159 American Government have believed that these two descriptions would coincide, that is to say, that the highlands designated by the Treaty, would be reached by a north line drawn from the head of the St. Croix ; they make no pretensions farther east than that line, but if, on a more accurate sur- vey, it should be found that the north line men- tioned in the Treaty should pass east of the high- lands therein described, and that they should be found at some point further west, then the principle to which I refer would apply, to wit, that the direc- tion of the line to connect the two natural bounda- ries, must be altered so as to suit their ascertained positions. Thus in the annexed diagram, suppose A. the monument at the head of the St. Croix, A. B. the north line drawn from thence. Tf the highlands described in the Treaty should be found in the course of that line, both the descriptions in the Treaty would be found to coincide, and the question would be at an end. If, on the contrary, those highlands should be found at C. or D., or at any other point west of that line, then the eastern boundary of the United States would be the line A. C, or A. D., or any other line drawn directly from the point A., to the place which should be found to answer the description of the highlands mentioned in the Treaty. " This being fully understood, the President is willing, in order to simplify the operation, that the commission shall be restricted to the simple ques- i ; m^ 160 tion, of determining the point designated by the Treaty as the highlands which divide the waters, to which point a straight line shall be drawn from the monument : and that this line shall, as far as it extends, form part of the boundary in question, — that they shall then designate the course of the line along the highlands, and fix on the point de- signated as the north -westernmost head of the Con- necticut River, feytr hnir ** It will be obvious to you. Sir, that until a sur- vey and der*«ic i shall be had, in on^, of the modes pointed i\rii in my note, or i: som? other to be agreec '^"i. ihe President cannot desig, late any line which he would be willing to adopt as the bound- ary ; but he directs me to repeat his firm persuasion, that a speedy and satisfactory arrangement may be made, by a negociation carried on by both parties in the spirit of conciliation, by which he is actuated, and which, he has not the least doubt, will direct the Government of His Britannic Majesty. "I have the honour to be, &c. .ti "(Signed) EDWARD UVINGSTON." *' Rt. Hon. Sir C. R. Vaughan, : ; ,■!.'•.-,; ; ' ' ' ■ : = ,*: :i ,w.<•• ,,H*n, ■'*:^ ( 162 Sir C. R. Vaughan, in his letter of the Slst May, 1833, having asked further explanations from Mr. McLane, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the United States of America, received from Mr. McLane the following answer to his inquiry in a letter of June 5th, 1 833. In this letter Mr. McLane, after adverting to the difficulties standing in the way of the establishment of a conventional line of boundary, goes on to say — ** Under these circumstances the President di- rected the proposition submitted in Mr. Living- ston's note of 30th April, as affording not only a reasonable prospect, but in his mind the certain means of ascertaining the boundary called for by the Treaty of 1783, and of finally terminating all the perplexities which have encompassed this subject. ** In reply, therefore, to the wish expressed by Sir C. Vaughan to be informed what limitations it is intended to be put upon the course to be pursued by the special Commissioners, whether their atten- tion is to be directed to any particular spot, or whether they are to be left at liberty to stop at the first highlands answering the required description with which they may meet after their departure from the monument, the undersigned has the ho- nour to state that it is not expected that any limit- ations will be put upon the course to be pursued by the special Commissioners but such as are re- 163 quired by a faithful adherence to the description of boundary in the Treaty of 1783. "It is true that Great Britain has hitherto in- sisted upon the highlands of the Treaty of 1 783 being sought for exclusively south of the St. John River, but it is also true that the United States have, with equal confidence and pertinacity, insisted upon seeking for them exclusively north of that river. " It is the difficulty of reconciling these conflict- ing pretensions which has hitherto prevented the settlement of the boundary question, arising chiefly, however, from the impracticability of finding a point of highlands answering the description in the Treaty to which a line due north from the monument could be drawn. " It is now proposed, therefore, to make another eflfort, and by means which heretofore have not been tried, to overcome this difficulty, and discard- ing the due north line, should that become neces- sary, to seek for and find, in the first place, * the highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean ;' and when these shall be found in any part of the disputed territory, north or south of the St. John's River, to draw a line from the monument to the said highlands, and to ihat point thereof which shall be nearest to a due north line from the monument. Mr. Livingston, in his note of the 28th May, has already provided against M 2 k^v.1 ill t 164 11 r P! tuii'i any deviation eastward from the direct north luie from the St. Croix. •' The undersigned, &c., "(Signed) LOUIS McLANE." -, *' Rt. Hon. Sir C. R. Vavghan, " Sfc, «jc., &!c:' The object in this part of the inquiry being to bring together in one view all that is to be found in the correspondence of the American negociators, which may serve to render fully intelligible the proposal of Mr. Livingston, it may be proper here to insert extracts from a letter from the Hon. Louis McLane to Sir C. R. Vaughan, dated March 11, 1834:— ^^ " In all questions of boundaries of tracts and countries designated by natural objects, the plain and universal rule of surveying is, first to find the natural object, and then to reach it by the nearest direct course from any given point, and with the least possible departure from the particular course called for in the original deed or Treaty. The obstacles by which the Commissioners, in the first instance, and the Arbiter afterwards, were pre- vented from ascertaining the boundary upon the first point of difference, was the supposed impossi- bility of finding such highlands, answering the de- scription of the Treaty of 1783, as could be reached by a line drawn due north from the monument ; whereas, had either first found the highlands called for by the Treaty, and afterwards, in conformity II 165 with the rule already adverted to, traced the line from the monument to such highlands in the maa- ner nhove indicated, it is believed the true line of the Treaty could have been ascertained. " Here then is one plain and usual means by which this difficult question may be settled, but which has not yet been resorted to in the previous efforts of the party to adjust it. This means the proposition submitted by the President proposes to employ, and in the manner particularly referred to in the letters which have been heretofore addressed by the Secretary of State to Sir Charles R. Vaughan. " Now the proposition of the President is to find the highlands answering the description of those called for by the Treaty of 1783, and to them, from the monument, to run a direct line ; and the Presi- dent does not doubt that, with the aid of more ac- curate surveys by skilful persons on the ground^ and freed from the restraint hitherto imposed by a due north line, such highlands may be found, and which either the Commissioners or the Arbiter might have found had they adopted the rule now proposed." : rn- ^ And subsequently, in the same letter, Mr. McLane says : — ' '^'^ " Although the efforts already made for that purpose have proved unsuccessful, neither parties should be deterred, seeing how deeply the subject affects their amicable relations, from resorting to others more promising in their nature, but which, on previous occasions, have been overlooked. fi till a iS| 166 " If, after a resort to the plain and universal rule now recommended, it should be found impracticable to trace the boundary according to the Treaty of 1783, it would be time enough, and might then be desirable to enter upon a negociation for terminat- ing the difficulty by the adoption of a conventional line satisfactory to both parties. ^ " This mode, however, could only be adopted with the special assent of the State of Maine, and it is believed that the probability of such assent in the present state of the negociation, while on the part of the authorities of that State no doubt is en- tertained of the practicability of ascertaining the true line, and while so much confidence is felt in the means now proposed, is too remote to justify any attempt to procure it. ** It would also be impossible to reconcile the people of that State to the result of any negociation in which should be at once conceded those points respecting which, in the course of his reasoning, it is supposed the Arbiter committed the most serious error, and by which he was prevented from coming to a decision by which both parties would have been bound. " The proposition directed by the President, therefore, is to submit the whole subject, so far as it relates to this first point of difierence, to the com- mission mentioned in the note to Mr. Livingston of the 30th of April, and clothed with the same powers as belonged to the Commissioners under the .... Jg^ Treaty of Ghent, and to the Arbiter, in order that, instructed by the introduction of the rule now ex- plained and not adopted by their predecessors, they may have greater means for a satisfactory discharge of their duties. " For a successful termination of the labours of the commission to be instituted under this propo- sition, an unlimited discretion over all the points necessary to a proper decision of the subject com- mitted to it is indispensably necessary ; and it must be obvious that if the new Commissioners should be restricted to the reasoning of the Arbiter, either in its premises or conclusions, the only object of their appointment would necessarily be defeated. " The undersigned believes that, in the foregoing observations, it will be found that a sufficient an- swer has already been given to the suggestion of Sir Charles R. Vaughan, that the objection to the power of the Government of the United States to adopt the line recommended by the King of the Netherlands, will be equally fatal to that suggested by Mr. Livingston. It may not be improper, how- ever, further to observe, that 'the objection arises from the want of authority in the General Govern- ment to adopt a line confessedly different from that called for by the Treaty of 1783; but their autho- rity to ascertain that line being unquestionable, their power to employ all the legal and usual means for its ascertainment is equally clear. It is with this view that the proposition presented by the It 168 President proposes to conform the course to the natural object, whereby the true line of the Treaty would be legitimately ascertained." In a subsequent letter from Mr. McLane to Sir C. R. Vaughan, dated March 21, 1834, relating to Mr. Livingston's proposal, he says : — *' The President has been at no time less sen- sible of the difficulties attending the settlement of this subject, than of the vital importance of its set- tlement to the future amity between the two na- tions ; and he has never been unwilling to give every evidence of his solicitude * the full extent of his constitutional authority. He duly appreciates the observrJon of the Committee of the Senate alluded to by Sir Charles R. Vaughan, that it is a question of much perplexity and difficulty : and he has, therefore, always endeavoured to bring his mind to the consideration of the subject with that firmness and fortitude, no less than with the most friendly disposition, necessary to overcome the dif- ficulties with which it is beset. He perceived, however, that in all the previous efforts between the two Governments to ascertain the boundary according to the line of the Treaty of 1783, and in the deliberations of the Arbiter, a natural and uni- form rule in the settlement of disputed questions of location had been altogether overlooked, and he perceived no reason to suppose that it had been present to the minds of the respectable Committee 169 of the Senate in making their report. He coulded to the two parties a compromise. " His Majesty's Government on receiving the award of the King of the Netherlands, announced, without any hesitation, their willingness to abide by that award, if it should be equally accepted by the United States. ^ 178 " His Majesty's Government were of course fully aware that this award was not an absolute decision on all the three points submitted to reference ; they were also quite sensible that in some important matters this award was less favourable to Great Britain than it was to the United States ; but the wish of His Majesty's Government for a prompt and amicable settlement of this question outweighed the objections to which the award was liable, and for the sake of obtaining such a settlement, they determined to accept the award, v-t *i>^ ^.^ . u^,,. ** But their expectations were not realized. The Senate of the United States refused in July 1832 to subscribe to the award ; and during the three years which have elapsed since that time, although the British Government has more than once de- clared that it was still ready to abide by its offer to accept the award, the Government of the United States has as often replied that on its part that j^ward could not be agreed to. *• The British Government must now in its turn declare that it considers itself, by this refusal of the United States, fully and entirely released from the conditional offer which it had made, and you are instructed distinctly to announce to the President, that the British Government withdraws its consent to accept the territorial compromise recommended by the King of the Netherlands. " The award being thus disposed of, the next matter to be considered is, the proposal of the Pre- ■ li 179 sident of the United States, that a new survey of the disputed territory should he made by commis- sioners, to be named in one of two ways suggested by him, and that these commissioners should en- deavour, by exploring the country, to trace a boundary line that should be conformable with the Treaty of 1783, - ; ; " With this view the President suggests that, whereas the landmark to be looked for consists of certain highlands described in the Treaty, the com- missioners should be authorized to search for those highlands in a north-westerly direction from the head of the St. Croix River, if no such highlands should be found in the due north line from that point. ' 5^* '• To this His Majesty's Government replied, that before an exploring commission could be sent out in search of these highlands, it would be neces- sary that the two Governments, and by cOiisequence their respective commissioners, should be agreed as to the definition by which any given hills were to be identified as being the highlands intended by the Trefity ; ihat, according to the words of the Treaty these highlands were to be known by the circum- stance of their dividing rivers flowing into the St. Lawrence from rivers flowing into the Atlantic; that with regard to rivers flowing into the St. Law- rence,no doubt could possibly exist as to which those rivers were ; but that with regard to rivers falling into the Atlantic Ocean, a question has been mooted N 2 180 as to them, and this question is, whether the Bay of Fundy should, for the purposes of the Treaty, be considered as part of the Atlantic, and whether rivers flowing into that bay should be deemed to be Atlantic rivers. ** His Majesty's Government stated the reasons which in their opinion render it clear and certain that the Treaty of 1783 establishes a distinction between the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean, and therefore excludes from the class of Atlantic rivers, rivers which discharge themselves into that bay. >,>:!,..;>../•. ^ .tv •:,. \»,;:*. --i. ■ ^ . - •■ ., •. ■• "■■"■h-'"' " His Majesty's Government farther quoted, in confirmation of this their opinion, the decision which, as they contend, the King of the Nether- lands incidentally gave upon this question in the course of his award ; and they expressed their hope that the Government of the United States would be prepared to agree with them and with the King of the Netherlands on this particular point. " It appears, however, by Mr. Forsyth's note of the 28th April, that this hope has been disappointed, and that the President finds himself unable to admit the distinction drawn in this respect between the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean. ** Under these circumstances, His Majesty's Go- vernment cannot see how any useful result could arise out of the proposed survey ; and it appears to them, on the contrary, that if such survey did not furnish fresh subjects of difference between the two Governments, it could at best only bring the question back to the same point at which it now stands. ''" '" -■'■':""'' '"■ ■""''^ ■'■' "For it is to be presumed that the Commissioners would begin by exploring the due north line men- tioned in the Treaty, and it is obvious that in pur- suing that line they could not, until they had crossed over to the northward of the River St. John, find any highlands from which rivers flow into the St. Lawrence, while it is equally clear that after they had crossed over to the northward of the River St. John, they could find no highlands from which any rivers flow into the Atlantic, according to the strict interpretation of the Treaty. "But they might find, northward of the St. John, highlands separating rivers which flow into the St. Lawrence, from rivers which flow into the Bay of Fundy ; and, in that case, what would the Com- missioners have to do ? The American Commis- sioners would say, they had found the highlands of the Treaty ; the British Commissioners would de- clare that those were not the highlands which the Treaty describes. " Would the Commissioners then come back to their respective Governments for that decision on the river question, which ought to have been made before they set out? or, failing to come to an agreement amongst themselves, while pursuing the due north line, would they at once, and without further reference to their Governments, endeavour 182 to find to the westward of that line some other highlands, which the two Governments might agree to accept as separating rivers which flow into the St. Lawrence, from rivers which, by the consent of both parties, flow into the Atlantic Ocean ? "His Majesty's Government have not yet under- stood that this latter course of proceeding is in- tended by the President ; but if his proposal is to be so interpreted, much of the difficulty attending its execution would undoubtedly be removed. " The President, however, has suggested another way of getting over the embarrassment of the river question; and to this plan His Majesty's Govern- ment regret that it is not in their power to assent. The President suggests, that the commission of survey should be empowered to decide this point of diiference. But His Majesty's Government can- not admit that this point could properly be referred to such a commission. The river question is one which turns upon no local survey, and for the de- cision of which no farther geographical or topogra- phical information can be required. It turns upon the interpretation to be put upon the words of the Treaty of 1783, and upon the application of that interpretation to geographical facts, already well known and ascertained. A commission of survey therefore has no peculiar competency to decide such a question. But to refer that question to any au- thority would be to submit it to a fresh arbitration ; and if His Majesty's Government were prepared to 183 agree to a fresh arbitration, which is by no means the ease, such arbitration ought necessarily to in- clude all the points in dispute between the two Governments, and not to be confined to one parti- cular point alone. < » „i. .. u.ij,ii ^ ♦ . ;. .; " With respect then to the President's proposal for a commission of exploration and survey, His Ma- jesty's Government could only agree to such a com- mission provided there were a previous understand- ing between the two Governments, that although neither should be required to give up its own inter- pretation of the river question, yet as the commis- sion of survey would be intended for purposes of conciliation, and with a view of putting an end to discussions on controverted points, the Commis- sioners should be instructed to search for highlands, upon the character of which no doubt could exist on either side. ' ^ " But if this modi^ ation of the President's pro- posal should not pro\ acceptable to the Govern- ment .4 the United States, the only remaining way of arriving at an adjustment ot the difference would be to abandon altogether the attempt to draw a line in conformity with the words of tho Treaty of 1783; and with a view to the respective interests and convenience of the tw<> parlies. " His Majesty's Government are perfectly ready to treat for sucii a line, and they conceive that the natural fep ruvi's of the disputed territory would af- ford peculiar lacilities for drawing it. 'm i ..aBHOH .^Z^. */ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 taiM |2.5 Ki^ 12.2 nm 1.1 fv^i 2.0 11-25 i 1.4 III 1.6 6" — 7a %. /i ^;. > :> '/ >^ Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WIST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.f. >4S (716) 872-4503 o\ 184 , "When a tract of country is claimed by each of two States, and when each party is equally con- vinced of the justice of its own claim to the whole of the district in question, the fairest way of settling the controversy would seem to be to divide in equal portions betw^ju the two claimants the territory in dispute. " Such a mode of arrangement appears to be con- sistent with the natural principles of equity. ii " His Majesty's Government would therefore pro- pose to that of the United States, to adjust the pre- sent difference, by dividing equally between Great Britam and the United States the territory in dis- pute ; allotting id each party that portion which, from contiguity or other circumstances, would be most desirable as a possession for each. ^" " The general outline of such a division would be, that the boundary between the two states should be drawn as required by the Treaty, due north, from the head of the St. Croix River, and should be car- ried straight on till it intersected the St. John; from thence it should run up the St. John, to the southernmost source of that river; and from that point it should be drawn to the head of the Con- necticut River, in such manner as to make the north- em and southern allotments of the divided territory as nearly as possible equal to each other in extent ; the northern allotment to remain with Great Bri- tain, the southern allotment to belong to the United States, ,, . ^ : t- ^}i if* »M,ij: ':s:it:.}Pt^ 185 ' " You are therefore instructed to present to Mr. Forsyth a note, of which I enclose you a copy, fof the purpose of enabling him to bring distinctly be- ' fore the Government of the United States, the pro- positions now made by his Majesty's Government. ' " I am, &c. «? "(Signed) PALMERSTON." •- Charles Bankhead, Esq. *. .MrnhMimatim-r A modification of the proposal of Mr. Livingston was subsequeitly made by His Majetity's Govern- ment, whereby the Commissioneriet who were to be appointed were not to decide upon the points of dif- ference, but were merely to present to their respec- tive Governments the result of their labours, which it was hoped and beUeved would pave the way to the ultimate settlement of the question^ - -^ Mr. Forsyth objected to the modified'proposal of His Majesty's Grovernment as precluding the possi- bility of the question being terminated during the Presidency of General Jackson, as he knew the President was most anxious to retire from his situ- ation, after having settled every point of difference existing between the United States and Foreign Powers, and especially the question of boundary with Great Britain. On His Majesty's Charg^ d'Affaires calling his attention again to this point, he said that he had taken the modified proposition to be nothing more than a civil way of getting rid of ^t. 186 the question of commission altogether. Upon being referred to that part of the note which contained the above modification, and after reading it over attentively, he 3aid that if His Majesty's Govern- ment really wished for the formation of a commis- sion of exploration and survey, whose labours were to be afterwards submitted to their respective go- vernments, and whose decisions or opinions were not to be final, he thought that the President would have no objection in acceding to such a proposal. — (^Correspondence t ^c. 8fc., No. 49J j^^ > -£ The President, however, did not accede after- wards to the proposal, but requested to be informed more fully of the views of the British Government in offering the modification, so that he might be enabled to judge how the report of the Commission (which, as then proposed to be constituted, was not to decide upon points of difference), when it should have been rendered, was likely to lead to an ultimate settlement of the question of boundary, between the two Governments. The instructions on this head from Her Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to her Minister at Washington, are as follows : — -A- " Her Majesty's Government have little expecta- tion that such a commission could lead to any use- ful result, and on that account would be disposed to object to the measure. But at the same time they ' I 187 are so unwilling to reject the only plan now left, which seems to afford a chance of making any fur- ther advance in this long-pending matter, that they would not withhold their consent to such a commis- sion, if the principle upon which it was to he formed, and the manner in which it was to proceed, could he satisfactorily settled. " The United States' Government have proposed two modes in which such a commission might he constituted ; first, that it might consist of commis- sioners named in equal numhers hy each of the two Governments, with an umpire, to he selected by some friendly European Power; secondly, that it might he entirely composed of scientific E\ ropeans, to he selected by a friendly Sovereign ; and might be accompanied in its operations by agents of the two different parties, in order that such agents might give to the commissioners assistance and informa- tion. " If such a commission were to be appointed, Her Majesty's Government think that the first of these two modes of constructing it would be the best, and that it should consist of members chosen in equal numbers by each of the two Governments. It might, however, be better that the umpire should be selected by the members of the commission themselves, rather than that the two Governments should apply to a third Power to make such a choice. " The object of this commission, as understood 188 by Her Majesty's Government, would be to explore the disputed territory, in order to find within its li< mits, dividing highlands, which may answer the de- scription of the Treaty ; the search being first to be made in the due north line, from the monument at the head of the St. Croix ; and if no such highlands should be found in that meridian, the search to be then continued to the westward thereof ; and Her Majesty's Government have stated their opinion, that in order to avoid all fruitless disputes, as to the character of such highlands, the commissioners should be instructed to look for highlands which both parties might acknowledge as fulfilling the conditions required by the Treaty. " Mr. Forsyth, in his note of the 5th March, 1836, expresses a wish to know how the report of the commission would, according to the views of Her Majesty's Government, be likely, when rendered, to lead to an ultimate settlement of the question of boundary between the two Governments. "In reply to this enquiry Her Majesty's Govern- ment would beg to observe, that the proposal to appoint a commission originated not with them, but with the Government of the United States ; and that it is therefore rather for the Government of the United States than for that of Great Britain, to answer this question. n a» «* " Her Majesty's Government have themselves already stated that they have little expectation that such a commission could lead to any useful result^ 189 and that they would on that account be disposed to object to it'; and if Her Majesty's Government were now to agree to appoint such a commission, it would be only in compliance with the desire so strongly expressed by the Government of the United States, and in spite of doubts which Her Majesty's Government still continue to entertain of the eflScacy of the measure. " But with respect to the way in which the report of the commission might be likely to lead to an ultimate settlement of the question, Her Majesty's Government, in the first place, conceive that it was meant by the Government of the United States, that if the commission should discover highlands answering to the description of the Treaty, a con- necting line drawn from those highlands to the head of the St. Croix^ should be deemed to be a portion of the boundary line between the two countries. '• But Her Majesty's Government w^ould further beg to refer Mr. Forsyth to the notes of Mr. McLane of the 5th June, 1833, and of the 11th and 28th March, 1 834, on this subject ; in which it will be seen that the Government of the United States appears to have contemplated as one of the possible results of the proposed commission of exploration, that such additional information might possibly be obtained respecting the features of the country in the district to which the Treaty relates, as might remove all doubt as to the impracticability of ♦. •I t 190 laying down a boundary in strict accordance with the letter of the Treaty. " And if the investigations of the proposed com- mission should show that there is no reasonable prospect of finding a line strictly conformable with the description contained in the Treaty of 1783, the constitutional difficulties which now prevent the United States from agreeing to a conventional line may possibly be removed, and the way may thus be prepared for the satisfactory settlement of the dif- ference by an equitable division of the disputed territory. . "But if the two Governments should agree to the appointment of such a commission, it would be necessary that their agreement should be first re- corded in a Convention, and it would obviously be indispensable that the State of Maine should be an assenting party to the arrangement." Uy mmjjo? f These instructions were communicated to the American Government, on the 10th of January, 1838. On the 27th of April, 1838, the Honourable John Forsyth, the Secretary of State of the United States, transmitted to Her Majesty's Minister at Washing- ton the following note : — , ,. .. ,, ,,, ^ .,^-., . •mi- ;ji. 'S?-' •' Department of State, * vi;K)t#^r yt)? "Washington, April 27th, 1838. ^ ** The undersigned. Secretary of State of the 191 United States, has the honour, by the direction of the President, to communicate to Mr Fox, Her Britannic Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary, and Minister Ple- nipotentiary, the result of the application of the General Government to the State of Maine on the subject of the North-eastern Boundary Line, and the resolution which the President has formed upon a careful consideration thereof. By the accompanying papers, received from the Executive of Maine, Mr. Fox will perceive that Maine declines to give a consent to the negociation for a conventional boun- dary ; is disinclined to the reference of the points in dispute to a new arbitration ; but is yet firmly per- suaded that the line described in the Treaty of 1783 can be found and traced whenever the Governments of the United States and Great Britain shall pro-* ceed to make the requisite investigations, with a predisposition to effect that very desirable object. Confidently relying, as the President does, upon the assurances frequently repeated by the British Go- vernment of the earnest desire to reach that result, if it is practicable, he has instructed the undersigned to announce to Mr. Fox the willingness of this Government to enter into an arrangement with Great Britain for the establishment of a joint com- mission of survey and exploration upon the basis of the original proposition, and the modifications offered by Her Majesty's Government. ** The Secretary of State is therefore authorized to invite Mr. Fox to a conference upon the subject "~- . \ 192 at as early a day as his convenience will permit ; and the undersigned will be immediately furnished with a requisite full power, by the President, to conclude a convention embracing that object, if Her Majesty's Minister is duly empowered to pro- ceed to the negociation of it on the part of Great Britain. .:..,i>"j,y/.«-. " The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to renew to Mr. Fox the expression of his distin-> guished consideration. " JOHN FORSYTH. *' Henry 8. Fox, Esq. &ic. S^c" To this Note the following answer was transmit^ ted by Mr. Fox : — " Washington May Ist, 1838. " Sir, — I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your official note of the 26th ultimo, in which you enclose to me a communication received by the Federal Government from the Executive of Maine, upon the subject of the North-eastern Boun- dary line ; and in which you inform me that the Presi- dent is willing to enter into an arrangement with Her Majesty's Government for the establishment of a joint commission of survey and exploration, upon the basis of the original American proposition, and of the modification offered by Her Majesty's Go- vernment, as communicated to you in my note of the 10th of January last ; and you invite me to a 193 conference, for the purpose of negociating a con- vention that shall embrace the above object, if I am duly empowered by my Government to proceed to such negociation. " I have the honour to state to you, in reply, that my actual instructions were fulfilled by the delivery of the communication which I addressed to you on the 10th of January ; and that I am not at present provided with full powers for negociating the pro- posed convention. I will forthwith, however, transmit to Her Majesty's Government the note which I have had the honour to receive from you ; in order that such fresh instructions may be furnished to me, or such other steps taken, as the present situation of the question may appear to Her Majesty's Govern- ment to require. I avail myself of this occasion to renew to you the assurances of my high respect and consideration. *• H. S. FOX. ''The Hon, John Forsyth, «^c." This is the last act on the part of either Govern- ment relating to this matter, which has been ren- dered public. ■f'^'frf ^-'^ ■' if*»> ^'rlJ V-it, M- , :.MB ,v .^ ■■■,■ > ■ -r, ' .\' .^ . CONCLUSION. i':,;,, - i;;;v;-,?' •! Thus, after more than half a century from the period of the making of the Treaty of 1783, the greatest portion of which time has heen occupied in unavailing negociations, the two nations are brought back to the point from which they originally set out. If the facts and reasonings contained in the foregoing paper be true, then the highlands described in the Treaty of 1783 ought to be sought for, and will be found, at the extremity of a line run due north from the source of the St. Croix — that is, from the head spring of its westernmost waters. A cause abundantly adequate to account for the im- possibiUty of adapting the terms of the Treaty to any line proceeding from the head of the Cheput- naticook is found in the fact that the source of the Cheputnaticook is not the source of the St. Croix, and is distant from the source of the St. Croix fifteen or twenty miles in latitude, about forty 195 miles in longitude, and is to the north-east of the source of the St. Croix and of the dividing ridge, and below that ridge. The compromise whereby the source of the Cheputnaticook was substituted in place of the source of the St. Croix, operated possibly a surrender of the territory to the south- ward of the meridian of latitude of the source of the Cheputnaticook, but had no further effect. And the boundary then will in point of fact be found to be from the mouth of the St. Croix to the point of confluence of the St. Croix and the Cheputnaticook, thence up the Cheputnaticook to its most eastern- most source, thence by the shortest and most direct line to the highlands which divide the ri/ers which empty themselves into the Atlantic Ocean from those which empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence, to the north-westernmost head of the Connecticut River. These conclusions, so far from being impaired, are corroborated by the statements made by the American Negociators in relation to the proposal of Mr. Livingston, and by the proposal itself, which statements on that account have been given with so much detail in the previous number of this paper. If the views which have been herein attempted to be developed be found to be correct, the subjects and citizens of the two countries may look forward to a speedy adjustment of this matter, and to an end being put to one of the few questions which o 2 ^^. 196 divide two nations whose interest it will always be to cultivate the relations of amity, and a cordial good understanding with each other. Tavistock Hotel, London. Uth July, 1838. ■'i ' ; A A. STUART. ' , 'f ■ t M -.-< ^-i'- : ■' 't " J - • "■'•■^ ..'.. t n- r. 'f.. " -1 -t. .•^^■^ ii' v-f- I' w. .f \'^'.t''f^'(". ''^' P •' .1 i :1k „o ' "m»»^ 1*1 - APPENDIX. CHARLES, &c. — ^To all Persons to whom these presents shall come, greeting : — Whereas, by the Treaty of Peace concluded at Breda, the 31st of Jiily last past, between our Ambassador and those of our good Brother, the Most Curistian King, it is among other things^agreed, that we shall restore to the said King, or unto such as shall receive for that purpose his commission, duly passed under the Great Seal of France, the country which is called Acadie, lying in North America, which the said Most Christian Kin^ did formerly enjoy, and to that end that we should immediately, upon the ratification of the agreement, de- liver or cause to be delivered unto the said Most Christian King, or such ministers of his as should be thereunto ap. pointed, all instruments and orders duly dispatched, which should be necessary to the said ratification ; as also in like manner, that we should restore u>-.to the said Most Christian King, all islands, countries, forts, and colonies, any where situa;ted, which might have been gotten by our arms, before or after the subscription of the said treaty, and which the said Most Christian King possessed before the 1st of January, in the year 1665, on condition that he, the said Most Christian King, should, with all speed, or at the farthest within six months, to be reckoned from the day of subscribing that agree- ment, restore unto us, or unto such as for that purpose should receive our commands, duly passed under our great seal of England, that part of the island of St. Christopher's which the English possessed the First of January, 1665, before the decla- ration of the late war ; and should to that end, immediately upon the ratificatioa of the said agreement, deliver or cause to be delivered unto us, or such of our ministers as should be thereunto appointed, all necessary instruments and orders ; as also that he, the said Most Christian King, should, in like manner, restore unto us, the islands called Antigua and Mont- serrat, if they were m his power ; and all other islands, coun. tries, forts, and colonies, which might have been gotten b/ the % 198 " anus of the said Most Christian King, hefore or after the sub- ** scription of the said treaty, and which we possessed before we " entered into the war with the States General (to which war " that treaty puts an end), as appears by the several articles of the " said treaty, which are as follows; — Articles VII., VIII., IX., " X., XI., XII., XIII., XIV., and XV. And we, desiring on " our part, sincerely and truly, without all delay or difficulty, " under what pretence or colour soever, to accomplish and ob> " serve the said treaty, and every article, clause, and pa^t ** thereof, and more particularly what concerns the restitution " and delivery of the said islands, countries, castles, and colo- " nies, which our meaning and intention is, they shall be forth- " with delivered to our said good Brother as aforesaid, or such *' as shall be thereto by him sufficiently empowered and ap- ** pointed; know ye that we for these and several good consider- " ations, us thereunto especially moving, have given, granted, '* quitted, transferred, surrendered, and delivered, and by these " presents signed with our royal signature, do for us, our heirs ** and successors for ever, grant, quit, transfer, surrender, and " deliver all that country called Acadie, lying in North America, " which the said Most Christian King did formerly enjoy, as ** namely, the forts and habitations of Pentagoet, St. John, Port " Royal, La Have, and Cap de Sable, which his subjects en- *' joyed under his authority, till the English possessed themselves " of them in the years 1654 and 1655, and since; as also, the " country of Cayenne in America, with all and singular the forts " and places thereto and to them, or any of them, belonging ; ** and all and every the islands, countries, castles, forts, and ** colonies, which were in the possession of our said good Bro- " ther before the declaration of the war with the united pro- *' vincesof the lower countries, and which have been taken from " him, or his subjects, by our forces, before or since the signing ** of the said treaty, with aU the right, powers, privileges, so- " vereignty, jurisdiction, pre-eminence, and authority, that doth ** or might belong to us, within the same and every of them, to " be and remain to him, the said Most Christian King, his heirs " and successors for ever, with the same and like power, autho- " rity, and [sovereignty as they would, or might, have done to " us, our heirs and successors. Whereas, we therefore have, and " by these presents do, from this time forward and for ever, dis- " seize and dispossess ourself in favour of our said good Bro- " ther, his heirs and successors; and, accordingly, him and them " have, by these presents do seize and possess all the same, and " of every part and parcel thereof, in pursuance of our said '• treaty, and of the respective articles thereof, without ex- " emption, limitation, or exception whatsoever, and for the fidl •* and effectual execution thereof our will and pleasure is, and *' we do hereby strictly charge and require, as well our Captain « i( (( « t( (( t< (t {( « <( <( u (( <( (« <( « (( dessus, k et6 confirm^ par arrSt du " Conseil d'etat du Uoi, du 29 Mai, 1680, et registry au greffe du *' Conseil souverain k Quebec, suivant le dit arrdt du Conseil " d'etat, et celui du dit Conseil souverain, du24 Octobre au dit '^ an, par moi, Greiiier en chief au dit Conseil, soussigne. Ainsi " signe Peuvret avec paraphe." *' Louis de Buade, Comte de Frontenac, Conseiller du Roi en *' ses Conseils, Gouverneur et Lieutenant-General pour Sa Ma- *' jeste en Canada, Acadie, Isle de Terre neuve et autres pays de " la France septentrionale : A tous ceux que ces pr^sentes lettres " verront : Salut. Savoir iaisons que sur la requdte k nuus pre- " sentee par Pierre de Joibert Ecuyer, sieur ae Soulange et de " Marson, Major de Pentagoet, et Commandant des forts de Ge- " misik et de la riviere de Saint Jean contenant que depuis " quatre ann^es qu'il a I'honneur de commander sous nosordres '' dans les dits forts, il a fait diverses repurations et augmenta- ** tions k celui de Gemisik, a fin de le rendre logeable et de de- " fense, n'y ayant auparavant qu'un petit logement de bois tout " ruine, entoure seulement de quelques palissades k demi tom- " bees par terre ; en sorte que pour re-edifier le tout, il lui " auroit coftte beaucoup, et se verroit encore contraint d'y faire *' de grandi s depenses pour le remettre en etat, a cause de la " mine entire qu'en ont fait les Hollandois en le faisant prison- *' nier dans le dit fort, il y a deux ans, et lui en levant generale- '* ment tout ce qu'il y avoit ; ce qui ne seroit pas juste, s'il " n'etoit assAre d'obtenir I'effet des promesses de M. Talon, ci- ** devant Intendant de la justice, police et finance de ce pays, " lequel lui en avoit fait esperer la propriete; c'est pourquoi il " requeroit qu'il nous plAt lui accorder pour son remboursement " la propriete du fort ou maison de Gemisik, avec une lieue de " chaque cote du dit, fort, faisant deux lieues de front, la de- " vanture de la riviere, et les isles et isle s qui y sont, et deux *' lieues de profondeur dans les terres avec le droit de chasse et *' de p6cho dans I'etendue des dits lieux : le tout en fief seig- " neurie, haute, moyenne et basse justice ; duquel fort M. Talon, " lors Intendant de la justice, police et finance de ce pays, lui " auroit promis la propriete, attendu les depenses et voyages " qu'il avoit faits dans le pays pour le service desaMajeste, peu " auparavant notre arriv^e dans ce gouvemement. Nous en vertu " du pouvoir a nous donne par Sa Majeste, conjointement avec " M. Duchesneau, Counseiller du Roi en ses Couseils, et Intend- " ant de justice, police et finance de ce pays, et en consideration *' des services que le dit sieur de Marson y a rendus et de la de- 204 ** Dense qu'il a faite pour I'entretien et augmentation du dH fort *' Gremisik de la perte qu'il a soufferte, il y a deux ans lorsqu'il " fut prig et pill£ par les Hollandois ; et pour aucuneraent le d^. " dommager et Tengager de continuer ses services, avons, au dit " sieur de Marson, donn6, octroy^, conc^d^, donnons, octroyons " et concedons par ces presentes, le dit fort de Gemisik, avecune < " lieue de chaque cdte du dit fort, faisant deux lieues de front, la " devanture de la riviviere, et les isles et islets qui y sont, et " deux lieues de profondeur dans les terres, avec le droit de ** chasse et de pSche dans I'etendue des dits lieux ; pour du tout, " jouir par lui en pleine propri^t6, ses hoirs et ayans cause, en " fief et seigneurie, haute, moyenne et basse justice ; i la charge ^ ** de la foi et hommage que le dit sieur de Marson, ses dits " hoirs et ayans cause seront tenus de porter au Chdteau Saint " Louis de cette ville de Quebec, duquel il relevera aux droits " et redevances accoiitum^s et au desir de la coiitume de la ** Prevdt6 et Vicomt6 de Paris, qui sera suivie pour cet egard " par provision, et en attendant qu'il en soit autrement ordonne *'■ par Sa MajestI ; et que les appellations du juge qui pourra §tre *' etabli au dit lui, ressortiront par devant noiis. A la charge qu'il " tiendra et fera tenir, feu et lieu par ses tenanciers, sur les con- "^cessions qu'il leur accordera; et afaute de ce faire, qu'il " rentrera de plein droit en possession de la dite terre. et con- " servera le dit sieur de Marson, et fera conserva par ces tenan- '* ciers, les bois de chdne qui se trouveront propres pour la con- " struction des vaisseaux, dans I'etendue des dits lieux ; et qu'il " donnera incessamment avis au Boi k nous, des mines, mi- ** ni^rs ou mineraux, si aucuns s'y trouvent, et qu'il laissera et " fera laisser tous chemins et passages n^cessaires : le tout sous " le bon plaisir deSa Majest6, de laquelle il sera tenu de prendre, " la confirmation des presentes dans un an. En tSmoin de quoi ".nous avons signe ces presentes, k icelles fait apposer le sceau " de nos armes, et contre-signer par I'un de nos Secretaires. *' Donne h Quebec, le seizieme Octobre mil six cent soixante- " seize ; ainti signi d, I' original en parchemain, Frontenac, et '* contre-signe plus has, par Monseigneur, Le Chasseur, avec " paraphe. Et au dos du dit titre est icrit. '♦ Le titre de concession de I'autre part, a 6te confirm^ par *• arret du Conseil d'Etat du Hoi, du 29 Mai, 1680, ctrcgislr6au *' grefic du Conseil souverain k Quebec, suivant le dit arr^t du '* Conseil d'Etat et celui du dit Conseil souverain, du vingt- " quatrieme Octobre au dit an, par moi Greffier en Chef au dit " Conseil, Soussign6 Ainsi signe Peuvret, avec paraphe." " Les sieurs le Febvv" de la Barre, Seigneur du dit lieu Con- " seiller, du Boi en ses Conseils Gouverneur et son Lieutenant- " General dans toutcs les terres de la Nouvelle France ; et de " Me ules, Chevalier, Seigneur de la Source, Conseiller du Boi en " ses Conseils, Intendant de justice police et finance en Canada, 205 et pays de la dite France Septentrionale. A tous ceux que ces presentes lettres verront, Salut. Savoir, faisons que sur la re- 2u6te a nous pr6sent6 par Ren6 d' Amours, Ecuyer, sieur de 'lignancourt, & ce qui nous pliit lui vouloir accorder en titre de^nef, seigneurie et justice, haute, moyenne et basse, ce qui se rencontre de terre non concld^e le long de la Riviere de Saint Jean, depuis le lieu de Madoctet, icelui compris, jusqu' au long sault qui se trouve en remontant la dite revi^re de St. Jean, icelle comprise, avec les isles et islets qui se trouveront dans cet-espace et deux lieues de profondeur de chaque c6t6 de la dite riviere de St. Jean. Nous, en vertu du pouvoir ^ nous conjointement donni par Sa Majesty, avons donn^, ac- cord4, conc6d6, donnons, accordons et conc^dons par ces pre- sentes au dit Sieur de Clignancourt, ce qui se rencontre de terre non conc^d^e ni habitude le lone de la dite riviere de St. Jean, depuis le dit lieu de Madoctet, icelui compris, jusqu' au long sault qui se trouve en remontant la dite rivifere de St. Jean, icelle comprise avec les isles et islets qui se rencontre- ront dans cet espace, et deux lieues de profondeur de chaque c6t6 de la dite riviere de St. Jean ; pour jouir de la mte ^tendue de terre et de tout ce qui s'y pourra rencontrer, par le dit sieur de Clignancourt, ses noirs et ayans cause, k perp^- tuit4 en titre de fief, seigneurie, haute, moyeime et basse jus- tice, en faire et disposer comme de chose k lui appartenante ; lequel fief et seigneurie portera le non de Clignancourt, k la chaige de la j^oi et hommage que le dit sieur de Clignancourt, ses dits hoirs et ayans cause, seront tenus porter k Sa Majest6 au chateau de St. Louis de cette tnlle, duquel il relevera aux droits et redevances ordinaires, suivant la coutume de la Pre- v6t6 et VicomptS de Paris suivie en ce pays ; qu'il tiendra ou fera tenir feu et lieu, et y obligera les particuliers k qui il ac- cordera des terres, et qu'a faute de ce faire par eux, il rentrera de plein droit en la possession d'icelles ; qu'il ne souffrira la dite riviere de St. Jean £tre embarass^e, afin que la navigation y soit libre, qu'il conservera et fera conserver les bois de Chine 3ui s'y trouveront propres pour la construction des vaisseaux ; oimera avis k Sa Majesty et k nous, des mines, mini^res et mineraux, si aucims s'y trouvent, laissera et fera laisser et tenir en bon ^tat les chemins et passages necessaires, et qu'il fera defricher et habituer les dits lieux, et les gamira de b&ti- mens et de bestiaux dans deux ans de ce jour, autrement la presente concession demeurera nulle et de nue effet ; le tout sous le bon plaisir de Sa Majeetl, de laquelle il sera tenu de prendre confirmation d'icelle dans deux ans. £n foi de quel nous avons sign6 ces prisentes, k icelles fait apposer le sceau de nos armes et contre signer par le Secretaire de nous dit In- tendant. Donn6 a Quebec le vingt Septembre mil six cent quatre vingt quatre. SignS Le Febvre de La Barre et de Meules. Et plus has, par Monseigneur Peuvret. Et scelle. T Hiihn^iiiiiriTiftTitfiirtiaaiS 14 l TIIOUS, PRINTER, IS, WARWICK SQUABS, '-,-.:■' Sheet 11 LOWER- CANADA asd NEW BRUNSWICK "with Rut of NEWyOHK.VERMONTAia. MAINE . nMifHed b/t Ae Soeitiy for the Uiffiuioai of Useihl Kaimledgr . fB.Aty h.biup C.l'apf Q". Otitic TJon AAofitir IXake MMountain r.Jhrt r*Bamt T.Town rWLt^f jL««# >l "3^ ' "% NOKTll AMKHH A SlUM-t II UJWKU CANADA ».-«...\KW lUONSWICK -with hut til' XKW M >lUv .\>:R\U )NTa <■ ,, m ai n k . iHmuiini iir r«.-Mii Kiiiiwiiii^r AA<|< Mw>ml f K-n H.M,ii*,^,f- l.l.ilir >UI,iait,iln -MA"'* tip: 1': .< >W ^ >' 141 ' s»l ■'\ hi J/. '^y.'.f/«/i ' .,,..j^jLlli::i!i::il!!ii;:,i,2i:i;:iii;:;iu^^^ Aiilai ( I >»a IMnrktfJ 3>' «i./«- •|5V. •. » '^ V \ l«(/. .'rr.*'7.' ^^^*yss-r «;*? -m ,4, 4,' >. r\i ^1 4 ^^WvAA /lri/:itVI( )NJ'am. MAI NK . ^.ow 4',titntrif >K.,(.-*<.»n«»i^ ti'r thr If iwlt-it^l* . 'I.llt.'nr I.Likr MMoiinlMii r.mi.i.,,- Ji'v/'oi /„»„ r„',;i,^ %f\^z ,..4.'* 'A ^'" /n,lr,„j, ""•'I' Ul<.„ „„,/ . - - il""' V, ..' : ■ 'fp' i':;|i|.ll|llli, III' i 7ri' ,''" '"'■'" '"■ -],'"' ' '" "•?<> /,w./*j/„w ./»./»■/#■'/.'(,/■.,/.../. -y. I .,.../.../ , I,,.-' . Suttarijitii' ' to (//.I./.U ,„^jj£*^^ oof ir"-^*i 'I'fe?^'"''"''" y ;i;!i'7<» '//<*.■/■» A.iA'--« .i' i,>i,l<..i i; r.il't:,xt,t t;,» /,.M,/,-, ...... /^( ?31 .1 A <■ »(ilk.T S.- /it'll.U,! 7n 73 30 4» \ EXPLANJTJOTi Zim clauTMd. by Qreal ^Brilam -- - - j)o J'fU' VnzUd States ..cr::' J.LRcrbert, Horse Gwards r\ + '^^./'^-r%. Zf ^ 8» M"" " ly