IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) 1.0 I.I 11.25 laiUS 12.5 ■^ 1^ 12.2 12.0 1.4 1.6 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST M/. signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmAs A des taux de reduction diffArents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film* A partir da Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant la nombre d'images nicessaire. Las diagrammes suivants illustrant la mithode. Tata o )elure. H 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ( 501 ) # o Art. VIII. — 1. Correspondence relating to fhe North Anierican Bmmdary. Presented by command of her Majesty. A and B. 1838. Report of the British Commissioners appointed to survey the Territory in dispide between Great Britain and the United States of America on the North-Eastern Boundary of the United States; with an Appendix. Presented to Parliament by command of her Majesty. July, 1840. 3. The Riyht of the United States of America to the North- Eastern Boundary claimed hy them. Principally extracted from the Statements laid before the King of the Netherlands, and revised by Albert Gallatin; with an Appendix and eight Maps. New York. 1840. 4. A Brief History of the United States* Boundary Question. Drawn up from Official Papers, l)y G. P. R. James, Esq. London. 1839. T^HE spirit in which we undertake the examinati(m of the -■' important and interesting question discussed in these publi- cations, will be best indicated by an early expression of our sin- cere and cordial concurrence in the sentiments with which Mr. Gallatin prefaces his argument : — ' In the various negotiations with Great Britain in which I * have been employed, there was always an earnest desire to remove subjects of con- tention, and to promote friendly relations ; on almost all questions a conciliatory disposition ; nothing at any time that could shake my con- fidence in the sincerity and good faith of that government. And I do believe that it would do justice, if it was once satisfied that justice was due. . . But under any circumstances whatever, the question must be settled. It icould be the height of mad'iess and of wickedness to come to a 1-ufture, and for such an object. Both governments are animated by a sincere and earnest desire to preserve peace. It is not believed that the English nation wishes a war with the United States, It may be confidently asserted that, with an entire conviction of their right to the territory in question, there is not a more universal feeling amongst the people of America, everywhere and without distinction of political parties, than that of the preservation of peace, above all, of peace with Great Britain. It is the duty of the two governments speedily to demise and to adopt the means necessary for effecting the object ; and I he- lieve that means may be found.* — Preface, pp. ix, x. * Mr. Gallatin, now we believe, in his eighty-first year, has tilled witli distinction many important otlices and embassies : — he was one of the American negociators of the treaty of Ghent, and afterwards (and pending tJiese Ixtundary discussions) minister of the United States in London. We ^ Wtf u rnta i UnW*" " m 502 llnUfd States' Bovndnry Question. Wc believe and hope so too ; and our humble edbrts, valeant qvantum, will be directed towards that conciliatory conclusion ; but we must, at the same time, ccmfess that our liopos would not be so confident as Mr. Gallatin's seem to be, if they did not rest on very diflerent gjrounds from those on which Mr. Gallatin in- forms us that he has built his expectations. Untaught by the experience of fifty years of fruitless discus- sion — undisjnayed by the failure of so many former negociators (himself included .') — uncndjarrassed by the decision of the King of the Netherlands^ who declared the terms of the treaty of 1783 to be inexplicable — Mr. Gallatin finds no difficulty at all in tlic case: — In his view there is neither obscurity nor doubt; he suggests that the only impediment to an arrangement has been that no English cabinet minister has ever yet ' tahen the trouble to examine the question thoroughly.' (Pref, p. ix.) Mr. Gallatin thinks that * the fact of Lord Palmerston's laying the Report r/f the Commissioners before parliament affords stromj proof that that distinguished statesman'' [soft sawder, Mr. Slick!], 'amidst his more important and overwhelming avocations, had not found tnne to investigate the case, and judge for himself.^ (ib.) Mr. Gallatin is perfectly satisfied that ' there is no British jury nor British chancellor who would not, on hearing the cause, decide in favour of America / {ib.') and Mr. Gallatin, therefore, does not see why ' the enlightened British cabinet,' [soft sawder again] if they could find time to make * an attentive ministerial inquiry into the tedious details of this vexed question,' should not arrive at a similar result, (ib.) Now, the giounds of Mr. Gallatin's hope of arriving at ' a satisfactory settlement' being thus, in limine, pronounced to be the indisputahle and irresistible justice and reason of the wi\\o\g Ame- rican claim — which needs only to be thoroughly understood to be, even by the British cabinet, immediately admitted — we confess we receive no great comfort from his flattering prognostics ; — nor do we think that this wholesale style of heijijivij his question and jumjjing to his conclusion even before he has begun his argument, would add much to Mr. Gallatin's reputation as either a logician or practical statesman. But the truth is, that Mr. Gallatin comes before us on this occasion neither as a logician nor statesman, but as an advocate : — and pledged as an ad> ocate, to maintain his whole case, he pre- sumes that there can be no demur to his conclusion, but from imperfect knowledge. This drives Mr. Gallatin to misrepresent the very first aspect cf the case : he finds the chief obstacle to a settlement in its ' tedious w^^ A ^; ' r * iJ«3«b*^iw3£a£ISmii! UMMIIiaMaMii*lill i Tm8r'~ -~ i-oJUi&Hidl^" — > ifia^ JJiiifcd SfatpH Bntimlarj/ Qitc\/nm. 003 its, valeanf pontlusion ; > would not did not rest Hiallatin in- css dlscus- negociators f the Kino- ity of 1 783 at of I in doubt ; he t Las been ho trouble [r. Gallatin Report of proof that !], 'amidst not found iih.) Mr. //. jur\j nor ', decide in 3, does not 'r ajrain] if iquiry into arrive at a ing- at * a d to be the hole Ame- ood to be, nfess we — nor do stion and irgunicnt, a logician IS on this cocatc : — he prr'- but Ironi rst aspect 3nt in its ted ion J)' ' tedious details ' — but tedious is not the word— he should have rather said, oltsctirc, intricate, rontradidori/, vninleUi()'dde. It has not been the mere spirit of chicane 'though that has not been wanting), nor the ignorance or negligence of secretaries of state (diough they may have helped to prolong and embarrass the discussion), that have hept this matter in suspense for half a century : — it has been, we believe, its innate and intrinsic com- j)l(.xity — the extreme difTu ulty of reconciling the vague and ambiguous terms of a clumsy description, to the unkn()wn or disputed features of an unexplored tract of country. This, and not the want of time or diligence iov the inquiry, has been the real impediment. We have no doubt of the (jeiteral meanino; of the jiarties to the original negociations, and we think it can be shown aliunde in what direction they intended the boundary line should run ; but unhappily the terms of the treaty were in ihemselves so unfortunately chosen and so loosely aj)plied, as to be hardly reconcilcable with any p--'-p '*', 5(}n i n ,■ ■till' '■; ii 21 '■ I. ('rre(l to tlie arbitration of the Kin"^ of tlie Netherlands, who found it inii)ossible to reeoueile either the claims of the parties or the features of the country with the terms of the treaty ; and Ik; theriiforc rejected both claims, and proj)ose(l, byway of exjiedient, another line — difTerinji: from both — which he rerumrneudc.d the ])arlies to adojit, as a nicxzo t ermine and substitute for the im- j)racticable ])r<)visions of tlie treaty. In this recommendation Great Britain would, it seems, have acquiesced; but the United States rejected it, on the jjround that the Umpire, haviniic been only empowered to decide uhii'li was the true ])()undary under the treaty, and not havinf>" been able to decide tJu(t, had surpassed his j)()wers in recommeudinc; another and jnirely arbitrary line. We confess that we are equally sur- prised al the British acceptance and the American rejection of this award ; and., jnucli as we desire a settlement of the question, we are sincerely fjlad that this arranjjement was not concluded ; for it seems to us that it would have been almost as injurious to Enjjland as the whole American pretension, and a fruitful source of future quarrel. The recent survey, moreover, has ascertained that the statements on which the royal Arbiter proceeded were erroneous in point oi fact. Durinp^ all these discussions, the British cohmial tj^overnments of Lower Canada and Nev/ Brunswick had maintained over the disputed ground such a degree of possession and jurisdiction as was necessary or applicable to a wilderness of forests and waters, Itivated and uninhabited except by occasional sojourners : .)f late certain of the citizens of Maine — either desirous of new settlements, or wanting timber, which is beginning to grow scarce about their ancient seats, or impelled by a restless en- mity against I'mgland — have taken the decision into their own hands, and have actually possessed themselves, in a hostile manner, and formed establishments on almost the extreme verge of the American claim. These encroachments have been, of course, resisted by our colonial governments, who have had, from alt time, cocclusive authority over the very spots where the people of Maine have lately, for the first time, ])ersonally intruded : — this excites, of course, a great ferment in both parties — hostile collision between individuals may any day produce irretrievable hostilities between the public servaals of the two countries, and of course between the countries. It becomes, therefore, the firnt and immediate duty of the Federal Government of the United States to take decisive measures for keeping this inter- •' national -^ " I mrimmimmmremm^' United States BoHndanj Q iia.it ion. 507 y treated : in ii to say tli.'it, in 1H:J.'3. rc- eilands, who he parlies or •aty ; and ho of exj)e(hent. iitncudv.d the i'or the ini- seems, have ' frroLind that hich was the jeen ahio to (hnsf another equally sur- rejection of the question, concluded ; injurious to uitful source ! ascertained ceeded were j^overnments led over the risdiction as and waters, sojourners : desirous of incf to grow restless en- tlieir own le manner, Brge of the of course, , from all the people ntruded : — es — hostile etrievable ntries, and refore, the cnt of the this inter- national national discussion in its own, the proper hands, and not to permit anv indiviton, 30lh April, 18.33. ' 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 tht submission were bound by their contract to select another ; but this would be useless, if the position assumed by the Government of his Britannic Majesty be correct, " that it would be utterly hopeless at tliis time of day to attempt to find out, by means of a new negoci- ation, an assumed line of boundary, which successive negociators, and which commissioners employed on the spot have, during so many years, failed to discover." The American Government, however, while' they acknowlcdtfc that the task is not without its difficulties, do not consider its execution 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, other means^ still untried remain, [y^J^ 1 508 i.,'«r \ IJ*' 1-. '* )■•;■"* Vniti'.d States' Bmindnnj Qvrsfinn. rpmnin. It wns, perhaps, iintural to euppose, that ncgociators of the two powers coiuinj^ to tlic discussion with honest prejudicos, each in favour of the construction adopted hy his own nation, on a matter ol great im))ort to hotli, sliould separate witliout coming to a decision. The same observations may apjdy to commissioners, citizens, or subjects ol' the contending ])aTtics, not having an impartial umpire to decide be- tween them : and, although the selection of a sovereign arbiter would seem to have avoided these difliculties, yet this advantage may have been more than countervailed by the want of local knowledge. AH the disadvantages of these modes of settlement, heretofore adopted, might, as it appears to the American Government, be avoidei-' . ij i 1 i 1 II !;.;« ,,yf ill 510 United Staler' BoiDvlary Qvestio}K Gallatin has thrown out a stvone: insinuation of censure against • an American Secretary ol" Stat(;' — ^vho, on tins very question, did, subsequent to the award, propose to substitute, for the due north line, uuotiier which would have given to Great Bntain the greater ])f\rt, if not the whole of the disputed territory. Wliy the proposal was made, aiul why it was not at once accei)tc(l, cannot he otherwise accoinited for, so far at least as regards the offer, than by a complefo igiinranrc of tiie whole subject.' — p.ix. Wo do not find in the Correspondence Lord Palmcrston's reason for having thrown aw%ay this favourable oppcntunity of arrangement — and we fear that it was rejected, as Mr. Gallatin insinuates, by conipJefc ignorance. From the result of the recent survey we may venture to concur with Mr. Gallatin in saying that this proposition, while it satisfied the American Government, would have given Great Britain as much as she can fairly claim ; but oven as matters stood in 1833, it could not, on the one hand, have possibly damaged the British position, while on the other it afforded (besides many local advantages) a better chance of finding — earlier in time, nearer in distance, and more marked in character— ^the Highlands in question; and, at all events, a much better prospect of an arrangement in 1833, than, after eight years ol protracted and exasperating discussion, we have in 1841. The naked facts are no doubt still the same; but the temper and other circumstances of the discussion are, wc fear, widely and inauspieiously difierent. Wo hope, however, that thJs, as it seems to us, unfortunate de- termination of our ministers may not be irretrievable, and that the American Government may be still disposed to adopt the principles of arrangement proffered by General Jackson and Mr. Livingston. This hope is, we confess, somewhat enfeebled by the tone of Mr. Gallatin's book, which not only censures Mr. Livingston's overture, but proceeds on the broad contrary assumption that there is no room for either duubt or difficulty, and that the American claim can be, and therefore mnst be, established by a stnct interpretation of the treaty : — an assump- tion, in our opinion, utterly untenable, and of which we shall now pioceed to show the absolute futility. In addition to the King of Holland's difficulties in making sense of the boundary clause, we have, on a close examination ol the subject, discovered one which has not been, that we are aware of, before distinctly noticed, but which, if we do not deceive our- selves, is of considerable weight. It is this :■— The clause begins by establishing, as the first and main point of the boundary, — the north^ivest ajvjle of Nova Scotia : and ..rt^ii 'i *m0^ K censure against iwartl, })roposc to uld have given to disputed territory, at once accepted, regards the offer, ■p.ix. rd Palmerston's opportunity ol" as Mr. Gallatin [lit of the recont in in saying' that m Government, an fairly claim ; n the one hand, lile on the other )etter chance of \ more marked at all events, a 133, than, after sion, we have in same ; but the >n are, wc fear, unfortunate de- vable, and that to adopt the Jackson and what enfeebled ; only censures broad contrary )t or difficulty, cfore must be, : — an assump- h we s^.iall now ies in makinc: examination of ; we are aware )t deceive our- nd main point Uidleil Stales' Boundary Question. .511 and it proceeds to direct how that north-weftl amjlcnf Nova Scotia is to be formed, namely : — *vi:.,hi/ a line draw ndnc nortli//o//i the. smirce oflho river St. Croic l^ c'rlMiiHighlamh, and along the said Highlands, &c.,to the north-west- er n head nflhe Connecticut river ;* which head of the Connecticut is above three degrees westward of the said due-north line. We here make no difficulty about Ilirrhlands — nor discuss on what point of the due north line the western line is to liranch off — nor at what angle, whether acute, right, or obtuse-— all that would be superfluous ; for we assert that no line branching off from the due-north line, and tending in any way towards the head of the Connecticut, can, by any possibility, form the north-west amjie of Nora Scotia, nor any angle of Nova Scotia at all. Observe this diagram :- N. ■\V^ m '\Su.. ■'j^te'-' y'(^.. i '■'•'■ vfi ! 7'' ,iif I .■ w -I ol2 Uniffid Sfafpn^ Bnunrlary Qnpntion. west, north, or south — to bo cither found uv formed by the spoclfipd line. We shall be told that this new discovery, made at the clcventli hour, has been left for our t*//r«-ingenuity, only because ever) body else saw clearly and indisputably what was meant — the negociators had eyes in their heads, and they must have therefore intended to say — which {western) line, if produced eastward across the due-north line, woidd form the north-west angle of Nova Scotia. Our answer is, first, that though this may have been meant, there is no indication of it in the terms of the treaty, which does not even talk of two lines intersecting one another and so form- ing angles on both sides, but is really worded as if it meant to exclude that idea — by mentioning only one line, which is first to run due north, and then, at a certain (or rather uncertain) place, is to trend .away to the westward, leaving not only no angle, but no iwmbility of an angle, on the other or Nova Scotian side of the said line. But it may be asked, can we not sui)ply a few words to restore the obvious sense of the passage? — or may we not begin the de- scription of the western line at the other end, and say, — a line proceedinei from the Head of the Connecticut along the Highland i, Sfc. woidd cross the north lino, and of course run into the Nova Scotia branch of the Highlands, and so constitute a north-west angle for Nova Scotia? This, to be sure, would answer the purpose, and make sense not only of the passage in question, but of the whole clause : and the British commissioner under the treaty of Ghent proposed to relieve the British claim from all objections by just a similar process — by merely inverting, without altering a xingle word, the course of the description — beginning with the head of the Con- necticut and proceeding along the Highlands towards Nova Scotia ; which, as we shall see (when we come to those details), would have reconciled the British claim with the exact >vords of the treaty. But this expedient the Americans utterly rejected; and that rejection INIr. Gallatin confirms (p. 24), not without some ex- pression of contempt at such a futile attempt at evading the f&if of the treaty. If, then, we are to abide by that text, we are bound to say that all that therein relates to the north-u'est angle of Novn Scotia — the key-stone of the whole system — is mere nonsense ; tha. nothing hanging on that definition of the north-west angle of Nova Scotia can be valid; and, as everything docs confessedly hang (m that definition, the whole is morally and physically null and void ; and the parties must look out for some new basis of agreement, ^^..,^<.>^■.>'■ ^ 7. 11)}' the specified e at the eleventh y because ever) ivas meant — the St have therefore e duc'iiorlh line, ve been meant, aty, whicli does er and so forin- 5 if it meant to icli is first to run ain) place, is to angle, but no >tian side of the vords to restore t begin the de- say,— g the Highlands, the Nova Scotia 1 angle for Nova d make sense le clause : and lent proposed just a similar gle word, the of the Con- Nova Scotia ; 5)j would have of the treaty, d; and that )ut some ex- iding the text we are bound mjle of Nam re nonsense; h-wcst angle s confessedly lysically null new basis of agreement, United Statet^ Boundary Quedton. 5KJ afrreement, or, if they are so bent, of disagreement — for the words of the present treaty, being, on this point, sheer nonsense, will serve for neither. One further and important observation we must add, that, though both the parties aflfect to consider this north-west angle of Nova Scotia as an indispensable termination of their respective western lines, our readers, by looking at the sketch, will see that neither of those lines do in fact reach, nor even pretend to reach, am/ ANGLE whatsoever of Nova Scotia. The American line (n) ends in the province of Quebec, or Lower Canada; and the English line (a) ends about the mi.ldle of the right line which forms the western boundary of Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, where there is no angle at all. What effect this failure in the very first condition of the boun- dary clause may have on the rest of its provisions — it is not for us to decide ; — the basis is assuredly gone — and whatever may be supposed to have been founded upon it is, strictly speaking, null and void : but, if we are allowed to depart from the strict letter, and to consider the meaning and intent of the parties, we will then admit that this failure (although in a point that professed to be essential) seems to us of no great importance ; for we cannot (nor could the King of the Netherlands) understand why such prominent mention, or indeed any mention at all, should have been made of the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, which never had been ascertained, and which, even if ascertained, could by no possibility answer the description gvven in the treaty. But if we cannot discover why the north-west angle of Nora Scotia v as so superfluously and absurdly introduced, still more extraordinary does it, at first sight, seem why the angle really required, viz. — the north-east an ^le of Massachusetts — was not taken as the point of departure. That angle, we admit, had not been much (though it was a little) better defined than the other; but to attempt to find it by means of the ' north-west angle of Nova Scotia,' was as gross a case of seeking to discover ignotum per ignotius, as we have ever seen. We shall find in the sequel that fit onetime American authorities placed the nwih-west angle of Nova Scotia as far westward as the head of the river St. John, and at another, admitted that the north-east angle of Massachusetts musthe whhm the line of the river Penobscot ; it is therefore possible that the American negociators foresaw something like the difficulty which has arisen; and after a direct attempt — which was as directly re- jected — to fix a boundary considerably in advance of anything like the then understood boundary of Massachusetts — namely, along the river St. John — they preferred a vague and undefined line, which, though it could not reach the St. John— (all pretence to 2 L 2 which '■'• . . : ! ' >jj ■■^^m ^ i-'a. ■f I J *♦ f , "■■: 'I _v.v I , I. JIM I, ■V* I'..-'* 514 United Stales' Boundary Question. which they had distinctly abandoned) — was yet certain to carry them a good deal beyond anv boundary that Massachusetts could then allege. But, whatever the motives may have been, assuredly a more clumsy mode of obviating * fut se disputes,' or a more astute device for creating them, never before disgraced the annals of diplomacy. If, therefore, we are to adhere to the basis designated by the strict words of the treaty, we may as well abandon the discussion at once — for they are nonsense : but if we are to follow the mean- ing of the parties, we must wholly reject the words ' north-west angle of Nova Scotia,"* and only consider the subsequent words, which, though professing to be explanatory, are in reality the substance of the matter. We must begin by noticing a slight inaccuracy which has hitherto pervaded all the discussions on the subject — even the late report of our commissioners (p. 2G et passim). Everybod)' has argued as if the words * line drawn due north /rom the source of the St. CroiJ?,' used in the beginning of the article, were the definition of the eastern boundary of the United States : this is not so — those words are not, in that place, used to define the eastern, or indeed any boundary, but only to guide to a point through which the western line, constituting the northern boundary, is to pass; but the proper definition of the eastern boundary is given at the end of the article where the words are repeated with, however, a noticeable va- riation. * East; by a line to be drawn along the middle of tlie river St. Croix, from its mouth in the bay of Fundy to its source, and from its source directly north to the aforesaid Highlands, &c.' Now, a line to be drawn ' due north,' and a line to be drawn 'directly north,' may mean the same thing; but it is curious, if so meant, that the negociators should have, within so short a space, varied their terms ; that in other parts of the article they should have said due north, due east, due west ; but that in defining this boundary they should have substituted * directly nortli for their former expression * due north.' If the variation has no mean- ing, it is an additional blunder, and must throw additional sus- picion on the adequacy of the negociators to convey their own meaning. But if the variation had a meaning, it could only bo this : — the boundary described consisting of three parts — a tortuous or v;aviug line along the centre of the St. Croix — a direct line nortli to the Highlands — and another toaving or tortuous line along the Highlands — 'direct' — might mean the straight line, in contradistinction to the other irregular lines which complete the boundary ; mSSSStSSSSilma''^ United States' Boundary Qticstlon. 515 :^ertain to carry lachusetts could tsuredly a more a more astute 1 the annals of signated by the 1 tlie discussion jllow the 7nean- rds ' north-west •sequent words, ! in reality the icy which has tject — even the :). Everybody sfinition of the 3 — those words or indeed any ch the western but the proper i of the art'cle noticeable va- river St. Croix, from its source e to be drawn curious, if so ihort a space, they should t in defining tly nortfi for lias no mean- Iditional sus- ey their own [>uld only be —a tortvom ca direct line ortuous line tight line, in complete the l)0"mdary ; boundary ; then also ' north' would mean not due-north, but in a vorlhcrndirccti(m ; and under this interpretation, Mr. Livingston's i)roi/ositi()n would be in exact accordance with the strict words of the treaty. We know not whether this observation be of any value ; but we have thought it worth while to make it lor grculor accu- racy, as the case has been hitherto generally argued on the Avrong clause — i\\e first instead of the laat — of the boundary article. Having noticed this distinction, we shall proceed to a detailed examination of the words prescribing the northern boundary, and incidentally anticipating, as we have just said, the eastern one. 1. — * Ihat ANGLE ii'hich is formed by a line drawn due north 2 — ' from the source of the river St. Croix 3, — ' /() the HIGHLANDS 4. — ' ALONG the said highlands, 5. — ' vidrh 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 the Conncclicut river.'' We have divided his enunciation into paragraphs — each of which has been the subject of difference — and we shall proceed to consider them in their order — always requesting our readers to recur frequently to our sketch, which, slight as it is, will enable them, we hope, to distinguish the main points of the discussion. 1. ' That angle — ivhich is formed by a line dratvn due north' — We have just shown that such an angle must be — not any angle of Nova Scotia, but the north-eastern angle of Massachusetts or Maine — to be found as follows : — 2. ' — by a line drawn due north from the source of the St. Croix* T\\G French, who first explored this part ol the coast and named the rivers, were in the habit of erecting crosses at the prominent points — such as the mouths of rivers; and it was long doubted which was the inlet especially designated as the St. Croix — though all parties were agreed that the St. Croix must be the boundary. And why? Because in the first grant of Nova Scotia by James I. to Sir W. Alexander, in l623, it was stated that the boundary of that province should Le ' a line drawn from ' Caj)e Sable across the Bay of Fundy to the river St. Croix, and * up the said river to its moit western source, and from that source ' towctrds the north (;cer.sus svptvntrionem), to the nearest ship- • station [probably Quebec roads], river, or source \scaturigo\ ' failing into the great river of Canada [the St. Lawrence].' This grant was a nullity as to its northern regions ; for they had been many years previously in possession of the French, and the '<^'f ^,f' o 16 United Stafes' Boundary Question. f" ''* t ■** ■:,«!» ti ' '■''ft '? ■■t 5 the charier had an express exception of any land previously occu- pied — si vel ipsa regna cultoribus priux vacua ; but it serveil to acertain, at least, the original boundaries of Nova Scotia to the southward. The convention of 1798, therefore, very naturally and properly decided that the real St. Croix was the river since always called by that name, and so marked in our sketch ; and that is a Jact which may be now taken as (conceded, though it extends, by implication, the limits of Massachusetts beyond the Penobscot, which had theretofore been the extreme limit of that province. For this we have the distinct and conclusive evidence of Mr. Gallatin himself, while commissioner of the United States employed in negotiating the treaty of Ghent — who in a letter to his own Secretary of State, 'Zoth Dec. 1814, states : — * Massachusetts has not the shadow of a claim to any land North of latitude 45°, to the eastward of the Penobscot^ as you may easily con- vince yourself by recurring to her charters.' — Report 17. We entreat our readers to look again to the little map — to trace the latitude 43'* — the only one with which we have thought it necessary to mark our sketch — to the line of the Penobscot — and then to conjecture how the statesman, who wrote officially the foregoing emphatic opinion, can advocate a claim, which the people of Maine now so strenuously rest on the original and in- defeasible right of Massachusetts over the disputed territory — all of which lies north of latitvde 45°, and north-eastward of the Penobscot ! The St. Croix then is the adopted boundary : — but the St. Croix has two branches — a ivestern and a northern ; which was meant? — Xing James's grant of Nova Scotia, which first esta- blished tlio St. Croix as a boundary, says distinctly — along its * most western waters'' — but the British Commissioner of 1798 having unhappily concurred with the American Commissioner in naming an Americtm gentleman for umpire — the American umpire decided — that, after adopting King James's river St. Croix, they should reject his express stipulation of its most western source ! The northern branch was therefore determined to be the true St. Croix ; and accordingly at the northern source of the St. Croix — (about 40 miles to the north-east of King James's boundary — the western source) — a kind oi Monument was erected, from which the due north line was to proceed. This rash de- cision had, besides the loss of so much territory, still more serious consequences. In the first place, the western branch of the St. Croix approaches within 15 miles of the Penobscot, and within G miles of one of its tributaries, and is only 1 3 miles north of the 45th degree of latitude MittMdMik<;gMl n.^miliiSsss0a9ISSii United Statev'' Bounclan/ Question. oil )reviously occu. but it servetl to ^a Scotia to the very naturally the river since ur sketch ; and Gclctl, though it tts beyond the reme limit of and conclusive ssioner of the y of Ghent— th Dec. 1814, f land North of nay easily con- map — to trace ive thought it enobscof — and officially the 1, which the iginal and in- tcrritory — all ficard of the -but the St. ; which was h first csta- \y — ahmg its ler of 1798 imissioner in American s river St. of its most determined n source of ing James's was erected, is rash de- lore serious - approaches 3S of one of degree of latitude latitude ( Official Map) ; so that it would have afforded a boundary nearly in accordance with Mr. Gallatin's own admission, that ' Massachusetts had not a shadow of a claim to the eastward of the Penobscot and the northward of 4o° ;' and in the second place, the due north line from the ivestern source would have fallen in with Hifjhfands of so decided a character that no con- troversy could have arisen about them, while the due north lino IVoni the northern sourco fell in with the Highlands at a point where their character was long thought to be disputable, and where even the recent survey has not, it seems, quite satisfied Mr. Gallatin that they exist. The British Commissioners of Survey, Mr. Featherstone- haugh and Colonel Mudge, observing these serious incongruities and^rrors flowing from the decision of 1798, seem to recommend that it should be absolutely rescinded ; and we are not sure that they may not be justified in dcnng so ; not because there is manifest error for nations must be bound even by the blunders of their ministers; but because the treaty of 1794, to which the con- vention of ] 798 was added as a component part, was annulled by the hostilities in 1812 ; and as its provisions were not renewed by the treaty of Ghent, it is at least a questicm whether they have not become entirely abrogated. But under the present circumstances, we think — speaking our own private opinion — that our government may not unwisely show its desire of arriving at an amicable adjustment, by waiving this question, and consenting, as a pledge of its conciliatory disposi- tion, to abide by the expired convention of 1 798, and to acknow- ledge the erroneous Monument as the practical point of depart- ure ; — a concession, we admit ; but one which, rather than raise new (questions in a matter already so intricate, we think it would be prudent as well as honourable to make. This erroneous or eastern line has also an advantage which we have not yet seen noticed : it leaves to the Americans some important tributary waters of the Penobscot, which the true or western line would cut off ; and though it does on the other side intercept some of the smaller tributaries of the St. John's, it is on the whole a better approach than the western line would make, to the principle of leaving each party the uninterrupted course of its own waters. Mr. Livingstone's proposition of a north-westward line would in this point fully satisfy that principle, as it would completely divide the British and American waters. This leads us to remark that the original boundary in this direction was a north-west line ; and that the admitting that the line should be carried due north frojn the St. Croix, was another extraordinary blunder made by the British negotiator of the treaty vr^^v I ■; 518 i :^ ■J 1 .,<; is ' .'X ■1. ' V* '-* III! >•' ' ,''(•' ! UnHed States' Botindarn Question. treaty of 1783. King James's boundary, which had up to that point been followed, says * versus septenlrionem ud j^f'oximum navhim sfaiioncm, Jluvivm, rel scatur'ujinem in marjno fluiio dv Canada sese exonerantvvfi — that is — towards the north to lltv nearest naval station, river, or source, discharging itself into the great river of Canada. Now the nearest naval station or ship-road to either, but particularly to the western source ol the St. Croix, is Quebec — and the nearest river, or head of river, discharjjing itself into the St. Lawrence, lies about north-west ol the St. Croix — that is, versus sepientrionem, towards the north ; — but instead of saying; towards the north, the treaty of 1 7B3 says dm north — a deviation from the original line which obviously gave uj) an additional portion of territory that could not have been dis- j)uted, and incidentally increased the difficulty of completing the rest of the boundary. This is an additional reason for regrettinj; the rejection of Mr. Livingstone's overture of 183.3, which was not only fair in itself, but would, it now appears, have folloAved the direction of the original boundary, would have satisfied the prin- ciple of dividing the waters, and would have nearly met the views of the last Ihitish commissioners. Rut all these are become, we fear, extraneous considerations; and we now must approach the actual difficulties — those on which the affair has latterly turned. * 3. — to the Highlands' lllvery one of these three words is ambiguous. Does 'to' mean to the rdije or to the ridjje of the mountains ? — * the' seems to designate Highlands — specific and well known — though it now seems, that no one knew anything about the real face of the country ; but the grand difficulty is on the word ' Highlands.'' The first and, till the recent survey, general opinion was, that there was nothing like ' Highlands' to be found in the specifunl direction of due north — (and thence Mr. Livingston's equitable, or at least plausible proposition to look for them to the north-ivest- uards). The diplomatists on both sides, instead of looking out for the Highlands, took for granted that there were none, in the ordinary and plain sense of the term, and set about finding a meaning for the word that should suit the supposed nature of the country. We have not the statements of the two parties, laid before the King of the Netherlands ; they have never, we be- lieve, been published ; they are known, indeed, to Mr. Gallatin, but the discretion of Downing Street conceals them from us : — \\c. therefore cannot imagine by what arguments two nations, to whom the English tongue is native, persuaded a Dutch umpire to decide * that according to the instances which are adduced, the term High- lands «#>« i~.j &. ■?:^tf''jp*K*«r^i*;*«£^ I I Vnited States' Bomnhry Question. 519 had up to that I ud ])roximr head of rivpr, ut north-west ol 'ds the north ; — ^ >n 783 says r/m- viously gave up have been dis- coinpleting the n for regrettin(1 n's equitable, e north-wesf- looking out none, in the ut finding a nature of the parties, laid ver, we be- •Ir. Gallatin, om us ; — we nations, lo h umpire to term High- tands lands is applied not only to a hilly or elevated country, but likewise to a tract of land, which, nnlhovt hehuj elevated^ divides waters Howiug in did'crcnt directions.'— i4war J, p. 12. 'Pljjit is in three words — that Uifjhlands mean Lowlands — if only they divide waters flowing different Mays. Thus, then, the bog of Allen, the flattest tract in Ireland, is Highlands l)ecause it di- vi«lcs the Sliannon and the Lifiey. Salisbury Plain is IJi^jh/atid.s, because it divides the river that flows towards Bristol from that flowing to Christchurch. 'J^ie plateau of the department of Eure et Loir, in France, is Hujhlands, because it supplies the luue which runs north, and the Loir which runs south. I?ut though we are not permitted to soe the respective state- ments, we are glad to learn from Mr. Gallatin (p. 30) that the Ihilish government did not adopt this new system of philology, and that the Americans did ; and have even gone so far as to stale ' that the word "Highlands" was judiciously (cugo!) selected, as ap- plicable to any ground, ivhati'vcr niifiht bo its nature or c/aa//on, along which a line dividing rivers should be found to pass.' — Gallatin, ih. And this JNIr. Gallatin defends and supports by asserting that * highlands (sic) which divide rivers, and height of land^ arc synony- mous.' — ib. Mr. Gallatin endeavours to prove his philological position by showing, what is quite true, that a portion of the country admitted on both sides to be part of the Highlands had been called, in various maps and topographical writings, ' height of land,' 'height of the land,' 'land's height;' and gives two instances of other lands in North America, whence rivers flow opposite ways, being by travellers called ' high lands' We admit all this ; but w hat does it prove ? — only this, that one may reasonably apply the term ' height of land' to Highlands; but by no means that you may jipply the generic description of 'Highlands' to ;> 'height of hnid :' a mountainous region involves the idea of a height of land, but a height of land does not involve the necessity of a mountainous region. Trifling as the observation may at first appear, we cannot pass unnoticed a little typographical artifice on the i)art of Mr. Gal- latin : — in quoting the several works which use the terms ' high land ' and ' height of land,' he carefully marks hvo passagps (out of some twcnty-frc or thirty) as thus printed, * High land^ and * Height of the land ;' but our readers will have observed in a foregoing extract that Mr. Gallatin is not quite so precise in his own use of capital letters, for when he wanted to show that the Mord ' Highlands,' as used in the treaty, was synonymous with height of land, he exhibits the word 'highlands.' Nor is this little trick without a certain importance,* for if the words ^;?'^.7 320 United Status' Jiuimdary Question, i I! ''• iff'! !■ 1 J' !'.*"' l1 :^: r^iifj wortls of the treaty li«'V(l been ' hoiijht of /«nr/,' or if it had ap- peared thus — 'hirjh lunds' — IVIr. Ciallatin's construction would have had some colour ; the words ' liip;h lands/ thus exhibited, would not indeed have excluded the British cljum — which havinjf, accordinii: to the recent survey, found actual ' Hiyhlands,' has, (f forfinri found ' hiyh lands ;' but it would have r(?lieved either ])arty from the necessity of looking for Highlands, and would have authorised them to say that the letter of the treaty would bo satisfied by — any land higher than the .idjoining country, from which the water ran (hffercnt ways. But the fact is not so ; the wt)rd is printed in the official and indeed all other copies of tlie treaty that we have been able to see,*' and we presume it was so Avritten in the original document — Hitjhlands — one word, with a capital letter. We need not waste time in explaining to any English or American reader the difference between ' Highlands ' and ' high lands ;' — * Cda' as the French say, 'saute anx youx.' We therefore assert that, according to all practice in writing and printing and the technical rules of grammar (see, if it is thought worth while, Murray's Gram- mar, p. iils f yet, when the com- missioners quote the same jiassage suhsetptently, it is printed '■ lili)li/i(/i(l.s.' Such vari- ances ought not to be permitted in o///(7f// documents, however venial or indillerent tiiey may be in ordinary matters. JIcc itiuja' aeria dwitnl in mala, f Mitchell "s map is an old map of the year 1755, compiled in the olliceof the Board of Trade, and extremely defective and erroneous in its details as to the relative ])osition of places. We really know not in whose favour the balance of advantage from its errors would lie — liut it exliibits the river St. .Tohn's so very prominently, that we can hardly supixise that, if the iiegociators had intended that the north line should have crossed tliat great feature, they siiould have omitted all mention of it. Medousa seems to l>e MitcheU's euphonous version of Maduwuska ; but the lake is called in the modern maps Teiniscouta. should United States' Boiimhnif Question. 5'2l or if it had np- struction would thus exhibited, —which havinir, JiijhlandH,' h.is, i'(?liovod t'ithci' ids, and would treaty wouhl ho : country, from the official and en able to see,* x\ document — need not waste rthe difference as the French hat, according' echnical rules urray's Gram- in the treaty and emphatic to be found, 'rs and incon- olve the prob- nc drawn due y Mitchell's f that the true nor any other ^ able to find et which the ot rather say, or was from e, and that it liaujjh and (Ju- ol'the tioa(y is u! t, wlit'ii tliu coni- Is.' Such vaii- iudiiroreut they u llice of tlie Board relative position aiitage iVom its tly, tfiat wo can ne should have Aledtjiisii seems s called in tlio should should be therefore drawn north-westward so as to meet, as it would do, the intended lake? The common sense, then, of the matter obviously is that you should deal with t\w ' High/dndx' of the treaty as you would with the Medousa Lak'j in the sup- posed case. 4, * — (dnn(j the said Highlands* What means the word ul(hi(j ? Is the line to be drawn straijrht from the extreme ])oints? or is it to follow the summit of the rldffe ? or is it to wind round the heads of the rivers which it may meet llowing different ways? Is it to run alou"^ the first llln^h- lands it may meet, or in the centre of the Hi■*■ 'J 52'2 Vnilcd Sfuln JJovmh)}/ Question. that divide tlic wntcrs of the river *S7. L a urot re Srom the waters falling into the Atlaviiv ocean, and that therefore they are entitlid to j)rotra(t the north lino till it shall meet Highlands dividiinj .smh uulcrs ; — that in order to do tliis, their line crosses the great river St. Johns, uhieh flows into the Pny of Fundy, and sonu branches of the Restigouche, which falls into the gulf of St. Law- rence through the Ray of Chaleurs; and thus the north line, and of course the north-cast uncjtc of Maine, and the north-wesl angle of Nova Scotia, would be carried up to the point marked A in the sketch, about thirty-five miles from the shores of llu river St. Lawrence. But this apparently clear construction is liable to many — some of them ntterly insiinnountatdc — objections. 1. One that we shall not here dwell upon, but which must he noticed en jjassant. We beg the reader, any reader, even Mr. Gallatin, to look at the sketch — and we then ask him (and the King of the Netherlands suggests the same difficulty) whether it is credible that Great Britain could by any possibility have in- tended to run the adverse angle so deep into her own possessions, and to interpose such a mass of territory between her own pro- vinces, and particularly between her colonial capitals of Halifax, Fredericton, and (Quebec? — and this too after she had rejected, and America had acquiesced in the rejection of, the line of the river St. John — and when, as Mr. Gallatin, the American Com- missioner at Ghent, admits, * Massachusetts had not a shadow ol right east of the Penobscot and north of latitude 45°.' Put as we admit that the alleged blunders of a negociator would be an inconclusive argument against the clear and explicit* provisions ot a treaty, we shall not, in this stage of the discussion, insist on this question of probability ; but, 2. This jnetcnsion would carry the imaginary north-vest (i nejlc of Nora Scotia far beyond any limits which can possibly be assigned to that province — in short, that angle would be in the heart of Lower Canada, and is, in point of fact, within its ancient I,, -w IB i: * But if there lie any question, ' llie party," say all writers on j)ul)lic law, 'wliidi cedes a territory fchall, in case ol'doulit, lie sujiiiosed to liave ceded as little as possililc ." It is excc'Hlin{fly ciuious tliat Vattel supju.its tliis doctrine by an example from tlie very territory now in dispute : — ' Sil est vrai que les limites de VAciidic [Nova Scotia] aient loujours tte incertaines, et que les Franrais en aient etc les maitres legitimes, cette nation sera fondee en |ttetendant quelle n'a cede Y^vudiv aux ylnfffais par le traite iXUtnvht que suivant les limites les plus etroites.' (/t7. 1. ii. c. xvii.) AVliidi being translated, mi fulis iviiUnidis, for tlie ])restnt case is — ' If it be (rue that the boundaries of Acadia [Nova Scotia] have been always uncertain, and that the Knglisli were legitimate j)ossessors, England will oe justified in asserting that si le ceded Acadiii lo the Americans by the treaty of Paris, according to the most rcsfrUted Iwundari/.' In other words, the boundary wliich gives least to America is, in case of doubt, the most consistent witli the laws of nations. !|l!i!['; and on. re from tlic watns c they nrccntillod mis (lividitnj .smj, ssi'8 llic great rivi i 'undy, and soiin ? gull" ()!' St. Law. lie norlh line, and d the iiorth-uest the point marked he shores ol' the R to many — some Jt whieh must he reader, even Mr. sk him (and \\w. culty) whether it (ssibility have in- own possessions, !cn her own j)ro- pitals of Halifax, she had rejected, f, the line of the American Coni- not a shadow ol c 45°.' But as tor would be an cit* provisions ol' t)n, insist on this nary vorih-vcsl ch can possibly would be in the ithin its ancient l)ul)lic law, Svliidi as little as jiossiljlt ." II fxaniijle IVojn iLe 4mdic [Nova Scot ill] ■s inailrt's lt'g;itini(s, aiix Jnf)luis jiar le ii. f. xvii.) AVIiicli it le true fliat. tin; 111(1 that tlie Eiiglii^li atslie ceded Acadia cstrkted houmhitij.' e of doubt, the luubi and I Vniled Slate/ Boundun/QiteHtion. o'iS and legally exercised jurisdiction. But again on this rircum- st;uire, though of f ,mc jirnrtical yAuo, we rest but little of our nr'MinKMit, Ijccause the ancient, or, indeed, modern limits assigned bv ourselves to our provinces, — not having been recognised by the treaty, but, on the contrary, studiously omitted, though it seems indubitable that they would have supplied the easiest and most obvious mode of designating the new boundary of the United Slates— those limits, we say, being thus repudiated, we agree with the Umpire, that no argument drawn from them can be con- clusive on either side. We must endeavour to understand the treaty, and to abide by it where intelligible — and on those points where no rational meaning can be extracted, it will remain for the parlies to devise some ulterior mode of settlement. 3. Hut the chief and most important question of the whole discussion Is, what is meant by rivers emptying themselves into the river St. Lawrence, as contradistinguished from those running into the Atlantic Ocean ? If the bay of Chaleurs, which receives the Restigouche— and the Bay of Fundy, which receives the St. John's, were meant to be included in the Atlantic Ocean, the American boundary is certainly right ; but we think it is per- fectly clear that such is not either the letter or intention of the tieaty — though we are again forced to admit the extreme stu- pidity or carelessness of the negociators, who ought not to have left any shadow of doubt on so plain and so important a point. Connected with this disputed boundary there are three classes of rivers — 1 . The Kennebec, the Penobscot, and their tributaries, which run into the Atlantic Ocean, south of the Bay of Fundy, <2. The St. Johns and its tributaries, which fall into the Bay of Fundy, and 3. The Chaiidiere, Elechmins, and several smaller rivers, which empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence. About the first and last classes there can be no question ; and as the river (the St. John's), falling into the Bay of Fundy, is not otherwise designated, one would say prima facie that it was in- cluded in the description of rivers falling into the Atlantic ; but it certainly is not so included either in the intent or in the words of the treaty, which very studiously negative that interpretation. We shall not rely on geographical analogies such as the Irish Sea, or the British Channel, or the Bay of Biscay, or the Gulf of Mexico, which are at least as much portions of the Atlantic Ocean as the Bay of Fundy, though, when used contradis- tinctively, they can never b:; confounded with the Atlantic Ocean ; but we shall solely rely on the express words of the oflicial documents in the particular case. Wc '"mm'^ ,.i«<,o^a(fah ■^"M BMk I ■ l'i¥ ,i.' If ' f "C ^ !';■;$ lip ( ,./* i I'i! m 524 Unilod Sfnfffi' Botindartf Qnpfition. Wc shall first quoto the secret instructions of Conjyress to tlioli own ministers at Paris, conveying the iiUhnatum of the United States on their future boundaries. The American negociator is instructed to insist — as an ultima- ivm — on these boundaries — * On the norths the Highlands which divide those rivers which empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence^ from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the north-westernmost head of the river Connecticut: and east hy a line drawn along the river St. John's, from its source to its mouth in the Bay of Fundy ; or hy a line to be settled or adjusted between that part of the State of Massachusetts Bay, for- merly called the province of Maine, and the colony of Nova Scotia, a^rcfabh/ to their respective rights [which would have limited Maine to th( Penobscot at farthest], compreliending all islands lying between linos to be drawn due east, as the aforesaid boundaries of Nova Scotia on one part, and East Florida on the other part, shall respectivclij touch the Bay of Fundy — and — the Atlantic Ocean.* Here we have recorded a most important distinction as to the extent of the individual rights of the state of Maine, which we shall revert to by and by ; but for our present purpose here are two distinct admissions by Congress in their secret instructions to their ministers, that In this question of boundaries, the ' Bay of Fundy' is entirely distinct from * the Atlantic Ocean ; and we find the treaty accurately following and consecrating, as it were, the same distinction ; it recapitulates the very tvords of the instruc- tions, as our readers will see by turning l)ack to the article in p, 50.5. This is conclusive — for the distinction between the Atlantic Ocean AND the Bay of Fundy is made in rem, as the logicians say — in the authoritative clause and lor the special purpose — and irpeated twice over — and no sophistry can defeat the conclusion. Rut there is still an important confirmation, if confirmation could be needed. The Americans say that the specification of this north boundary is copied from the old British boundary of the province of Quebec ; — and so it is — all but one important word: — the boundary of Quebec, as against our own province of Nova Scotia, contradistinguishes the rivers which fall into the St. Law- rence from those, the Restigouche and St. John, which fall into the sea — the word sea might have included the bays of Chaleurs and Fundy ; but when the treaty comes to distinguish between our provinces and the United States, it changes one word, and one word only — ' the sea — for which it substitutes the term 'Atlantic Ocean' for the express purpose of distinguishing?^ from the Bay of Fund t], Rut this is not all ; in another clause of the treaty, where the rights of fishing are granted to the United States, the gulf of the i rm. United Statfis' Boundary QueMion. 525 Conprcss to thoii vm of the United ist — as an ultima- those rivers whicli m those which fall head of the rivci er St. John's, from a line to be settled ichusetts Bay, for- ly of Nova Scotia, ^e limited Maine to nds lying between •ies of Nova Scotia , shall respectively SAN.' ti net ion as to the Maine, which we purpose here are ret instructions to ries, the ' Bay of can;' and we ifind , as it were, the s of the instruc- k to the article ;en the Atlantic as the logicians al purpose — and the conclusion, if confuination specification of boundary of the niportant word: rovince of Nova ito the St. Law- which fall into ays of Chaleurs ish between our rd, and one word 4tl.antic Ocean," 3 Bay of Fund !j. oaty, where the cs, the gulf of the 4 ■0! the St. Lawrence and the Bay of Fundy arc called the Sea — thorrbv further marking- the distinction between them as particular portions of the sea and that wider portion of the sea distinguished in the treaty as the yltlantic Ocean. In fine, by the repeated terms of the treaty it is as clear as any words can be that the bav OF Fundy was contra-distinguished throughout, and repeatedly, and advisedly, from the Atlantic Ocean. This decides the largest and most important branch of the discussion against the American claim ; for their objection to the English linc^ — we beg our readers to turn back to the sketch — is this: that it divides the Atlantic waters from the St. Lawrence waters only during part of its course — that is, towards its western extremity — but that to the eastward, it divides the Atlantic waters from those of the Bay of Fundy. But it turns out that exactlv the same olijection lies to the American line ; for it also only divides the St. Lawrence waters from the Atlantic waters for part of its course — that is, at its western end — but at its eastern end only divides the »S'/. Lawrence waters from those of the Bay of Fundy — o* d the Bay of Fundy heincf, in. this very boundary clause, carefully and repeatedly contradistinguished ixomihe Atlantic Ocean, the American line labours under exactly Ihe very same objection which Ihe Americans have advanced against the British line. i This is undeniable ; and this portion of the American argu- jnent, if admitted to its fullest possible extent, could only show that neither line was right. But we think we can carry the British argument an important, a conclusive step further. . The diiriculty, be it remembered, is this — that the treaty, in talking of the rivers which run off on opposite sides, mentions only those of the St. Lawrence and Atlantic ; why is it silent as to those which ilow into the Bay of Fundy 9 For tliis, as the negotiators may have thought, sufiicicnt reason — that the business was to trace a line of boundary between the two va- iions, and that the St. John's being altogether vithin the British territory, the national boundary could have no concern with it : — ilnd the exact site and courses of its various branches being very imperfectly or in fact wholly unknown, it would have been imprudent to employ them in the description of suclx a boundary. ]|i[nowing what we noio know of the course of the St. John, and the difficulties which have since arisen in tracing the lilyhlands, it is obvious that it would have been better if the treaty had spe- cified that the line should have ' dicidcd the wcdcrs flowing into ihe Atlantic Ocean from those falling into the St. Laurence and the Bay of Fundy.'' 'Yes,' the American advocates will answer; * the .>rf^ i ' ^ r ; : 1 • 1 1^ ill : ■:: 526 1' //W 'I ,1 If ■ s'-i 1 .//»( 'lns arising out of ave hitherto con- that the nearest lirect line drawn the rise of the 11, south of the —and thence the ighlands towards hitiah line; but > British officers , have, like our- ves on such an conclusion, that fie terms of the dious repetition, three chief and, mericans make as their north- of the answers lat spot, at this point is survey and evi- sioners, indeed, and we there- s it essential to ce, a conclusive hey argfue that ows off water, sedly as much A the St. Law- Ohject'm •3| United States' Boundary Question. 527 Objection II. It does not correspond with the north-west angle of Nova Scotia prescribed in the treaty. 1 Answer. It certainly does not ; but we have already shown j that there is a physical impossibility that the north-west angle of f Nova Scotia can ever be found or formed by tie terms of the i treaty that the north-west angle of Nova Scotia has never yet been defined — and that, as the Umnire has truly said. Nova Scoti??. mip-ht have, for aught wc know, several north-west angles — but the angle adopted by England does give, what it is admitted was intomlcd to be defined by the treaty, a north-east angle of the United States, and thus affords a perfect meaning and the nearest approach to the strict terms of the clause. Objection III. That even if there be Highlands at this point, thev are not Highlands which divide the waters falling into the St. Lawrence from those falling into the Atlantic Ocean, because the waters which fall into the Bay of Fundy intervene, which Bay cf Fundi/ is the At/antic Ocean, Answer. As this objection comprises two heads, so must the answer. First, the very boundary clause of the treaty carefully ■ distinguishes the Atlantic Ocean from the Bay of Fundy as dif- ferent and distinct portions of the sea ; and things which the clause i distinguishes as different cannot, in interpreting the same clause, {be confounded as the same. Secondly, — the American point is pliable to exactly the same objection; namely, that it divides the « waters of the St. Lawrence — not from the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, but — from the waters of that separate portion of the sea distinguished in the treaty as the Bay of Fundy. Here we conclude our observations founded on the terms of . the treaty. Three other points remain to be disposed of. I . The natural facts of the case, as proved by surveys. II. The evidence as to the general intentions oi the parties when they made the original treaty; and, III. The right of the individual State of Maine to control the decision of the Federal Government in this matter. As to the natural features of the country, it is obvious that it would be quite impossible for us to bring into any manageable shape the vast and complex details of territorial surveys, and scientific, and often unscientific, observations which have been made ; we shall, however, endeavour to give a summary of the main points, and of the general result. We must begin by stating that it was not till the publication of the Report of Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, so lately as last July, that we, or anybody else, possessed anything like an accu- rate view of the case. We shall see presently that Mr. Gallatin is forced to admit that the best and latest American surveys VOL. LXVII. NO. CXXXIV. 2 M were II K4^L ~m^\- #3^Laikjr- . .4&^^ f .. ]• * 528 United States' Boundary Question. ' rt-t '' ' t*t !/■'■ i %k V were only ' conjectural / and it is clear that all that has hitherto taken place on conjectural, and, as we shall also show, on fic- titious evidence, is got)d for nothing, and that the autheniication of the facts of the case must be the foundation of a new discus- sion. The survey by Mr. Featherstonhaugh and Colonel Mudf^p is the first that ever has been made by actual observation and scientific professors. It is, we admit, ex parte — and it would bo certainly most desirable, and indeed is absolutely necessary, that the American government should either accept its conclusions, or should consent to a conjoint scientifical survev, which should now do what ought to have been done in the beginning, and wliat Mr. Livingston proposed in 1833 — ascertain the nalnml facts as the basis of the political discussion. But in the mean time we must be permitted to put our trust in the good faith and skill of the British commissioners : to the precision of their observations, the accuracy of their results, and the truth and clearness of their statements of facts, Mr. Gallatin bears full and honourable testimony (p. 150) ; though he adds, that to those facts ' the United States attach no importance ' — a singular admission — the true interpretation of which is that the facts are all against the pretensions of the United States, as wo shall soon see. We are sorry to be obliged to say that this very able Report too clearly proves that the extreme negligence or ignorance which characterised the British negociators in the earlier stages of the transaction were even, if possible, surpassed by those of British agents employed in the subsequent examination of the features of the country. The proceedings and reports of the American agents have been indeed equally erroneous ; but it is very remarkable that all the mistakes of the British were made against themselves, and all the misstatements of the Americans were made in their own favour. Mr. Featherstonhaugh and Col. Mudge do not hesitate to attribute the former to ' inadvertence,' ' indiscretion,' or ' delusion ;' while the latter are characterised as 'management" and ' manoeuvre.' Our readers will see presently some of these instances, and will form their own judgment. We have already observed how, under the treaty of 1 783, the line was to be drawn due north instead of north-westicard, and how, under the Convention of 1798, the Mominient was erected at the eastern, instead, as it ought to have been, at the western source of the St. Croix. Under the treaty of Ghent, another joint commission was employed to trace the due north line from this Monument to the Highlands : — * It appears that the surveyors of the two governments were directed by the joint commissioners to *' proceed upon an exploring survey, upon SaciBaa on, that has hitherto Iso show, on fie- the autheniication of a new discus- l Cohmel Mud}j^e I observation and -and it would bp \y necessary, that t its conclusions, ey, which should 3 beg:inning, and tain the nafurul to put our trust lissioners: to tlio heir results, and cts, Mr. Gallatin though he adds, importance'' — which is that the ted States, as wo cry able Report ignorance which ier stages of the those of British f the features of American agents cry remarkable linst themselves, made in their Vludge do not indiscretion," ' management ' y some of these tyof 1783, the ■ivestivard, and t was erected at at the western hent, another lorth line from ts were directed cploring survey, upon United States' Boundary Question. 529 » ( upon aline due north from the lake at the source of the river St. Croix, yntil Ihei/ sJumld arrira at some one of the streams or waters which an: conncctnl with the River St. Laivrcncc.^' ' It is alleged in the British Commissioner's Report that this (latter) direction " was framed and inserted in the draft of the original instruc- tions to the surveyors by the aycnt of the United Slates ; and this fact is not denied by him." ' The sanctioning of this instruction was no doubt indiscreet on the part of the British commissioner. The terms of the treaty were not ambiguous ; they enjoined the parties to run the due north line to the Hif/fiidiids, and not to streams running into the St. Lawrence. But the joint instruction to the surveyors to carry the due north line to the waters of the St. Lawrence was virtually a direction to extend the line to the Metis; and hence the inadvertent concurrence of the British commissioner in this instruction was made to carry along with it an implied sanction, on his part, of the gratuitous assumption that the jietis flowed from the Highlands of the treaty. ' The American agent was not slow to avail himself of the success of ^is manrxnivre, and at the close of that survey of the due north tine, he produced a map, exhibiting a chain of " Highlands "running uninter- mpted by any gap or depression whatever, from the source of the Metis, in west longitude G'T" 5.5', to the sources of the Quelle, in west longitude 70° ; — [this is the northern edge of the shaded part of our sketch] — writing in conspicuous characters over them these ^words : — " T/ie Hi'j^hlands which divide the rivers emptying into the river St. Lawrence frorn those which fatt into tlie Atlantic Ocean.^^ ' At the meeting of the commissioners in 1819, the American agent had the address to procure that fictitious map to be fded in the joint proceedings; so that when the misrepresentation in this map had attracted the attention of the British party in the joint commission, and a motion was made to take the map off the files, the American com- missioner refused his consent to the proposition, and it thus became a part of the records of the joint commission.' — Report, pp. 42, 43. At this time it was supposed that the country in the neighbour- 'hood of Mars Hill afforded no Highlands, and the American C()mniissi(mer, under the treaty of Ghent, concluded that the British Commissioner would therefore be compelled to contend that the Highlands of the treaty did not mean any visible elevation, but only such a height of land as would throw off waters. The American therefore assumed that great visible elevation was mdisptnsdb/y ncrcssory, and accordingly a range of mountains {' entirely fictitious,' as it has turned out) were inserted on the map of the American surveyor, who solemnly stated that he had himself seen them, {ih.) This surveyor, Mr. .Johnson, was soon after withdrawn from the survey, and a Mr. Burnham appointed to pursue the inquiry for America, with Dr. Tiarks on the part of England. These gentlemen proceeded together satisfactorily, and concurred in re- 2 M 2 porting ^^nJ m^^ )>ffiw iiwtiiiaifiR^iyti^^i*^- 'vrj , .. - A ...J AtJri^'r ^*? >•<>: 530 United States' Boundary Question. m ^111 .' n J Ml ""* '''\ ■!; \ ^4:1 jiff! porting that no such Highlands as those seen and delineated by Mr. Johnson were to be found : — ' and that so far from there heing in these places a ridge separating the waters running in opposite directions, they found insulated points, without the least chain of connexion.* — Rep.^ p. 43. The American agent, who had (on the faith of Johnson) taken his stand on visible Highlands, finding that his point had no such character, now turned sharp round, and discovered that the real meaning of the term was not a visible elevation, but any * land Avhich should separate rivers rurming in contrary directions.' But though the new American surveyor had thus agreed witli Dr. Tiarks in levelling Mr. Johnson's mountains, yet when the American af/ent came to present his map, the mountains were again erected and replaced on it, ' with n further spurious addition, about eighty miles in extent, up to the head waters of the Chaudiere ;' the object of which was to connect by means of this new fiction the former fictitious ranjje of Mr. Johnson with the real high lands which actually do separate the heads of the Chaudiere and Connecticut. The British Commissioners, of course, objected to this map, and desired that the American sur- veyor should attest its accuracy, on oath, offering that the Britisli surveyor should do the like by his own map. This was refused ; and the American agent then objected to the British maj), be- cause it had not the Highlands, which both parties had previously reported to be fictitious. The offers of the British agent and the refusal of the American to have the correctness of these maps attested by the oaths of the surveyors would lead us to guess which of the two was right ; but we need not guess, when we have the authority of Mr. Fcatherstonhaugh and Colonel Mudge, who have since been over the same ground, and * after a careful survey of all that part of the country, unhesitatingly declare that the ridge inserted in the American map is entirely JicHtious, and that there is no foundation in the natural appearance of the country for any such invention.* — Rep., p. 45. This is an entirely new and very curious feature in the case, and not less curious is Mr. Gallatin's mode of dealing with it. * The report dwells,' he says, ' on some controversies which took place under the Ghent commission, respecting certain conjectural maps, and in the opinion and acts of the American Commissioners and agent, which most certainly cannot affect any question i7i issue.* — Gall.^^. 148. Not one jot of the facts is denied or even questioned ; on the contrary, Mr. Gallatin admits the accuracy of our late Commis- sioners; and the whole of Mr. Gallatin's defence is comprised within the word * conjectural,' now applied to maps originally offered on official responsibility as the result of actual survey; to which however he adds, that * the facts do not affect the ques- tion '— ,. ..•!'»<" ' W W W w tWJ i-<« rl W i Wr , ll | -f i ■ ■ [| ii i > H » im ll ll WWBXMWMIWi 'mmmmii^ n. 1(1 delineated by I ridge separating i insulated points, Johnson) taken loint had no such jred that the real , but any * land directions.' thus agreed with as, yet when the mountains were Qurioiis addition, waters of the by means of this [ohnson with the lie heads of the >mmissioners, of e American snr- that the British 'his was refused ; British map, be- 3S had previously ish agent and the s of these maps ead us to guess guess, when we Colonel Mudge, ry, unhesitatingly nlirely fictitious^ ice of the country ire in the case, ing with it. which took place iural maps, and oners and agent, '—Gall.,^. 148. tioned; on the r late Commis- e is comprised naps originall} actual survey: afiect the ques- tion '— United States' Boundary Question. 531 Ij^fi' a convenient mode of disp'^sing of adverse facts! We however must express our doubts whether, if these 'conjectural' mountains had not been thus demolished, Mr. Gallatin would have been so indifferent about the facts, and have had recourse to the pleasant discovery, so elaborately worked out in his argument, that Highlands' mean Lowlands. Indeed; we find that up to the recent survey, which Mr. Galla- tin does not venture to gainsay on any one point of fact, and Which had thus levelled Mr. Johnson's conjectural mountains, the American authorities persisted in giving this ridge a very lofty character. Certain commissioners, appointed in 1838 by the State of Maine to survey the line, reported to the governor (Kent), and the "-overnor stated, in his annual address to the convened Legislature of the State, so lately as '2nd January, 1 839 — *' that the base of the country rise: constantly and regularly^ from the Uionument to the [American] angle ; which is from two to three thousand fket above the level of the sea ; and that the country is high and even mountainous about this spot. And there is no difticidty in tracing a line ivestivardly, — of long, distinct, and well-defined Highlands, divid- ing waters according to the treaty.' — Rep., p. 46. ' So late, therefore, as the 2nd of January, 1839, Governor Kent had no idea that Highlands meant Lowlands, and he officially ttated to the legislature that their commissioners had found a dis- tinct and well-defined [not * conjectural,'] lino of Highlands, knd that 13, the American angle, was between two and three thousand feet above the level of the sea. *' We ha e just seen tli:it ihcsc distinct and well-defined High- lands vanished into flat swamps ; but will not our readers (even after all they have seen) be startled to find that the point thus facially stated as being between two and three thousand— or, is it is elsewhere more minutely given, [Report, j). 49] 2581 Hfcet — above the level of the sea, was found by Mr. Fcatherston- Iiaugn and Col. Mudge, after a series of scientific observations apd actual admeasurements, to be just 400 feet and no more! Exactly 2181 feet lower than the official American statement — and 50 feet lower than the Monument — the point of departure ; irom which the ground, said the Maine commissioners, had (for a course of 170 miles) ' constantly and regularly risen.' Was there ever before, in the intercourse of nations, anything like this ? But we must do justice to these American governors and com- missioners : — they were certainly very indiscreet — very wrong to promulgate, (m their own authority, and as the result of their own observations, statements about which, it now appears, they knew nothing ; — but we are bound to add that they may have borrowed a part of their erroneous structure from what they thought suffi- cient i .532 United Stofes' Bouvdary Question. ■ iiir ■f ;i i» ,1! .ft ' ' h^ ■'■■ ' ; - • il.i ■ ,■''/'» 'If .'lib' 'If' " "", „,',' ■■1 n 1^ ll ,i! cient authority. Col, Bouchotto, tho IJritish Survoyor General of Lower Canada, had, it seems, put Ibrth, as the fruit of his own personal observation and rcscarcli, a section of the jjround from the Monument to one of the branches of the Restigouche — in which — by the same ill luck which seems to have attended all former British agents, and under what Messrs. Fcatherstonhautjii and Mudjje characterise as a * delusion ' — he had, it is not stated by what process, added some seventeen or eighteen hundred feet to the real elevation ; * — for instance, h" doubled the height of the monument, the point of departure^ ^rom 450 to 8o() — tho ridge near the St. John's, which is 980, he raised to 2240 — and the extremity of his survey, which is really 400 feet above tho sea, he represented as 20G5 — to which the Maine commissioners thought, it is supposed, that they were quite safe in adding oHJ for the rest of * the constant and regular rise ' not surveyed by Col. Bouchette — and so the commissioners and governor of Maine con- trived to find 258 Ij'cet of elevation, when in fact there are but 400. We fearlessly appeal to Europe and to America — sure of the verdict of every honest man — to compare these continuous and pertinacious attempts to exhibit a fraudulent mountainous ele- vation, with Mr. Gallatin's recent assertion that the American claim needs no elevation at all — and that a flat swampy tract of morasses, from which creeps a river of 36 miles long, falling into the sea by so very small a declivity, and so slowly as * scarcely to move a feather on its .svrface ' — that these boggy savannaha are the range of Highlands designated by the treaty. This, we admit, is but one point of the discussion ; but there is no juster maxim of general law than /a/swm in uno falsum in, omni. The rule applies to any discrepancy in evidence : — but it is proportionably stronger when, as here, it applies to a falsification in the very most essential point of the transaction — for it then proves the admitted importance of the object which the falsifica- tion attempts to supply. Let us now pursue the new survey of the British line — which gives so clear and distinct a range of Highlands, from the heads of the Connecticut to the Bay of Chaleurs, crossing the north line near Mars Hill, as to justify a suspicion that the framers of the ■■'' This is the more extraordinary because we see that Col. IJouchotte has published in his large work on ' Tiie British Dominions in North America,' long and miniitt; tables of liis barometrical observaiionn durinjj tiie whole course of iiis survey, which, tliough given in tlie volume merely ai- general information, were taken by him ' witli Ingletield's mountain barometer for tho purpose of ascertaining the heights.'' This ex- traordinary discrepancy ought surely to have been long l)efore this inquired into and explained to parliament and the country. While such enormous discrepancies between the results of their own surveyor-general for Canada and their own boundary commis- sioners remain unexplained, how can Her Majesty's Ministers expect the rest of the world to give any credit to their professions of diligence and candour — nay, totheir most official assertions ? original on. rvpyor Coneral of fruit «r his own the ground from Restijofouche — in avo attended all ''cathcrstonhau-r|, I, it is not stated ;en hundred foot ed the heij^ht of 50 to 8jO — tho 2d to 2240~an(l ) feet above the e commissionors J in adding old iurveyed by Col. )r of Maine con- icre arc but 400. ca — sure of the continuous and lountainous ele- the American iwampy tract of )ng', falling- into ly as 'scarce/?/ ggy snvannaks' eaty. ion ; but there uno falsum m nee; — but it is a falsification 1 — for it then h the falsifica- h line — which n the heads of the north line Tamers of the ette luis ])ublisli0(t long and minutt; lis survey, whicli, iken by liim ' with mghts.'' This ex- nquired into and repancies between uundary commis- ct tho rest of the )ur — nay, totlieir original United States' Bnnnilary Qur.slion. .533 orijrinnl troatv were not (|uite so ignorant of the general features (»1 tiie rcijionas has been hitherto thought, on the suppositi(m that there was nothing like lJi(jhlvhich divide the waters of the St. Lawrence and Atlantic— nor can they be said to forfeit that character because they also divide, in a subsequent portion of their continuous extent, waters of the Atlantic from those of the Kay of Fundy. We are quite aware that the foregoing statement cannot be clearly understood without reference to maps, but we still hope that our sketch may enable the reader to follow the general reasoning : — the Englisii line exhibiting the Highlands found by the British Commissioners ; the American line i\\e' Jictitious ranges invented* by the Ame- rican surveyors. On the whole, we confidently believe that if the British agents employed in the early stages of the discussion had been sufficientl)^ alert, or if the real character of the country, as determined by the recent suiTcy, had been known, there never would or could have arisen, under the strictest interpretation of the treaty, any serious opposition to the line now claimed by Great Britain, or some line of the same general character. H. But there is another, and what to many judgments will ap- pear the most important, part of the whole question, at which we now arrive — and which admits, we think, of neither doubt nor difficulty — we mean the intention of the parties as to the general direction and effect of the indicated boundary. We here reproduce our sketch. Ami mmmmii^ M -7¥ ton. rhlands, and the etl chain of Hijjh. iro and Atlantic-^ because they also ous extent, waters y. Wo are quite clearly understood at our sketcli may nff :— the English b Commissioners ; ?d ' by the Ame- he British agents 1 been sufficient!)' letermined by the jld or could have •eaty, any serious Britain, or some idgments will ap- tion, at which we either doubt nor as to the general United States* Boundary Question. 535 (iULF OF r. LAWllENCE. And j^P,| \yc. ask, can any man in his senses believe that it could be |he intention of England to consent — without any visible reason 4-without object — without equivalent — where there was no claim, not even a demand — to the intrusion of such an amorphous horn into the heart of her provinces, disuniting as well as absorbing her territory, intercepting her rivers and her roads, and cutting off her communications between her colonial capitals ? Look, we fav, at our sketch and judge whether such an intention was possi- ble : but look beyond our little map to the larger maps which ex- hibit the lines of boundaries which prevail in the adjoining regions; you will find that wherever there was not some great natural division, the boundaries were mostly formed by right lines — the States themselves are generally bounded by right lines — the part of the boundary we are discussing, west of the Connecticut, is a right line, running along the 45° parallel, look at the cause of deviation from this riyht line from the Connecticut eastward : — was it not the obvious advantage of giving to each party the whole course of its own waters ? The Bne along the parallel 45° would have cut off from the United States the upper waters of the Connecticut, the Kennebec, and the Penobscot — the negociators saw that such an interception of fivers would be a cause of endless squabble and local contention, »nd they very wisely deviated from the line of the parallel and carried the boundary round the heads of the Connecticut, the ICcnnebec, and the Penobscot, to the head of the British river St. Croix, — thus leaving to each party the continuous and exclusive jurisdiction of its own waters. Now, who can believe that this prudent and liberal principle was departed from (after it had been carried out for 100 miles beyond the Connecticut) on pur- pose to cut off the upper waters of the St. John and give them to the United States, while the main body, the navigable parts, and the mouth of the river, were to continue within the British territory — to give to the Americans waters, from which they had no outlet, and which could be and can be of little value to them, except as a means of annoyance to England — while to England they were vitally essential for her internal communications and governjnent? Look, we say, at the maps, and decide whether any one can believe in such a preposterous 'm/en^eon. But though no evidence could be better than the mere common sense of mankind on such a proposition, we have collateral testi- mony, and this of the most conclusive kind, that such was not the design of the parties. In the first place, there was no pressure upon England to have committed so suicidal an act. By the first article of the treaty, as we have seen, 'His . ■ - --r^.^y 1^-S- .5.3fl JJnitpd Sffttfis' finundari/ Queatlnn. *■! I' : .;t ( I II * His riritmiuic Miiirsty ncknowlo«li?c8 the siiid United Stiuos, viz. New Hampshire, MasaaciuiMottH, &{•., to l)e free, sovereign, and in(h'i)enil(in states ; and relinquishes all elainis to the government, j)roperty, aud territorial riijlits of the samk, and vtorn part IlimoJ'.' Now Mr. Ciallatiii Jidinits that Massachusetts had at that tiinp not a shadow ol' a rifjlit beyond th(» JVn«)l>srot, and what the treaty did {jrant between the Pen(d)scot and St. Croix was a new concession, whicii went beyond the ancient limits oi" the State, and of course became the nntionai property of the Federation. It is true that Massachusetts had claimed this territory between tlu; Penobscot and the St. Croix — we shall leave Mr. Oallatin to discuss that claim with tli(; men of Maine. But it leads us to an indication of what are likely to have been tlu; objects and intcii- tions of the treaty of I78'3. When France, at the peace of Paris in I7(i2, had cedo»l Canada and Nova Scotia, and that the whoh' of North America had thus become British, the province of Massachusetts attempted to get a share of the spoil by claiminjj^, in virtue of some old charter, (which had been, of cours", annulled by the Freneli possession of the country,) the territories between the Penobscot and St. Croix on the cast, and up to the river St. Lawrence on the north; and they sent, in 17(>4, two agcmts, Mr. Mauduit and Mr. .Jackson, to London, to negociatc those demands with the Colonial Office of that day — the l^oard of Trade and Plantatif^ns. Mr. Mauduit writes to his constituents, the General Court of Massachusetts, that he had made an arrangement wi*h the Board by which Massachusetts was, vard of her own t for the lands United States the reason why England Vnitpd States' linundary Quest ion. 5']7 tnMand finds it necessary to be so povtinacioUB in maintaininpf kerii^'ht to lhi« terntor\— because, if it was necessary to the Crown to maintain its nnnmunications when all the provinces fccdonjred to tli ■'., £ 1 I il ■i. ■ } i '* ,.1' :f :'' ■A ? ■ «* 538 United States* Boundary Question. ri vm up to the St. John (a proposition which had been peremptorilv rejected and entirely abandoned) but into a large tract of countrv far beyond that river. The Americans say indeed that they aban. doned the line of the St. John from ' its source to its mouth; and that they now do not claim so much, ^^r they give up the lower portion of the St. John and the lands lying between it and the St. Croix. But can any one believe, after America had admitted that the north-west nmjle of Nova Scotia was to be found at tlic head of the Hirer St. John, that Great Britain, which peremptorily rejected their comintj vp to the line of tin St. John at all, would or could consent to their thus running so far beyond it? Nor can it bp alleged that there was any compromise or exchange of the ter- ritory between the St. John and the St. Croix on the eastern boundary, for that beyond the St. John now claimed as within the northern boundary ; because the claim to the land between the St. John and St. Croix was abandoned by the Americans, not by way of compromise, but on the distinct admission that the St. Croix was the known existing boundary between Nova Scotia and Massachusetts, and that they could not 'justify ' the claim of the St. John. Can anybody doubt then that the wdiole line of the St. John was abandoned by the United States, and that common sense, mutual convenience — the documents — the negociations, and the words of the treaty, all concur to show that it Avas intended by both parties to adopt the rational and equitable principle of leaving to each government the whole course of their respective rivers and the territories watered by them — the Penobscot and all its tribu- taries to the United States — the St. John to England ? These last arguments seem to us so cogent that we really believe that the state and scope of this boundary question must be as little understood in America as it has been with us. We cannot persuade ourselves that any man in any part of the United States, whose candour and good sense is not obscured by some party or local interest, can look at the shape — position — and nature of the disputed territory — at the circuitous and extravagant extent of the American line, which seems to be more than twice as long as the comparatively straight and simple boundary offered by England — and above all, at the relative con- venience and value of the diaputed territory to the respective countries — without feeling the strongest conviction that the British line is that which must best express the original htfentions of the parties. We go further — we hope, nay we believe, that, if the question were noui to be negociated ab intcgro (clear of the adverse feelings which the long discussion may have generated), there is no American citizen, or at least statesman, who would nut admit '^! "*i,>ii,. sx^itdSi... T^ ion. been peremptorih ?e tract of countn ed that they aban. wrce to its mouthy ' give up the lowcl etween it anrl the jrica had admitted to be found at the hich peremptorily bn at all, would or it? Nor can it bp bange of the ter- < on the eastern claimed as within the land between y the Americans, dmission that the ' between Nova not 'Justify ' the of the St. John ; common sense, iations, and the intended by both >le of leaving to ective rivers and and all its tribu- land ? that we reallv y question must been with us. my part of the s not obscured ihape — position circuitous and 1 seems to be bt and simple 10 relative con- the respective bat the British ijtfmfions of >elieve, that, if (clear of the ve generated), vho would not admit United States' Boundanj Question. o39 pr idmlt that the British boundary is the uiost natural and the most ionvenient— the least likely to lead to adverse pretensions on its £r,lers essentially necessary to England — not as to the mere ter- Storv, which is of small comparative value — but for the internal jlommunications and the administration of her provinces — while to l^mcrica it is little more than a naked question of so much swamp %nd forest, involving no great public convenience nor any serious ^r national interest whatsoever beyond its mere extent. p We do most respectfully, but most earnestly, implore the Anglo- American nation — by all those principles of amity and «quity which should influence the intercourse of friendly powers, tnd particularly— if they will allow us to say so— by all those peculiar feelings which ought to connect the English and the Americans w?iose interests, let us both be well assured, are more closely identified than those of any other two nations in the world w^we implore, we say, the Anglo-American people to look at this «uestion in a large and liberal spirit of conciliation and equity as well as of strict justice, and to take into their calm consideration the emphatic opinion and advice given— before any national rivalry existed — by the agents of Massachusetts in 1704, that 'the tract of land which lies beyond the soiirces of all your rivers- cannot be 9P object of any great consequence to you, though it w absolutely ■ecessary to* England to iweserve the continuity of her colonial government* ■r III. We shall not run the risk of impairing whatever eftect such kn appeal may hi.ve, by any observations on the spirit which appears to have actuated the State of Maine in these discussions. We make great allowances for the peculiar position of the people of that State. In the first place, the State, and, therefore, every indi- vidual of it, have a general pecuniary interest in having so much additional territory to dispose of. Secondly — many, perhaps ihe most influential, persons have, no doubt, acquired personal tights, or entered into what may have been expected to be lucra- tive speculations in the disputed territory. Again, those who are dear of any interested motives may have a patriotic disposition to i^grandise both their State and their nation; and, finally, the long disputes and many collisions on the frontier cannot but have created, in addition to any national feeling, a peculiar exasperation in the im- mediate districts of Maine ; and in a popular government all those feelings are necessarily, and generally too zealously, expressed by the governing body. We may regret, therefore, but we will not permit ourselves to complain of the temper and conduct of the people of Maine ; and we will abstain from any examination of their detailed proceedings ; for, however easy it might be to show them to be, in many instances, very unreasonable and very wrong- headed, '^•^■m- -'- •' ...-^fe-^>jMiiii*»*.«t^..: ,. a 540 I , I"' ■i Mr .:is .''•e I' >M I i i i =11 II: i United States^ Boundary Question. headed, and more than uncourteous, the doing so would not ten, to remedy the mischief. But we may express a confident opinior and hope that tlie Federal Government and the nation at large mus be satisfied that this is not a question for the decision of the indi vidual State — the State can have no claim beyond the ancient linii; of tlie province of Massachusetts, and no one, we believe, bcvon, the limits of Maine, seriously contends that old Massachusetts hai a right to any portion of the disputed territory — that teriitdi, is not and never was claimed under the first article of the troat as part of the then existing Massachusetts, but as the result u the boundaries created by the second article ; and any additions territory ceded by that article would constitutionally, as we np prehend, belong to the United States as a nation, and not to tdf state of Maine. Hear, again, what Mr. Gallatin said at Ghent :- ' That northern homidary is of no importance to us, and beloiiij. to the United States and not to Massachusetts, ivhich has not /// shadoio of a claim to any land north of 45° to the eastward i,\ the Penobscot.^ But this, however it may be, is really an internal question with which we have nothing to do — our discussion is inlet- national : and the Federal Government — whether it has an in herent right to decide the question, as we, on American evidcnro believe, or whether it is bound to obtain the assent of the Stiiti of Maine — is, in any case, the only authority with which tin British nation has to negociate. And though the Ger .-^l Go vernment seems to have, on particular occasions, shifU( • ^ luid or, at least, varied its opinions, on this point, we gather from the generr.l tone of Mr. Gallatin's pamphlet, as well as from other circumstances, that no further objections of this captious and iin tenable nature M'ill be countenanced ; and believing, as we h.w said and, we hope, proved, that — in the strictest construction oi which this clumsy treaty admits — the balance of strict interpretation is in our favour, while all the equity and probable intention of the negociators is clearly with us — believing this, we say, to be the real state of the case, we cannot but hope that the General Go- vernment will consent to some modification of their claims, whicli. without abandoning any real and valuable interests of the United States, may leave to England the course of the river St. John which is essential not only to the adn.iuistrative communication; and territorial unity of the British colonies, but still more serioush important to the future tranquillity of those regions, and to the permanence of th2 atnicable relations between the two countries. But whatever may he the ulterior views and arrangements ol the governn)ents, there is one object of the most pressing cnier- gencv ..ii.: .'■'iimm' ^stion. ig" so would not ten, 5 a confident opini,,, '■ nation at large mus decision of the ind; ►nd the ancient linn;, . we believe, Ik yoi,, I Massachusetts ha, Itory— that teriit,,,, article of the inn; but as the result „ and any addition.-, tionallj, as we ni. tion, and not to tlif in said at Ghent :^ io us, and beloiui, s, ivhich has not ih. to the eastward 0/ internal question iscussion is intet- ther it has an in k-merican evident ssent of the State ■y with which tin the fJer, r.-^l Go. shifter n^: ■ v-und 'e gather iVom tli( ell as from other captious and un- eving, as we hav, St construction 01 rict interpretation e intention of tiie e say, to be the he General Go- !ir claims, whicli, its of the United river St. John communications II more seriousli ions, and to the two countries. arrangements ol pressing emci- geiKv United States* Boundary Question. 541 gipry which ought to be immediately provided for — we mean the d«Py and hourly risk of hostile collision between the subjects and oi^ens of the two countries on the disputed territory. Let a con- Ttption be forthwith concluded, forlndding either party, poidente Htf, to pass the St. John; and — saving, in the fullest manner, aJU public and private rights — let the temporary jurisdiction of tli territories on the riyht bank of the 'St. John, down to the ih line, be administered l)y the American authorities, and on left by the }?ritish. This would make, for the moment, a piPBtty nearly equal division of the disputed ground, and would, vnihont in any tray prejudicimj existing rights or compro- muing eventual intc'rests, avert the risk of that enormous cala- mity — hostile collision — and keep the question safely open for a mature examination, and, it may be hoped, a satisfactory, and fimd settlement. Either of the nations fif such a result can be imagined) whicli should reject so equitable, so conciliatory and so just a provisional arrangement, would stnnd responsible to the world for all the consequences of such unreasonable conduct, and would enlist against herself the feelings as well as the judg- ment of mankind. A*T. IX. — 1. Columbanus ad Hihernos, or Letters fnm Colum- : ban to his Friend in Ireland. London. 8vo. isiO. %t The Case of the Church of Ireland, stated in a Letter to the rt Marquess Wellesley. By Declan. Dublin. 8vo. ] 823. $i. National Schools of heland Defended. By Francis Sadleir, S.F.T.C.D. Dublin. 8vo. 1835. 4. Historical Sketches of the Ncdive Irish. By Christopher t Anderson. Edinburgh. 12mo. 1830. &» Ireland : its Evils traced to their Source. By the Rev. J. R. Page, A.B. London. 12mo. 1836. 6. A Flea for the Frotestants of Ireland, in a Letter to Lord Morpeth. By a Witness before the Committee (Ui Education. Dublin. 8vo. 1 840. 7. Impartial View of Maynnoth College. By Eugene Francis O'Beirne, late Student of Maynooth. Dublin, io^o. 1835. :* Holy Wells of Ireland. By Philip Dixon Hardy, M.R.La! Second Edition. Dublin. 8vo. 1830. :> Irish Tranquillity. By Anthony Meyler, M.D. Dublin I'iino. 1838. 10. Ireland: the Folicy of Reducing the Established Church. By J. C. Colquhoun, Esq. Glasgow. 1836. 11. jMay.nofh College; or, the Law affectimi the Grant to Man- nooth. 8vo. 1841. '' =- IN i:^m*m>