'm^^ 
 
 
 -s»|>; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^gOw> -^^ -^S3> 
 
 
 
 3S 
 
 1^?^ ^-^^^3 ^^^^ I>->t2>.^g> 53» >>s> 
 
 >^) S^^&^ ^^»^^ ^»>:3> 3:^ ^ . is^ . 
 
 
 
 iLlBRARYOFCONrTKESS.* 
 
 
 
 '{united states of AMERICA, f L 
 
 
 > 3J>:3 
 
 ^> .%=^ s^^^^ l>33>-r 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,?--^ 
 
 
 ^^^^^^iP 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -^ ^13 
 
 ^>::^^ 
 
 
 
 
 y:mm> 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 9 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 3» > -==» 
 
 
 ]Z3 3) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
i 
 
 \ 
 

 ON THE 
 
 naST PUBXilSHED 
 
 IN 
 
 TKJB eSTir a^ElSTTB, 
 
 SAINT JOHN, (A'ew-B/^wswwcft) : 
 
 PRINTED BY ALEXARDER M'LEOD, AT THE OFFICE OF THE CITY GAZETTE. 
 
 JVo. 10 South Market llliarf. 
 
 leaa. 
 

 I 
 
iC5Miii¥iir^ 
 
 X70. £. 
 
 lAth November, 1827. 
 
 The subject of the Western Boundary Line of this Province, 
 has lately occupied much of the public attention, and not more than 
 its importance deserves. It may be assert<id that the future safety 
 of these North American Colonies, ^ ui^eeply involved in the deci- 
 sion of the question now hi discussion between the Government of 
 the Mother Country and that of the United States, relating to that 
 point of the Boundary, which is called in the Treaty of 1783, the 
 North West Angle of Nova-Scotia ; their immediate interests and 
 convenience are eminently so. I have read several late ai-ticles on 
 this topic, in the American newspapers, especially in those of the 
 State of Maine, where the Question seems to produce much excite- 
 ment. I have also read such publications in support of the British 
 Claims, as have come to my hands, and I have been induced to de- 
 vote some leisure hours to a consideration of the subject. 
 
 The questions relating to this Boundary, have arisen under the 
 second article of the Treaty of 1T83, the instrument by which the 
 Crown of Great-Britain relinquished its rights of territory and 
 government over the thirteen revolted Colonies, then acknovv'ledged 
 as an Independent Power, and by which, in order, as the Treaty 
 expresses it, to prevent all disputes which might arise on the sub- 
 ject of their Boundaries, those Boundaries are expressly agreed 
 upon and declared. The second article of the Treaty designates 
 them thus — " From the North West Angle of Nova-Scotia, to wit, 
 " that Angle which is formed by a line drawn due North from the 
 " source of St. Croix River to the Highlands, along the said High- 
 " lands which divide those Rivers that empty themselves into the 
 " River St. La'vorence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, 
 " TO the North Westernment head of Connecticut River." Then 
 follow the Boundaries through the interior of the Country, which 
 
are not material to the present question. The Southern BounJary 
 is terminated by a line " down uhong the middle ol" St. Mary's Ri- 
 " ver to the Atlantic Ocean" ; and is followed by the Eastern Boun- 
 dary, thus — " East by a line to be drawn along the middle of tlie 
 " River St. Croix, from its mouth in the Baij ofFundy, to its source, 
 " and from its source directly North to the aforesaid Highlands, 
 " which divide the Rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from 
 " those which fall into the Eiver St. Lawrence, comprehending all 
 " Islands within tw^enty leagues of any part of the shores of the Uni- 
 " ted States, and lying between lines to be drawn due East from the 
 " points where the aforesaid Boundaries between Nova-Scotia on 
 " the one part, and East Florida on the other, shall respectively touch 
 " the Bay of Fiindy and the Atlantic Ocean, excepting such Islands 
 *' as now are or heretofore have been within the limits of the said 
 " Province of Nova-Scotia." 
 
 The next year after this Treaty was concluded, viz : in the 
 year ITS^, a part of the ancient Province of Nova-Scotia, bordering 
 on the United States, was erected into this Province of New-Bruns- 
 wick, and settlements were made by the King's subjects at St. An- 
 drews, and on the River Schoodic, as being the St. Croix, and the 
 Boundary River of the Typaty. The Americans soon set up a 
 claim to the River Magaguadawc, as the St. Croix, and the Treaty 
 of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, made in the year ITQ-i, com- 
 monly called in the United States, Jay's Treaty, provided for set- 
 tling this question by a Board of Three Commissioners. By the 
 provisions of this Treaty, one Commissioner was to be appointed by 
 each Government, and the two Commissioners so appointed, were 
 to agree in the choice of a third, or if they could not agi-ee, each was 
 to propose one person, and of the two names so proposed, one was 
 to be drawn by lot in the presence of the two original Commission- 
 ers. In this instaJice, the two original Commissioners* did agree 
 in the choice of a third,f a Judge of the Supreme Court of the State 
 of New-York, and a man whose chai'acter stood high for talents and 
 integrity, it being probably thought more advisable by the British 
 Commissioner to select by mutual choice an individual, whose cha- 
 racter was known to him, although a citizen of the United States, 
 than to trust the nomination of a third Commissioner, and thus, in 
 all probability, the decision of the controversy entirely to chance. 
 This was in the year 1796. The discussions before these Commis- 
 sioners were continued until the autunm of 1798, the Magaguadavic 
 being throughout most strenuously insisted upon as the true River 
 St. Croix, on the part of the United States. The result in the first 
 instance, was at the time well understood to be, that the third Com- 
 
 * Thomas Barclay, Esq. on the part of his Majesty, and David Howell, Esq. on the 
 part of the United Stales. b + Egbert Benson, Esq. 
 
5 
 
 tnissioner, wlio was in fact the umpire, expressed himself satisfied 
 that the British claim had been fully established to the River Schoo- 
 die, as the River St. Croix, truly intended by that name in the Treaty 
 of 1783, and to the Western branch of diat River as the Trunk ot^ 
 :j,Iain River, the original American Commissioner expressing him- 
 self to be of a different opinion. The third Commissioner, how- 
 ever, placed the source of the River, which the Treaty required to 
 be particularized, at the mouth of the Easternmost of the Schoodic 
 Lakes, where he seems to have considered it as losing the form of a 
 River. This point is situate bet^veen -five and six miles above the 
 confluence of the Cheputnaticook with the Main River, and on a 
 meridian several miles to the Eastward of the source of the Cheput- 
 naticook. In this state of diings, it was proposed by the American 
 Ao-ent, byAvayof accommodation, to adopt the extreme Northern 
 source of'the Cheputnaticook or Northern branch of the Schoodic, 
 as the source of the St. Croix. The inducement to this proposal, 
 on his part, was said to be to save to the State of Massachusetts, 
 certain Cn-ants of Land that had been made by that State, between 
 the Western and Northern branches of the Schoodic ; and as this 
 proposal placed the source of the St. Croix on a meridian consider- 
 ably to the Westward of the point named as the source of die River 
 by \he third Commissioner, it was acceded to on the part of his Ma- 
 jesty, and brought about what was evidently a very desirable object, 
 an unanimous decision of the three Commissioners, who accordingly 
 by their declaration,* established the River Schoodic and the North,- 
 ern branch of that River to its source, as the River St. Croix, truly 
 intended in the Treaty of 1783. The declaration of these Commis- 
 sioners is thus spoken of by the President of the United States, in his 
 Speech to Congress, December 8th, 1798— " This decision, it is 
 " understood, will preclude all contention among individual claim- 
 " ants, as it seems that die Schoodic and its Northern branch bound 
 " the o-rants of lands which have been made by the respective adjoin- 
 " ing Governments.' 
 
 I have been thus particular in the history of the decision with 
 regard to the River St. Croix, which was a matter of notoriety at 
 the time, and it is reasonable to suppose may be substantiated by 
 documents in the hands of those officially connected widi the trans- 
 action, because the writers in the State of Maine, in a spirit by no 
 means liberal or magnanimous, speak of it, as one in which an ad- 
 vantage was obtained over the United States, and make a merit of the 
 States of Maine and Massachusetts, having quietly submitted to it. 
 Whereas, if National controversies are to be weighed in the same 
 narrow scales as the disputes of obstinate litigants in a municipal 
 
 * This declaration is to be found at larpe in Mr. Atcheson's book <* on tlie conduct of 
 ibe United States," published in London in 1808, appendix, p. 97. 
 
6 
 
 court, the advantage may be fairly said to lie on the part of the 
 United States, for it api)ears to rue that the course pursued by the 
 Commissioners under the Treaty of 1794, with regard to the source 
 of the St. Croix, is clearly erroneous, upon the principle which es- 
 tabhshes the River itself to be the true St. Croix. 
 
 That principle is shortly this — the River St. Croix mentioned 
 in the Treaty of 1783, is a River, a due North line from the source 
 of which, forms one side of the North West Angle of Nova-Scotia, 
 and therefore was apart of the Western Boundary of that Province. 
 The River which was a part of the Western Boundary of Nova- 
 Scotia, is the River intended by the name of the St. Croix, in the 
 original erection of that Province, by the Grant of King James the 
 First to Sir WiUiam Alexander, in the year 1621, and in that Grant 
 described thus — " The River commonly called by the name of Saint 
 •' Croix, and to the most remote spring or fountain from the Western 
 '^ part of the same, which first mingles itself with the aforesaid Ri- 
 " ver."* The River thus described in this Grant to Sir William 
 Alexander, is the River called St. Croix by the first French voyagers 
 there in the year 1604sf The particular and minute description 
 given by these Voyagers of the River, which they called St. Croix, 
 and especially of a small Island in the mouth of that River, on which 
 they Avintered, correspond exactly with ihe River Schoodic, and a 
 small Island in the mouth of that River, a short distance above St. 
 Andrews, called by the French Isle St. Croix, since called Bone 
 or Docea's Island, on which Island were found in the year 1796, and 
 probably exist to the present day, indubitable traces of the habita- 
 tions described with such minute particularity by the French histo- 
 rians of the voyage of 1604 ; and the description of these historians 
 will correspond with no other River or Island in that neighbourhood. 
 — The River Schoodic is therefore the River intended in the Grant 
 
 * " Ad fliivium vulgo nomine Sanctoe Crucis appellatum, et ad scatiiriginem remotissi- 
 " mams ive fontem ex occidentali parte cjiisdem qui se pritiium praedicto fluvio immiscet." 
 
 f That t'le River called St. Croix', in Sir Wm. Alexander's patent, is the St. Croi.x of 
 Dc Mont's in 1604, appears from the following extracts from a publication by Sir Wm. Alex- 
 ander, in London in ](i2 1, under the title of " Encouragement to Colonies" : — 
 
 " Monsieur de Mont's procuring a patent from king Henry the Fourth, of Canada, from 
 " the -lOth decree Eastward, comprohenditjg all the bounds that now is between New-England 
 " and New-Scotland, after that Queen Elizabeth had formerly given one thereof, as belonging 
 " to this Crown by Cabot's discoveries, did set forth with a hundred persons, fitted for a planta- 
 «' tion, carried in two ships." He relates the voyage from France to Port Royal, (now Annap- 
 olis Royal) and procecd.s, " And thus having seeii Port Royal, they went to the Kivcr called by 
 " ihcni .S'aii/e CtoIx, but more fit now to be called Tweed, because it divides New-England and 
 •' New-Scotland, bounding the one of them upon the East, and the other upon the West side 
 •' thereof, here they make choice of an Isle, that is within the middle of the same, where to win- 
 " ter, building houses sufficient to lodge their number." — He concludes his relation by mention- 
 ing, " That in the end, finding that a little Isle was but a large prison, they resolved to return 
 •• unto Port Royal." — Speaking of the limits of his pitcnt, he says, " Leaving the limits to be 
 " appointed by his Majesty's pleasure, which are expressed in the patent granted unto me under 
 " his great seal of his kingdem of Scotland, marching upon the West towards the River of Saint 
 " Croix, now Tweed, (where the Frenchmen did design their first habitation) with Ncw-Eiig- 
 '•■ hn-.l, and in all othur parts it is compassed by the Ocean and the Great River of Canada." 
 
to Sir William Alexander, as a Western boundary of Nova-Scotia, 
 and, if so, by the description in the Grant, should be followed as a 
 boundary to its most Weslerti source, or spring, which, according to 
 the principle, would be the true boundary of the treaty of 1 783. But 
 as a measure of accommodation suggested by the person to whom 
 the management of this matter was entrusted by the United States, 
 and acquiesced in by all parties, the source of the St. Croix was 
 fixed at a point on a meridian several miles to the Eastward of the 
 source designated in the original delineation of the Western boun- 
 dary of Nova Scotia, and is therefore in so far an advantage to the 
 United States. 
 
 Now I cannot think that this designation of the source of the 
 River St. Croix by the Commissioners under the 5th article of the 
 treaty of 1794, can be defended upon the principles which must de- 
 monstrably have governed their decision. And His Majesty's sub- 
 jects in this quarter would be well justified in complaining of it, it 
 it had not been yielded to for the puqiose of preventing a more un- 
 favourable result according to the original decision of the umpire 
 in the selection of a point lying on a meridian several miles further 
 to the Eastward as the source of the River, and if its effect on the 
 interior boundary were of material moment. But the fact is, that 
 if the most Western source of the Schoodic had been decided to be 
 the source of the St. Croix under the treaty, it would have carried 
 the line running due North from that point only about ten miles 
 further to the Westward, and if the River Saint John is to be cros- 
 sed by this due North line, according to the claim set up by the 
 Americans in the controversy now subsisting, such line from the 
 most Western source of the Schoodic would have crossed the St. 
 John about fourteen miles above the Great Falls, and as to its per- 
 nicious operation as a line of boundary, would not vary substantially 
 from a North line run from the Monument at the source of the 
 Cheputnaticook. 
 
 But say the American writers, the St. Croix intended by the 
 Treaty of 1783, is not the St. Croix of Sir William Alexander's 
 grant in 1621, nor the St. Croix so named by the Sieur de Monts 
 in 1604, but the river marked by that name on Mitchell's Map, 
 which Map was before the Commissioners who negociated the treaty 
 of Paris in 1783, and the River marked on that Map as the St. 
 Croix, is the next great River Westward of the Saint John, and is 
 clearly the Magaguadavic. 
 
 Tins Map of Mitchell was published in the year 1755, prior 
 to the erection of the Province of Quebec and the introduction of 
 Highlands as a Northern boundary of these sea-board Provinces in 
 the year 1763. This Map as it regards the Bay of Passamaquoddy 
 and the Rivers issuing into it is evidently erroneous and imperfect ; 
 so much so, that 1 will confidently assert that not one of the rivers. 
 
J J! 
 
 B 
 
 of the islands in this bavj would be known with certainty, from a 
 comparison of the delineation of them on the map, witli the natural 
 objects as they exist. But there is a characteristic of the river which 
 the Compiler of this Map calls the St. Croix, not to be mistaken, 
 and that is a line of boundary traced along the Western side of the 
 River and the Lake at the source of the River, and along the North- 
 erly side of the Lake to the most Northern part of it ; and thence 
 in a North course to a small river, the St. Barnabas, emptying into 
 the St. Lawrence, on one side of which line the Country is called 
 NeW'-England, and on the other Nova-Scotia.* Now, in the 
 grant of 1621, to Sir William Alexander, the boundary of Nova- 
 Scotia is continued from the source of the St. Croix as before quo- 
 ted " by an imaginary direct line which may be conceived to go 
 *' over the land or run towards the North to the nearest bay river 
 *' or spring discharging itself in the great river of Canada."f There 
 can be no doubt then that the Boundary Line thus traced on Mit- 
 chell's map indicates what was at that time esteemed to be the 
 boundary of Nova-Scotia from the mouth of the St. Croix to the 
 St. Lawrence, and this boundary is the boundary described in Sir 
 William Alexander's grant. If then the river called St. Croix in 
 Sir William Alexander's grant is the river so called by the French 
 in 1604, and this river is demonstrablv, unless the face of nature be 
 changed, the Schoodic, — the proof is perfect, that the Schoodic is 
 the river intended by the name of St. Croix in Mitchell's map. 
 
 It is worthy of remark also that there is a river marked on this 
 map on the Eastern side of Passamaquoddy Bay, probably intended 
 for the Magaguadavic, which it is also probable, in consequence of 
 the falls so near its mouth, had not then been explored, and so its 
 size and extent were not then known. :]: 
 
 Similar considerations might be applied to prove that in all 
 the authentic maps published from the time of the original erection 
 of the Province of Nova-Scotia in 1621, to the peace of 17S3, the 
 River called St. Croix is intended to be the River originally designa- 
 ted as the Western boundary of that Province under that name. 
 
 It is acknowledged that the discussion of this point is not now 
 of any practical imjiortance, because it is definitively settled by the 
 declaration of the Commissioners under the 5th article of the Treaty 
 of 1 TO^, and all parties must abide by that decision. I have deemed 
 
 * See an extract Crr>m this Map in Mr. Atcheson's book " on the conduct of the United 
 States," appendix, p. 16. It, is to be observed, however, that tliis extract does not contain the 
 names Xe w-Engla.nd and Nov\-.ScoTi.\ on the respective sides of the hne drawn from tho 
 St. Croix to tlie St. Lawrence, as the original map does. 
 
 t " VlnU^ per imaginariain dircctatn linoain qua; perffcrc per terram scu currcre versus 
 ■' septeuirionem <;oncipietur ad proximam naviiim stationcni fluvium vel scaturiginem in magne 
 ■" fluvio dc Canada sese cxoneranteni." 
 
 f. The name of " Carriage Harbor^' is annexed to this River on the map, a name pro- 
 bably arising from the P.orl4g«» at the Falls of the Magaguadavic. — A similar River is laid down 
 on some Frcncli Mips published befon Mitcheirs, and called Port dc Portascs. 
 
it necessary to advert to it, only because I do not think it right that 
 our adversaries on this question of boundary, I mean the inhabitants 
 of the State of Maine, should be suffered to hold out to the world 
 uncontradicted, that an advantage has been gained over them in the 
 settlement of this part of the boundary, thereby clearly implying that 
 justice has not been done to them ; whereas, if my views be correct, 
 the true line of justice would have been the Western or main branch 
 of the River Sclioodic, to its most Western source. 
 
 I shall proceed in my next letter to offer some remarks on the 
 point now in dispute, with regard to the boundary in the interior of 
 the country. 
 
 i-ro. II. 
 
 21s/ November, 1527. 
 
 1 am aware that the question relating to the North West Angle 
 of Nova-Scotia, may be considered as pending for judicial decision, 
 tinder the provisions of the 5th Article of the Treaty of Ghent. 
 This Treaty abandons the course pursued in the Treaty of ITQ*, 
 for the nomination of a third Commissioner, and in the case of a 
 disaoreement in opinion between the two Commissioners, appointed 
 by the respective Governments, provides for a reference to a friendly 
 Sovereign or State, to be then agreed upon, as an Umpire. This 
 reference, if I am correctly informed, has not yet been made ; the 
 two Governments, having been endeavouring since the disagreement 
 of the Commissioners, to settle the matter by negotiation. Here 
 the people of Maine and Massachusetts start a difficulty upon the 
 Constitution of the United States, that the General Government of 
 the Union has no right to cede in a negotiation with a Foreign 
 Power, either by way of compromise, or otherwise, any Territory 
 of an individual State, without the consent of that State ; and some 
 writers even hold out, without the consent of all the States, as they 
 all have an interest in the integrity of the whole Territory, com- 
 prised within the Union. It would seem, therefore, that from the 
 peculiarity of the Constitution of the United States, for this Nation, 
 prolific in expedients, ever finds some peculiarity to answer its 
 wishes, that the individual States would not be bound by any com- 
 pact of the General Government, varying the line of Boundary 
 j)rescribed in the Treaty of 1783. A decision of an Umpire under 
 the provisions of the Treaty of Ghent, giving a construction to the 
 Treaty of 1783, and thereby definitively ascertaining the limits men- 
 tioned in this Treaty, would, I suppose, for I am but little versed 
 
10 
 
 in'*tlie mysteries of a Federal Constitution, be deemed binding on 
 all tae Sovereignties of the United States. It seems therefore pro- 
 bable, that after all, this course must be pursued. Such being the 
 case, I should not have thought of publishing any remarks on this 
 question at this time, had it not been for the repeated publica- 
 tions which have lately appeared in the newspapers of the State of 
 Maine. Our opponents having endeavoured, in a most confident 
 tone, to pre-occupy public opinion, in their favour, a continued si- 
 lence on our part might be construed into an admission thatweliave 
 nothing to say for ourselves. Under these circumstances it will 
 not, I trust, be deemed presumptuous in a private individual, to 
 examine into and make known some of the reasons which may be 
 given for the faith we profess with regard to this very important 
 part of the Boundary. 
 
 The American writers, in their reasonings on the subject of 
 the North West Angle, throw the gauntlet, primarily, on the con- 
 struction of the Tz-eaty of 1783, taken by itself, without reference 
 to any anterior designation of Boundary by the King or Parliament 
 of Great Britain, while the whole Country was under British domi- 
 nion. Let us accept the challenge, and see what battle we can 
 make, confining ourselves to the terms made use of in the Treaty, 
 and the obvious and declared views mid intentions of the framers 
 of it. 
 
 We will first consider the claim of the United States in refe- 
 rence to the terms of the Treaty, which it is contended on their part 
 are so plain in their favour, that he who runs may read. 
 
 This claim, as I understand ii, places the North West Angle 
 of Nova-Scotia at a point in the line running due North from the 
 source of the St. Croix, situate on the lands which lie between a 
 branch of the River llestigouche and the River Metis, the latter 
 being a River falling into the River St. Lawrence. This point is 
 about l^O miles distant from the source of the St. Croix, and about 
 60 miles from the place where the line is made to cross the River 
 St. John, and the line in its course thither crosses the Main River 
 Restigouche and several branches of it, as well as the River St. John. 
 According to this claim then, the requisite Atigle is formed 
 by the intersection of the due North Line, by a line running be- 
 tween the sources of the various streams, which fall into the River 
 St. Lawrence, and the waters of the llestigouche, the St. John, the 
 Penobscot, the Kennebeck, and the Androscoggin, to the North 
 Westernmost head of Connecticut River. 
 
 The expressed object of the Treaty is to define " the Bounda- 
 ries of the United States," and to do this in such a way " that all 
 «' disputes which might arise in future on the subject of them may 
 be prevented" ; — and, as I shall hereafter have occasion to remark, 
 the oriffinal form and fiaming of the Article containing these Bonn- 
 
11 
 
 daries, may be traced to the old Congress itself. According to tlii.!; 
 expressed object, great care appears to have. been taken to specify 
 the several parts of the sea and land, to which there was occasion 
 to allude, by their appropriate names, so as to distinguish them from 
 each other, and to prevent any of them from being included within 
 more general terms of description, which it might be attempted to 
 apply to them. 
 
 Thus we find the Bay of Fundy to be expressly distinguished 
 from the Atlantic Ocean. The mouth of the River St. Croix, one 
 extreme point of the Sea-board Boundary of the United States, is 
 expressed to be in " the Bay of Fundy" ; the mouth of St. Mary's 
 River, the other extreme point of the same Sea-board Boundary, is 
 expressed to be in " the Atlantic Ocean." In the clause respecting 
 Islands, the same points of Boundary are spoken of as " respectively'^ 
 touching " the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean." Can there 
 be a more clear contradistinction of terms than this ? Are not the 
 names " Bay of Fundy" and " Atlantic Ocean" made use of to de- 
 note different parts of the Sea? If the framers of the Treaty had 
 considered the Bay of Fundy as included in the Atlantic Ocean, 
 would they not have spoken of these points of Sea-board Boundary, 
 as " respectively touching the Atlantic Ocean" alone ? 
 
 Again, in the third Article of this Treaty, relating to the Fish- 
 eries, the Gulph of St. Laxvretice is called by its appropriate name, 
 and distinguished from other parts of the sea. 
 
 Let it not be said that this distinction between the Atlantic 
 Oceany and the Bay of Fnndy, and the Gulph of St. Laxiirc7ice, is 
 merely arbitrary and fanciful. On the contrary, it is conformable 
 to common usage, and to the uniform tenor of maps, charts, and 
 topographical writings. The Bay of Fundy, in some old maps, is 
 called ArgaVs Bay, in consequence of Sir Samuel Argal's expedi- 
 tion to it in 1613 ; in others, made by the French, it has the appel- 
 lation of Baic Fran^aise ; in all modern authorities it is called by its 
 present English name ; but it is uniformly distinguished from the 
 Atlantic Ocean. The Gulph of St. Lawrence is uniformly desig- 
 nated by this its appropriate name. In Mitchell's Map, held up by 
 the Americans as a ruling authority, as having been before the 
 Commissioners who negotiated the Treaty of 1783, we find the 
 River St. La'^xrence, the Gidph of St. Lawrence^ the Bay of Fundy ^ 
 and the Atlantic Ocean, all laid down in their respective relative 
 positions, and distinguished by their appropriate names. 
 
 Upon looking into Governor Pownall's Topographical descrip- 
 tion of the Middle British Colonies, published in 1776, I find that 
 he describes the Rivers having their sources in the Highlands and 
 running Southerly^ as " falling into the Bay of Fundi, or into the 
 Main ()ccan." 
 
12 
 
 How then does the locality of the North West Angle of Kova 
 Scotia, and of the second line forming this Angle, tir- claimed by the 
 Americans, agree with the expressions of the Treaty ? 
 
 The Treaty in terms requires that the Angle shall be formed 
 by Highlands^ and the Highlands, afterwards mentioned in the 
 Treaty, along which the second line of the Angle is to run, are 
 those which divide Rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean. 
 
 The point claimed by the Americans as the North West Angle, 
 divides the Metis, a River falling into the River St. Lawrence, from 
 a branch of the Restigouche, a River falling not into the Atlantic 
 Ocean, but into the Bay of Chaleur, which Bay empties into the 
 Gulph of St. Lawrence. The line forming the second line of the 
 North West Angle, divides Rivers falling into the River St. Law- 
 rence, first from the branches of the same River Restigouche, and 
 then from the branches of the River St. John, a River fulHng not 
 into the Atlantic Ocean, but into the Bay of Fundy, before it reaches 
 the sources of the Penobscot, the Kennebec, and the Androscoggin, 
 which are the only Rivers which can be considered as falling into 
 the Atlantic Ocean, according to the signification of that term in 
 the Treaty. 
 
 But it will be said, if this be the meaning of the Treaty, no 
 point in the due North Lino running from the source of the St. 
 Croix, will immediately divide Rivers, which according to this con- 
 struction are Rivers intended to be divided by the Boundary de- 
 scribed in the Treaty. Any point in this line. South of the St. John, 
 will divide the St. John from the St. Croix, both of them Rivers 
 fldling into the Bay of Fundy; any point. North of the St. John, 
 and South of the Restigouche, will divide the St. John falling into 
 the Bay of Fundy, from the Restigouche falling into the Bay of 
 Chaleur; and any point North of the Restigouche, where the Ame- 
 rican Claim places the North West Angle, will divide the Resti- 
 gouche falling into the Bay of Chaleur, from Rivers emptying into 
 the River St. Lawrence, if upon an accurate survey of the due North 
 Line it shall be found actually to intersect any River faUing into 
 the River St. Lawrence. For I understand that the present survey 
 of this North Line is not considered as a precisely accurate one, 
 havino- been run only as an Exploring Line, to serve as a basis for 
 future operations. 
 
 I admit the consequence ; but I maintain, that it is much more 
 consistent with a literal interpretation of the Treaty, dian the as- 
 sumption on the part of the Americans, Avhich confounds the dis- 
 tinctions so clearly made between the Atlantic Ocean, and the Bay 
 of Fundy and the Gulph of St, Lawrence, and makes the first to 
 include the two latter, although the three are distinctly and sepa- 
 rately named. Moreover, the interpretation of the terms of the 
 Treaty, which I consider i\\c obvious one, fully accords with the 
 
true spii-it anJ Intoiit of llie instrunieiit in the designation of this 
 paiL of the Boundary, a3 I think will hereafter clearly appear. 
 
 Another circumstance in which the location made by the 
 Auicricans of the North West Angle, and of the second Line forming 
 the Angle, does not comport with the expressions of the Treaty, is 
 this — That at the Angle, and for by far the greater part of the ex^ 
 tent of this second line, as claimed by the Americans, there is no 
 appearance of High Land whatever. Such I am well informed is 
 the fact, and this is evidently admitted by the American writers on 
 the subject. They endeavour to obviate this objection by assuming 
 that by the term " Highlands" in the Treaty, is not meant lands of 
 any particular elevation, but only such lands as divide the sources of 
 Rivers running in opposite directions; and as, upon the principle of 
 gravity, a River will descend from its source to its mouth, so it fol- 
 lows that the lands at the sources of Rivers are necessarily higher 
 than those at their mouths, and such lands at the sources of Rivers, 
 will satisfy the terms of the Treaty in this respect. They therefore 
 make their Line of Boundary to " 7neander" through the low mea- 
 dows and swamps, which are found at the sources of the numerous 
 Streams, around which they wind in every variety of direction, and 
 assert this to be the line " along the highlands," intended ia 
 the Treaty. 
 
 To a man of plain understanding, unversed in the subtilties of 
 diplomatic disquisition, the term " Highlands" would obviously 
 convey the idea of Lands distinguished by their elevation above the 
 Country which surrounds them. When the same term is used by 
 the framers of a Treaty, which is to prescribe the line of demarca- 
 tion between two Nations, the natural presumption becomes infi- 
 nitely stronger, that their object is to describe a conspicuous boun- 
 dary and barrier between the Territories which it is their intention 
 to separate, and that they make use of the term upon the supposition 
 that such a conspicuous and natui'al Boundary does in fact exist. 
 
 This leads me to inquire whether there is any foundation for 
 such a supposition in this case. The fact is, that there is a conspi- 
 cuous and well defined Ridjje of High Lands, beffinning from the 
 Connecticut River, well known by the appellation of The LIeight 
 OF Land, or The Land's Height, in which the Rivers Andros- 
 coggin, Kennebec, and Penobscot, on the one side, and the River 
 Chaudiere falling into the River St. Lawrence, on the other side, 
 have their respective sources. This Height of Land was well 
 known to exist at the time of, and long anterior to the Treaty of 
 1T83 ; but the interior of the Country to the Eastward of it at the 
 time of the Treaty of 1783, and long afterwards, was altogether un- 
 explored, and the extent and course of it to the Eastvoard, was un- 
 knov/n. I have no doubt that the existence of t'li? Heiglit of Lard, 
 which it is observable forms a part of iIa Line in which bolii parties 
 
u 
 
 in the present controversy are agreed, and is in itself a conspicuous 
 and remarkable Line of Boundary, was the occasion of " Highlands" 
 being introduced as a Boundary in the first instance in the Procla- 
 mation of 1763, which prescribed the limits of the Province of Que- 
 bec, and afterwards in the Treaty of 1783, which defined the Boun- 
 daries of the United States. 
 
 Thus far, I think the American Claim is not borne out by the 
 
 expressio7is of the Treaty of 1783. 
 ^ ' VEHAX. 
 
 XTO. IIZ. 
 
 '28th November, 1827. 
 
 In my preceding remarks on the American Claim, I have been 
 exact in confining myself to the literal sense of the words of the 
 Treaty of 1783, because our adversaries studiously hold out, that on 
 our side we rest altogether on our own vague notions of an equitable 
 division of the Country, while the Treaty, in letter as well as in spi- 
 rit is obviouslv and entirely with tKcin. The spirit and true inten- 
 tion of the Treaty will form a more prominent topic of my future 
 observations. 
 
 Before proceeding farther, I will state what I understand to 
 be the British Claim, with regard to the North West Angle of 
 Nova-Scotia. 
 
 This Claim places the Angle at the point in the line running 
 due North from the source of the St. Croix, which meets the High- 
 lands at or near Mars Hill ; and according to this Claim, the 
 Angle is formed by a line running from the North Westernmost 
 head of Connecticut River, the second station in the Boundary, 
 along the * Highlands which divide the River Chaudiere and its 
 several branches, this being a River falling into the River St. Law- 
 rence, from the Rivers Androscoggin, Kennebec and Penobscot ; 
 this line being continued along the Highlands in that quarter in 
 such manner as to leave all the branches of the Androscoggin, Ken- 
 nebec and Penobscot, to the Southward of the line, and within the 
 United States, until it meets the line drawn due North from the 
 source of the St. Croix, at or near Mars Llill. The point in the 
 due North line thus claimed on our part as the North West Angle 
 of Nova-Scotia, is about 4-0 miles from the source of the St. Croix, 
 and about the same distance within or to the Southward of the place 
 where this line is in its prolongation made to cross the River St. John. 
 
 These Highlands form the " Height of Land" mentioned in my last Letter. 
 
15 
 
 It will be remenibered, that the interior Hne of Boundary now 
 in dispute, is declared by the Treaty to pass along Highlands. 
 These Highlands are described as dividing certain Rivers. In 
 order, therefore, to determine the course and direction of the line 
 along the Highlands, it is obviously necessai-y to ascertain the Rivers 
 which are to be divided. 
 
 From the statement I have made of the British Claim, in this, 
 and of the American Claim, in my last Letter, it appears, if these 
 statements be correct, that the parties agree in considering the An- 
 droscoggin, the Kennebec, and the Penobscot, as Rivers falling into 
 the Atlantic Ocean, within the meaning of the treaty, and conse- 
 quently as Rivers intended by the treaty to be divided by the line of 
 Boundary along the Highlands from Rivers ft^Uing into the River St. 
 Lawrence. The American claim, in addition to the three Rivers 
 above named, considers the St. John and the Restigouche, as Rivers 
 intended to be divided from Rivers falling into the St. Lawrence, by 
 this line of Boundary. The question then resolves itself into this, 
 whether the St. John, which has its mouth in the Bay of Fundy., 
 and the Restigouche, which has its mouth in the Ray of Chaleur, 
 are Rivers contemplated in the treaty, as falling into the Atlantic 
 Ocean, and to be divided by the Boundary therein described, from 
 Rivers that empty themselvps Into, the River S<^ Lawrence. It may 
 not be useless rlittinotly to remark, that I Consider the terms " have 
 their mouths," " empty themselves," and " fall," when applied to 
 Rivers, to be obviously synonymous. ^ 
 
 The provisional articles of November, 1 782, which afterwards 
 formed the Treaty of 1783, have the following preamble, " Where- 
 " as reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience, are found by ex- 
 " perience to form the only permanent foundation of peace and 
 " friendship between States, it is agreed to form the articles of the 
 " proposed Treaty on such principles of liberal equity and recipro- 
 ^^ city, as that partial advantages (those seeds of discord) being ex- 
 " eluded, such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse between the 
 " two countries may be established, as to promise and secure to 
 " both perpetual peace and harmony." 
 
 These things being premised, I will proceed to state the rea- 
 sons why I do not consider the St. John and the Restigouche, as 
 Rivers intended by the Treaty to be divided by the line of Boundary 
 along the Highlands from Rivers falling into the River St. Lawrence. 
 
 My first reason is, that these Rivers do not fall into the Atlan- 
 tic Ocean ; the St. John having its mouth in the Bay of Fundy, and 
 the Restigouche having its mouth in the Bay of Chaleur, neither of 
 which Bays are included in the Atlantic Ocean, according to the sig- 
 nification of that term in the treaty of 1783 — a point upon which I 
 have sufficiently enlarged in my last letter. 
 
IG 
 
 Another reason is — That these Rivers empty themselves 
 within the British Territories, far to the Eastvv'ard of the Eastern 
 limits of the United States. The St. Croix is the Eastern limit of 
 the United States on the Sea-coast. In the meridian of the source 
 of this River, the Treaty places the North West Angle of Nova- 
 Scotia, the Eastern limit in the interior, and the commencing point 
 of the Boundary. The line of Boundary proceeds West-ward along 
 the Highlands which divide, &c. from the North West Angle of 
 Nova-Scotia to the North Westernmost head of Connecticut River. 
 It is the manifest intention of the Treaty in this part of the Boun- 
 dary alo}ig the Highlands to divide Rivers at their sources, and 
 thereby to leave to each power the whole extent of the Rivers emp- 
 tying within its own Territory. This rule is agreeable to the usage 
 of nations,* and to the principles of liberal equity, reciprocal advan- 
 tage, and mutual convenience, on which the Treaty is professedly 
 founded. The only Rivers which the framers of the Treaty could 
 have had it in their contemplation to divide at their Sources by the 
 line along the Highlands, are those which empty themselves within 
 the limits of this line, that is, as the line proceeds from East to West, 
 between the meridians of the St. Croix, Eastward, and of the head 
 of the Connecticut, Westward. The Rivers which empty them- 
 selves at the Sea-ronst or Southward, between these meridians, 
 empty themselves within the Territories of thft TTnited States, and 
 are all secured to that power, for their whole extent up to their sources, 
 by the line of Boundary, as acknowledged by the British Claim. 
 Can it be conceived that the framers of the Treaty intended by a 
 Boundary founded on the principle of dividing Rivers at their sour- 
 ces, to cut ofpfrom Great-Britain large portions of such great Rivers 
 as the St. John and the Restigouche, which empty themselves within 
 her Territories, so far beyond the limits of the United States, while 
 the whole extent of all the Rivers emptying themselves within the 
 Territories of these States, are secured to them by the same Treaty ? 
 I think that such an eifect of the Line described in the Treaty, was 
 never in the contemplation of the framers of it, and that it would 
 require a description of Boundary, expressed with such force and 
 precision as to be perfectly free from doubt or ambiguity in all its 
 parts, to induce a belief that such is the intention of the treaty. 
 Whereas this principle of leaving to each power the whole extent 
 of the Rivers that empty themselves within their respective Terri- 
 tories, is in strict accordance with the express description of the 
 
 * In " The Memorials of the English and French Commissaries, conccrninnr the limits 
 " of Nova-Scotia or Acadia," London edit : 1755, p. 184, we find this principle stated by the 
 French Commissaries. Tlie following is a translation of what they say on the subject : "In 
 " such cases, the most usual and most convenient rule is to extend the limits in the interior 
 " Country to the sources of the Rivers that empty themselves upon the coast, that is to say, 
 " that each nation should have upoa its own side tiie appurtenant Waters ; and this rule was 
 '• adopted at the peace of the Pyrenees, in fixing the limits between France and Spain." 
 
\7 
 
 Rivers intended to be divided, namely Ptivers falling into the Atlan- 
 tic Ocean, distinguished in the Treaty from the Bay of Fundy and 
 the Gulph of St. Lawrence.* 
 
 On this point, of the true intention of the Treaty of 1783, it 
 will be important, and it is a matter curious in itself, to trace the 
 history of this Treaty, as it relates to Boundary. 
 
 In the " Secret Journals of the Old Congress," published 
 in Boston in the year 1820, by order of the Government of the 
 United States, we find the original draft of the Article of the Treaty 
 which defines the Boundaries of the United States. It is of so early 
 a date as the 14th August, 1779, and is contained in the instructions 
 to the Commissioner to be appointed to negotiate a Treaty of Peace 
 with Great-Britain. — The Article of these Instructions, to which I 
 refer, is this :f 
 
 " The Boundaries of these States, are as follows, viz : — These 
 " States are bounded North by a line to be drawn from the North 
 " West Angle of Nova-Scotia, along the Uighlajids isohich divide those 
 " Rivers 'which empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence, from 
 *Hhose Wihichfall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the North Westernmosi 
 " head of Connecticut River." The Boundary from this point to the 
 St. Lawrence, is the same as in the Treaty ; from the St. Lawrence, 
 the Boundary varies from the Treaty, nnt.il it reaches the Mississippi^ 
 The Southern Boundary is-the same as in the Treaty, and is termi- 
 nated by a line " down along the middle of St. Mary's River to the 
 *« Atlantic Ocean." The Eastern Boundary is thus : " East by a 
 " line to be drawn along the middle of St. John's River, from its 
 ^^ source to its mouth in the Bay of Fundy ; comprehending all Is- 
 " lands within twenty leagues of any part of the Shores of the United 
 " States, and lying between lines to be drawn due East from the 
 "points where the aforesaid Boundaries between Nova-Scotia on the 
 *' one part, and East Florida on the other part, shall respectively 
 "touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean." 
 
 These instructions farther contain a direction, that if ^^ the 
 " Eastern Boundary above described cannot be obtained" provision 
 may be made for adjusting the same by Commissioners. 
 
 On a subsequent occasion, on the 16th August, 1782, for this 
 matter appears to have been repeatedly under the consideration of 
 
 * In apparent objection to this principle, it is stated by the American writers, that the 
 due North hne from tlie source of the St. Croix, crosses some smaller Streams, tributary to the 
 great River St. John, before it reaches the point claimed as the Norlli W^est Angle of Nova- 
 Scotia, at Mars Hill. To this objection, I would apply the Common Law maxim, de minimis 
 non curat lex. The heads of these Streams arc loo insigniiicant to bear any weight in the dis- 
 cussion of such a controversy as this. Tlie course and extent of the Groat Rivers are the ob- 
 jects in view. In all probability, an actual survey of a lino of Boundary -along Highlands divi- 
 ding Rivers would for the convenience of all parties, be carried direct frm height to height, 
 and cut off heads of Streams as considerable as those tributary to the St. John, crossed by the 
 North line before reaching Mars Hill. 
 
 t Secret Journals of the Old Congress," vol. il. p. 225. 
 
18 
 
 tht Congress, we find in a Report of a Codimittee, the foUowitsg 
 clause:* " It is to be observed that when the Boundaries of the 
 " United States were declared to be an ultimatum, it was not thought 
 "advisable to continue the War merely to obtain Territorii as far as 
 "-'the St. Johji's River ; but that the dividing line of Massachusetts 
 "and Nova-Scotia was to be consigned to future settlement." 
 
 It appears, that the late Mr. Adams, one of the Plenipotenti- 
 aries on the part of the United States, who negotiated the Treaty of 
 1783, wae examined as a vjitness before the Commissioners for as- 
 certaining the true St. Croix, under the Treaty of 1794, and in 
 answer to the question, " What Rivers were claimed to, or talked 
 '*of by the Commissioners" (who formed the Treaty of 1783) "on 
 "either side, as a proposed Boundary, and for what reason ?" stated 
 as follows, " The British Commissioners first claimed to Piscataqua 
 " River, then to Kennebec, then to Penobscot, and at length to St. 
 " Croix, as marked on Mitchell's Map. One of the American Corii- 
 "missionersat first proposed the River St. John, as marked on Mit- 
 "chell's Map; but his colleagues showing that as the St. Croix was 
 "the River mentioned in the Charter of Massachusetts Bay, they 
 " could notjustijij insisting on the St. John as an ultimatum, he agreed 
 "with them to adhere to the Charter of Massachusetts Bay."-|- 
 
 FnoM these documents it nppoard, tliat the North West Angle 
 of Nova-Scotia, as originally claimed by the United States, at the 
 time of making the Treaty of 1783, was placed at the source of the 
 River St. John; the middle of 'vjhich River, from its source to its 
 mouth in the Bay of Fundy, was then claimed by them as their East- 
 ern limit. The distinction between the Atlantic Ocean and the Bay 
 of Fundy, is also introduced and carefully preserved in this original 
 jprojet of the Boundary. They make the line to proceed from the 
 source of the River St. John Westerly along the Highlands, which 
 divide, &c. : which Highlands, described in this jd;o;>/, are no other 
 than the Height of Land, I have before alluded to, and divide no 
 Rivers, but the branches of the Chaudiere foiling into the River St. 
 Lawrence, and the Penobscot, Kennebec, and Androscoggin, falling 
 into the Atlantic Ocean. 
 
 This most extended claim of the United States, before the 
 Treaty of 1783, does not cross the River St. John, and does not 
 include any territory North and East of that River. 
 
 The Congress do not deem it advisable to continue the War 
 for the purpose of obtaining Territory, even to the Saint John's 
 River. . 
 
 * '•■ Secret Journals of the Old Congress," vol. III. p. 171. 
 
 t I find this in the New-York " Albion," July 15th, 1S26, and in the Anpendix to 
 Mr. Ileiiry Bliss's very able Pamphlet on the Claims and conduct of the United Slates, res- 
 pecting their North Eastern Boundary, published in London, 1826. In each of these publica- 
 tions, there is a map, which it may be useful to refer to lor illustrating tlie present controversy. 
 
Id 
 
 The claim, to the middle of the River St. John, as a Boundary, 
 from its mouth io its source^ is at the time of the negotiation of the 
 Treaty of 17S3, expressly relinquished by the American negotiators, 
 according to the evidence of one of them, as not justifiable. 
 
 The plain inference from these premises is, that it was in the 
 contemplation of the negotiators of the Treaty of 1783, by the Line 
 of Boundary, as they ultimately described it, to leave within the 
 Territories of His Majesty the whole of the liiver St. John from its 
 mouth to its source. This inference ir, infinitely stronger with 
 respect to the Restigouche, which, from its remote situation to th<j 
 Eastward, could never have been even adverted to, as a River that 
 could in any part of its extent, be a River of the United States. 
 And this inference is the only one which accords with the principle 
 of the line of Boundary along Highlands dividing Rivers at their 
 sources, advanced by the Congress, and preserved in the definitive 
 Treaty, and that is to leave to each nation the whole of the Rivers 
 emptying thenvselves within its own territory. The River St. Croix 
 was finally agreed upon as the Eastern Boundary from its mouth to 
 its source, and the North West Angle is then described to be formed 
 in such a manner as will unquestionably leave to the United States, 
 the whole extent of the Rivers up to their sources, which empty 
 themselves within their Territories 5 ami most rightt^ously shall the 
 same description be held to answer the corresponding purpose for 
 Great Britain. 
 
 Tn^ present claim of the United States would cut ofT fi'om his 
 Majesty's Territories, about 150 miles of the Main River St. John » 
 from its source downwards, besides several large branches of this 
 River, and the head waters of the Restigouche and its branches, for 
 many miles in extent, would give these States upwards of 10,000 
 square miles of Territory, in the whole, and about 700 square miles 
 more than their original and most extended Claim, which was relin- 
 quished at the time of negotiating the Treaty of 1783, to the St. John 
 as an Eastern Boundary, from its mouth to its source, would have 
 given them. Besides, it completely intercepts the communications 
 between the remaining British Provinces; and would leave to His 
 Majesty only a narrow strip of land on the banks of the St. Law= 
 rence, in some places not more than ten miles distant from that 
 River. Are circumstances like tiiese to be reconciled with tlie prin- 
 ciples of //^^ra/ equity, reciprocal advantagCy and mutual convenience, 
 upon which it is solemnly declared that the provisions of the Treaty 
 were finally adjusted ? 
 
fO 
 
 5th December, 1827. 
 
 The American writers, notwithstanding their alleged confi- 
 dence in the treaty of 1783, call to their aid the designation of the 
 Boundaries of the Province of Quebec, prior to that treaty. This 
 leads me in this place, to a statement of these Boundaries — 
 
 By the Proclamation of 1763, the Government of Quebec is 
 declared to be " bounded on the Labrador Coast by the River St» 
 " John, and from thence by a line drawn from the head of that 
 " River, through the Lake St. Joiin to the South end of the Lake 
 " Nepissim, from whence tlie said line crossing the River St. Law- 
 " rence and the Lake Champlain, in 45 degrees ot North latitude, 
 " passes along the Highlands which divide the Rivars that emjity 
 " themselves into the said River St. Lawrence, from those which 
 " fall into t/ie Sea, and also along the Nortli coast of the Bai/e de 
 " C/ialeio's, and the coast of the Gulph of St. Lawrence to Cape 
 « Rosieres," &c. &c. 
 
 By the act of Parliament, i4th Oeo. IIL cap. 83, "for making 
 " more effectual provision for the Government of the Province of 
 " Quebec," this Province is declared to be " bounded on the South 
 " by a line from the Bmj of Chaleurs along the Highlands which 
 " divide the Rivers that empty themselves into the River St. Law- 
 " rence, from those which fall into the Sea, to a point in forty-five 
 " degrees of Northern latitude on the Eastern bank of the River 
 *' Connecticut," &c. &c. &c. 
 
 Although these Boundaries are thus described, yet the actual 
 locality of the Southern Boundary of the Province of Quebec, which 
 it is acknowledged formed the Northern Boundary of these Sea- 
 board Provinces, was at the time of the treaty of 1783, in the inte- 
 rior of the Country, to the Eastward of the Height of Land be- 
 fore spoken of, altogether unexplored and unknown. The Height 
 or Land was indeed at that time well known. Mr. Pownall, in his 
 Topographical description of the Middle Colonies, before referred 
 to, speaks of a survey he had caused to be made, while Governor of 
 Massachusetts Bay, of the route from the heads of the Kennebec to 
 those of the Chaudiere ; and by this route General Arnold had 
 marched to Quebec in 1775. The sources of the Rivers there run- 
 ning in opposite directions to the Atlantic Ocean and the River St. 
 Lawi'cnce, were known to be contiguous, and to be separated by 
 elevated and conspicuous High Lands, forming a mountainous 
 barrier, very fit to be a Boundary between tw'o Nations ; and the 
 inference is clear fi*om the expressions of the treaty, that the framers 
 
of the treaty, from these facts, which they must have known, consi- 
 dered that a Boundary of the same character would be found to the 
 Eastward.* 
 
 With these materials before them, how do the framers of the 
 treaty of 1783, proceed to form the Boundaries of the United 
 States ? " From the North West Angle of Nova-Scotia, viz : that 
 *' Angle 'which is Jormed hy a line dravon due North from the source 
 *' of the St. Croix River to the Highlajids." This Angle, the com- 
 mencing point of the Boundary, is not referred to as a known and 
 fixed hmit, the situation of which is ascertained merely by giving 
 its name ; but the mode of forming it is expressly described. There 
 is also a distinct definition of the Angle, before the Boundary pro- 
 ceeds farther. The Angle is formed by " The Highlands." 
 The Boundary proceeds from this point *' along the said High- 
 *' lands which divide those Rivers that empty themselves into the 
 *' River St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean 
 " TO the North Westernmost head of Connecticut River." From 
 this peculiar phraseology of the Treaty, it is a fair inference that 
 the circumstance of the Highlands dividing Rivers is not intended 
 to be a part of the definition of " the Highlands" which form the 
 Angle, but is introduced in the subsequent description of the High- 
 lands, along which the line is tn pass, with the view of securing to 
 the United States the sources of those Rivers which empty them- 
 selves within their territories. For we must bear in mind, that the 
 particular point, to which the framers of this instrument directed 
 their attention, was to define the limits of the United States, to de- 
 scribe with precision that pai*t of the whole territory before under 
 British dominion, which his Majesty was by this instrument to re- 
 linquish to these States ; his Majesty's right to all that part of the 
 territory not so relinquished, remaining undisturbed. But what 
 Rivers are expressed in this subsequent description of Highlands, 
 as those which are to be divided from Rivers emptying themselves 
 into the River St. Lawrence ? " Those which fall into the Atlantic 
 " Ocean." Is this the description of Rivers mentioned in the Pro- 
 clamation of 1763, or in the Act of Parliament of 1774 ? The Ri- 
 vers mentioned in these descriptions of Boundary, are " those 
 " which fall into the Sea." Is it to be believed, that the acute and 
 sagacious men in the old Congress, who year after year, weighed 
 and sifted every word in the ong\na\ projet of 1779, or those who, 
 on the part of the United States, afterwards negotiated the treaty of 
 
 * This inference is strongly corroborated by the following extracts from Pownall's To- 
 pographical Description, p. 15, " Connecticut River rises in North Latitude, 45'^ 10' at the 
 " Height of Land in Longitude 4" East of the Meridian of Philadelphia" ; and p. 24, " All 
 " the heads of the Kennebaeg, Penobskaeg, and Passam-aqu^da Rivers, are on the Height of 
 " the Land running East North East." It is worthy of remark that this is about tbs 
 course in which Mars Hill li«s from the North Westernmost head of Connecticut River 
 
22 
 
 1755, did not perceive any difference in the extent of the significa- 
 tion of the terms " Sea" and " Atlantic Ocean ;" that tliey had 
 not any precise meaninir, in substituting in their description of Ri- 
 vers, the latter for the former terra ? Is this to be believed, when 
 these very men, in the same instrument expressly contradistinguish 
 the *' Atlantic Ocean," a part of the Sea, from die " Bay of Fundy," 
 nlso a part of the Sea, by describing Rivers and points of Boundary 
 as respectively falling into and touching these different parts of the 
 Sea ? Is the inference to be resisted, that these men, by narrowing 
 the description of " Rivers fiiUing into the Sea" to " Rivers falling 
 *' into the Atlantic Ocean,'' clearly indicate that in so doing they 
 had in view such Rivers, and such Rivers only, as fall into that 
 part of the Sea which they themselves have designated as the Jilan- 
 tic Ocean ,- namely, that part of it which lies to t/ie TVestvcard of the 
 Bay of Flinch/, which part they have expressly contradistinguished 
 from that Bay ;* the range of their view in this respect being limited 
 to ike WeiUxmrd by the meridian of the head of the Connecticut 
 River, the point where this line of Boundary terminates ? The Ri- 
 vers which, and which only, I thus think it unquestionable that 
 these men, by the expressions they have used, had in view in de- 
 scribing this part of the Boundary, are the Rivers which do actu- 
 ally enipty thenissUes on that part of the Sea Coast which lies 
 within the limits of the United States, as defined by the Treaty ; 
 and which, and which only, I think it is equally clear they meant to 
 secure to their Country, up to their sources, by this part of the 
 Boundary, as they have described it in the interior. It cannot be 
 denied that these were the only Rivers wliich the Congress in 1779 
 Lad in view, as those to be divided by the line of Boundary pro- 
 ceeding Westward, when they placed the North West Angle of 
 "Nova-Scotia at tlie source of t!ie St. John ; and the definitive Treaty 
 preserves exactly the same expressions, as those contained in the 
 
 * The American writers contend that in an instrument " drawn with so much care and 
 " reflection,"' as tlie Treaty ol"1783, if the framers of it had intended an exception, they would 
 have expressly excepted the Rivers falling into the Bay of Chaleur and t/ic Bay of Fundy, or 
 that " some definite poirJ micrht have been adopted on the shores of the Atlantic." — By limit- 
 ing the ex'ent of the term '-' Atlantic Ocean," in their understanding of it, which with so much 
 care and reflection the framers of the Treaty have done, they have rendered any such exception 
 unnecessary ; hy contradistinguishing " ihc Atlantic Ocean" from the '• Bay of Fundy," they 
 have in fact adopted a dtfinilc point on the Sea-coast, within or to the Westward of which the 
 Rivers were to empty themselves, that they conteniplateJ as being divided at their sources by 
 the line of Boundary in the interior, namely, the Western extremity of tlie Bay of Fundy. Tho 
 Rivers to the Westward of this Bay.aftectod by this line of Boundary, fall, in the contemplation 
 of the Treaty, into the Broad Atlantic. The Bay of Fundy being expressly named as distinct 
 from the Atlantic, places this Bay in a point of view altogether different, if there were no other 
 circumstances to distinguish it in this respect, from the Penobscot Bay or other minor Bays on 
 this part of tho Coast, into which the.sc great Rivers may fall. I will not quarrel with another 
 position of the American writers, that '* the Treaty divides all the Rivers or Streams into two 
 " classes, to wit, such as fall into the St. Lawrence, and such as fall into the Atlantic Ocean ; 
 •' all of course, cofar as they have any connexion toith the Treaty, fall within the one or tho 
 " other of ihese classes." The Rivers which do not fall into the Atlantic Ocean, according to 
 the meaning of the Treaty, have no connexion with the Treaty. 
 
23 
 
 original projet of the Congress, in describing the Rivers which are 
 to be divided by this line of Boundary. 
 
 The conchision I deduce from all this, is, that a line drawn 
 from the North Westernmost head of Connecticut River, along 
 the well known Height of Land, and continued to the Eastward 
 alono- such High Lands as lie at the sources of the Rivers falliiig 
 into the Atlantic Ocean, according to the signification of that term 
 in the Treaty, until such line shaTl intersect the line running due 
 North from the source of the St. Croix, will at this point of inter- 
 section form the North West Angle of Nova- Scotia, truly intended 
 in the Treaty. 
 
 In treating oflhe former Boundaries of the Province of Que- 
 bec, under the'Proclamaiion of 1763, the American writers refer 
 with great confidence to Maps, published in England in 1775 and 
 1783, in which, if I understand them, for I have not seen the Maps 
 referred to, the Southern line of the Government of Quebec, is pla- 
 ced to the Northward of the sources of the St. John, and the West- 
 ern line of Nova-Scotia is made to cross this River before it meets this 
 Southern line of Quebec, which as before stated, was the Northern 
 line of Nova-Scotiti. I imagine that in these Maps, this Southern 
 line of Quebec and Northern line of Nova-Scotia, is not placed to 
 the Northv.ard of die sources of the Restigoieche, wliere the present 
 American claim places the North West Angle of Nova-Scotia. A 
 line passing round the sources of all i\ie hvtinches o^he Resiigoiiche, 
 including the Metapediar, (which is the line according to the Ame- 
 rican claim) will never reach the Baij of Chaleur, as the Restigouche 
 empties itself at the head of this Bay ; and it is at the Bay of Cha- 
 leur, that the line along the Highlands is made to terminate by the 
 description of Boundary, both in the Proclamation of 1763, and 
 the Act of Parliament of 1774.* The line now claimed by the 
 Americans in this quarter, can not, therefore, be the Southern boun- 
 dary of the former Province of Quebec. A glance at any Map of 
 the Country will illustrate my meaning in this particular, and will 
 also shew that a line drawn from the Bay of Chaleur to Connecticut 
 River, in 45 degrees of North latitude, the line of the Proclamation 
 and Act of Parliament, will very well comport with the line of the 
 present British claim. But, in truth, the authority of the compiler 
 of a Map, although he may be " Geographer to the King," tracmg 
 a line of Boundary accordnig to his own notions of it, cannot be of 
 any weight in a national controversy. I have seen a Map published 
 in the United States, since the Peace of 1783, compiled by one of 
 the Sovereign People, in which the Boundary is laid down accord- 
 
 * In the Commissions to tlie Governors of Nova-Scotia, subsequent to the Proclamation 
 of 1763, the Western extremity of the Bay of Clialeur is mentioned as tlic point where tr.ii 
 Southern Boundary of the Proviiico of Quebec terminates. 
 
S4 
 
 ing to what are now considered as the extravagant pretensions of 
 Great-Britain. The Maps spoken of by the American writers, 
 published in 1775 and 1783, do not appear to have been even before 
 the Negotiators of tiie Treaty; the only Map which they are stated 
 to have referred to, being that of Mitchell, published in 1755. 
 
 As little weight is to be given to any remarks relating to the 
 Provincial jurisdiction exercised by New-Brunswick, in the upper 
 parts of the River St. John, which our adversaries surmise ought 
 upon our own principles, to fall within the Province of Lower-Ca- 
 nada. Any acts or proceedings of the Provincial Governments, or 
 cf the officers or subjects of either nation, subsequent to the treaty 
 of 1783, cannot have any bearing on the question now pending 
 under that treaty. The tact however is, that the actual location of 
 the Southern Boundary of Canada, in this quarter, was at the time 
 of the treaty of 1783, and remains to this day, unsettled. It has 
 been the subject of conflicting claims between the Governments of 
 Canada and New-Brunswick, since the erection of the latter Pro- 
 vince ; and, if I am not misinformed, lands lying on the waters of 
 the upper part of the St. John, are at this day held under titles de- 
 rived from the Government of Canada, as w-ell as from that of New- 
 Brunswick.* But wiih the Inter-Colonial affairs of these Provin- 
 ces, a Foreign Power surely cannot have any concern ; and if it 
 seeks support to its pretensions from a reference to any such circum- 
 stances, it betrays the weakness of its cause. 
 
 As I have before stated, no man at the time of the treaty of 
 1783, could have placed his finger upon any point in the Map, as 
 the known North West Angle of Nova-Scotia, or have traced the 
 actual location, for the greater part of its extent, of the Southern 
 Boundary of the Province of Quebec. The framers of the Treaty, 
 under these uncertainties, proceeded to define for themselves, the 
 North West Angle of Nova- Scotia, and the rest of the Line of 
 Boundary which is to ascertain and comprise the Territories of the 
 United States, and to separate these territories from those remain- 
 ing under the Sovereignty of Great-Britain. 
 
 I'liE North AVest Angle oj the Treaty then, and that alone, 
 must be the governing point of the present controversy. 
 
 * In the last City Gazette, (Nov. 23) tliere is an account of the proceedings of County 
 Meetings on the Southern Shore of the St. Lawrence, below Quebec, relating to this very 
 question of Boundary, predicated on the supposition that the Waters of the St. Jolin, in that 
 Ketghbourhood, are within the Province of Lower-Canada. 
 
2o 
 
 NO. V. 
 
 12th December, 182t. 
 
 As I intimated in my last Letter, if a line from the Connecticut 
 River, where the description of the Boundary in this quarter, in the 
 Proclamation of 1763, commences, be drawn in the first instance 
 along the Height of Land, (acknowledged on all sides to be di~ 
 vidiyig Highlands as well under the Proclamation as the Treaty) 
 and then be continued Northerly along the sources of all the Rivers 
 falling into the River St. Lawrence, it will be carried to Cape Ro- 
 sieres, without ever striking the Bay of Chaleur, which Bay is made 
 both by the Proclamation and Act of Parliament, one extremity of 
 the Line. Whereas a line drawn from the Connecticut along the 
 Height of Land, and thence continued Easterly to the Western 
 extremity of the Bay of Chaleur, will substantially correspond with 
 the line claimed by Great Britain in the present controversy.* But 
 this Quebec Boundary was never settled, and the looseness in the 
 description of it, and the uncertainty of its location, are circumstan- 
 ces by no means unusual in designating Colonial Boundaries through 
 an unexplored wilderness. They are not indeed of material import 
 to Provinces under the dominion of one Empire, in which there is 
 an acknowledged superintending authority, that can regulate affairs 
 of this kind, as occasion may require, for the particular convenience 
 of each, and the general good of the whole. The question assumes 
 a different aspect, when it arises between the Sovereign Power of 
 this Empire, and that of a neighbouring Foreign Nation, which have 
 carefully described in a compact between them the line of demarca- 
 tion, that is to separate their respective territories. In such a case, 
 the inter-national compact alone can furnish the rule of decision. 
 
 To return then to the Treaty of 1783 — Our adversaries make 
 their strong hold in the desci'iption of the Eastern Line, which is 
 thus, " East by a line to be drawn along the middle of the River St. 
 " Croix, from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source, and from 
 " its source directly North to the aforesaid Highlands which divide 
 "the Rivei-s that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall 
 " into the River St. Lawrence." Here, say they, it is evident that 
 the North Line must be carried to the heads of the Streams which 
 fall into the River St. Lawrence. But suppose, that the North 
 
 * A line along Lands dividing Rivers /or its whole extent, is clearly not intended in this 
 old Quebec Boundary. It must leave the dividing Highlands somewhere in order to strike 
 the Bay of Chaleur. and the most natural course would seam to be to carry it from the Height 
 OF L.t.ND Easterly, in the gen<*ral direction ofthis Height of Land to the VVegtcrn extrem- 
 ity of that Bay. 
 
26 
 
 Li:e vvlien run with nccurncy, shonitl not strike any River that falls 
 ii!t> tlie St. Lawrence, is it to l)e continued to the Bank of that 
 River, and there form the North West Angle? No. In that case, 
 we are to take '•'///? line of the range of huKls," from which the 
 Rivers do fall into tiie St. Lawrence. So that even according to 
 the American argument, circumt;tances may he such, that this con- 
 dition cannot be fulfilled with literal accuracy, and the rule for 
 forming the Angle, must be to ascertain the Rivers which the Treaty 
 intends to be divided by the Line of Boundary along the Highlands. 
 Let us suppose, however, that the North Line as at present explored, 
 is accurate, and does strike the head of the River Metis, which falls 
 into the St. Lav/rence. When we look back on our course, we find, 
 that we have crossed the St. John and the Restigouche ; and in 
 order to answer the conditions of the Treaty, upon this construction 
 of it, we nuist consider these Rivers as falling into the Atlantic 
 Ocean, and thereby make the Atlantic Ocean to inciudc the Bay of 
 Fundy and the Bay of Chaleur ; whereas it has been abundaiuly 
 shewn, that in the Treaty the Atlantic Ocean is spoken of as a part 
 of tlie Sea, which meets the Coast Westward of the Bay of Fundy, 
 and is exclusive of both tiic Ba3^s above named. To fulfil the Ame- 
 rican condition then, a different and a more extended signification 
 nnist be given to the term <' Atlantic Ocean," when sj^eaking of Ri- 
 vers descending to the Sea Coast, than that wiiich it undeniably 
 bears in the same instrument when speaking of the Sea-coast itseli'; 
 nav, than common usay-e, and the ijrecision evi::ced in substitutinf- 
 this term for one of far more vague and general import will justify.* 
 Let me ask, what purpose connected with the spirit of the Treaty, 
 or the objects which the framers of it may be fairly considered to 
 have had in view, is tliis expanded and inconsistent version to 
 answer ? 
 
 But, say the Americans, it is the literal in)port of the descrip- 
 tion of the Eastern Line, tliat this Line is to terminate at Highlands, 
 which, at this tenninating pointy (i. e. at the North West Angle) 
 do actually divide the Rivers intended by the Treaty to be divided; 
 and this cannot be done without extending this due North Line to 
 the heads of the Rivers falling into the St. Lawrence, and making 
 the St. John and the Restigouche to be Rivers falling into the At- 
 lantic Ocean. 
 
 To this I answer, that tliis last circumstance is conclusive to 
 shew, that the American construction is erroneous, and that we shall 
 
 * It will bo borne in mind that I hrrc refer to the description in the Treatv of the mouth 
 of St. Mary's Kivcr " in ihe Atlantic Ojcan," and of the moiMJi of the St. Croix, " in the 
 *' Bay of Fundy," and of these Boundaries on the Sea-coast " respectively touching the Bay 
 " of i'undy and the Atlantic Ocean" — and to tlie substitution of'* liic Atlantic Ocean," in the 
 Original prcjet of 1779, preserved in the Defiriiiivc Treaty, for " the Sea"— the term which 
 occurs in the description of tlie old Quebec Boundary. 
 
27 
 
 not find in the due North Line any point dividing at their sources 
 the Rivers which it is the intention of the Treaty so to divide. 
 
 '• We must," says Vattel in his Rules for the Interpretation of 
 Treaties, "we must consider the whole discourse together in order 
 "perfectly to conceive the sense of it, and to give to each expression 
 "not so much the signification which it may individually admit of, 
 "as that which it ought to have from the context and sjjirit of the 
 "discourse." 
 
 Reading then the description of the Eastern Boundary, as this 
 rule requires, and as its own language naturally implies, it will be, 
 " East by a Line to be drawn along the middle of the River St. 
 " Croix, fi'om its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source, and from 
 "its source directly North to the aforesaid Highlands which," in 
 their course \Vestward, "divide the Rivers that fall into the Allan' 
 "tic Ocean from those which fall into the River St. Lawrence." 
 
 This will be found still more applicable to the language of the 
 first part of the Treaty, '^ From the North West Angle of Nova 
 " Scotia, viz. that Angle which is formed by a line drawn due North 
 "from the source of St. Croix River to the Highlandsy along the 
 "said Highlands which," in their course Westward, "divide those 
 "Rivers that empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence from 
 "those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean" 
 
 This reading conforms to the context^ and preserves the con- 
 sistency of tile Treaty, by giving to the term " Atlantic Ocean," its 
 appropriate meaning throughout. It will alone fulfil the spirit of 
 the instrument, in this part of the Boundary, by securing to both 
 parties the Rivers to tiieir sources, which empty themselves within 
 their respective Territories. It will be consistent with the know- 
 ledge of the Country existing in 1783, by carrying the Boundary 
 along the Highlands, at that time well knov,-n, which divide the 
 sources of the Penobscot, Kennebec and Androscoggin, from those 
 of the Chaudiere, which Highlands thiere is every reason to suppose, 
 and the phraseology of the Treaty indicates, that the framers of it 
 liad specifically in view. It will accord with the history of the 
 Treaty, v*hich shews that the original and most extended claim of 
 the United States, expressly relinquished by their Plenipotentiaries 
 in 1733, did not extend to the North and East of the St. John. It 
 will not, if the old Boundaries of the Province of Quebec, notwith- 
 standing their uncertainty, be invoked into the discussion, be found 
 opposed to the description of these Boundaries, as the present Ame- 
 rican Claim demonstrably is. Nor will it be inconsistent with the 
 general views of reciprocal advantage and mutual convenience pro- 
 fessed in the Treaty; which the American pretensions completely 
 frustrate, by extending their dominion into the heart of our Terri- 
 tories, cutting off large portions of our great Rivers, intercepting our 
 £on-vn.uuications, destroying every semblance of a natural frontier, 
 
28 
 
 and taking up a controlling position on the verge of the St. Law- 
 rence.* 
 
 Having said thus much on the construction of the Treaty, I 
 am now led to inquire whether there are any High Lands^ properly 
 so called, on the Lines claimed by the respective parties in this 
 controversy. As this is a question of fact, it is to be determined by 
 testimony, not by reasoning. 
 
 With regard to the Line claimed by the Americans, I believe 
 the fact to be, as I have formerly stated, and as is virtually admitted 
 by their writers, that there are no prominent High Lands either at 
 the Angle, or along by far the greater part of the Line. These 
 writers we have seen endeavour to supply this deficiency by a de- 
 duction from the physical laws of Nature, that the land is necessa- 
 rily higher at the sources of Rivers than at their mouths. 
 
 The British Claim places the North West Angle at Mars Hill. 
 This is the first Highland, of distinct and conspicuous elevation, 
 intersected by the line running due North from the source of the 
 St. Croix. I have been informed that the Height of Land, so 
 often mentioned, was traced by the Surveyors under the late Com- 
 mission, extending Easterly for many miles, in a distinct and un- 
 broken chain, and then in a succession of mountainous ridges, fully 
 answering the natural and obvious meaning of the term " High- 
 lands," in the general course and direction of the Height of Land, 
 to the due North Line at Mars Hill. 
 
 This information 1 find to be confirmed by Greenleaf's " Sta- 
 " tistical View of the District of Maine," published in Boston in 
 1816, before the separation of that District from Massachusetts, and 
 addressed to the Legislature of the latter State. This author di- 
 vides the District (including widiin it, according to the pretensions 
 of his Country, all the disputed Territory) into two Sections, ^'^ the 
 *' moiintainous, and the moderately hilly." He goes on to say,f 
 " With the exception of a small tract at the Northern extremity, 
 "and some detached elevations along the central part of the North 
 " Western Boundary, the mountainous part of the District may be 
 "included within an irregular line drawn from the line of New- 
 *' Hampshire, not far from Saco River; thence proceeding North- 
 " easterly and crossing Androscoggin River near Dixfield, Sandy 
 " River above Farmington, Kennebec River above Bingham, the 
 " West branch of the Penobscot at the lake Pemmidumpkok, and 
 
 * It will be remarked on an inspection of a Map of the Country, that the Line 
 claimed on the part of Great-Britain, not only leaves to the United States all the Rivers to 
 their sources, emptying witliin their Territories, but divides the Tract of Country lying 
 between the St. Lawrence and the Atlantic nearly into two equal parts, by running nearly along 
 the middle of it, which certainly comports with the principles of equity and mutual advantage, 
 and if Rivers were out of the question, would on these principles, be a fair mode of settling the 
 question. 
 
 + Page m. 
 
29 
 
 ** to the East branch of the Penobscot, near the mouth of the Was- 
 "sattaquoit ; thence North so far as to include the heads of the Aroos- 
 " took ;* thejice Sotithwesterlj/ to the head of Mooschead Lake,, and 
 *^ thence Westerly, to the Boundary of the District^ near the sources of 
 " the De Loup.-\ The greatest length of this Section is from South 
 ^^ West to North East, abont 160 miles, its greatest breadth about 
 "60 miles, and it comprises about one seventh part of the District. 
 " No observations have been made to ascertain and compare the 
 "height of the different elevations in this Section; but from esti- 
 " mates which have been made on the falls of the Rivers proceeding 
 "from different parts of it, and from the much greater distance at 
 "which the mountains in the Western part are visible, it is evident 
 "that the Western, and particularly the Northwestern part is much 
 "higher than the Eastern; and the Section in its whole extent, may 
 '■^he considered as presenting the highest points of land between 
 " the Atlantic and the St. Lawrence. The remainder of the District, 
 " with the exceptions before noticed, may be considered generally 
 "as a moderately hilly country, though not uniformly so in all its 
 "parts." 
 
 It is we have seen, at The Highlands at Mars Hill, that 
 Great-Britain claims the North West Angle of Nova-Scotia, and 
 through the mountainous region described by Mr, Greenleaf, "pre- 
 "senting the highest points of Land between the Atlantic and the 
 "St. Lawrence," including the Highlands which divide the sources 
 of the Penobscot, Kennebec, and Androscoggin, from those of the 
 Chaudiere, that she traces her line of Boundary ; and it is to be ob- 
 served, that in the Map of the same author, accompanying his book, 
 there are not laid down, as there are not described in the book, and 
 do not in fact exist, on the line of the American Claim, before it 
 unites with that of Great-Britain, any High Lands, but those on 
 the Timiscouata Portage, leading from the Lake of that name to the 
 St, Lawrence. 
 
 I have thus completed the purpose I set out with, and stated 
 the views I entertain of this very important subject; on which, every 
 man will of course form his own opinion. The result in my mind 
 is, that the Line claimed by the United States on the present occa- 
 sion, is, indisputably, not the true Line of the Treaty of 1783; and 
 that we must fall back on the principles of the British Claim, which 
 will alone fulfil the spirit and comform to the letter of the Treaty. 
 
 Thus much at least wmII be acknowledged, that it is not, as our 
 adversaries assert, merely because Great-Britain " will have" the 
 Territory, that she claims it ; but we, on our side of the Lines, can ' 
 discern reasons for the pretensions which, it is understood, our Go- 
 
 * This River is called in British Maps, the Resiook. 
 t A Branch of the Chaudiere. 
 
30 
 
 vernment maintains. Nor is it on our possession, in point of fact, 
 that we rest our right to hold this Territory. But this possession, 
 which the King's Government has ever held, and in which it finds 
 itself at the time of the controversy, will, I trust, not be relinquished, 
 until the right is decided against us. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 •€2<C 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3i- <S<l5^ 
 
 
 Cx^oQ^XSr 
 
 <^^MacE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 l^t^' 
 
 «K^?« 
 
 
 
 cfc«; 
 
 
 r<:<r«^^ 
 
 ' c Xi!*^5 
 
 
 ^' c**--**^' 
 
 
 5^CA*' 
 
 ^<C4 
 
 g-^t «< 
 
 <9t'C<l* 
 
 «I3^*- 
 
 aeC<i<.* 
 
 g--7'^.v,f 
 
 ^«: 
 
 ^^ 
 
 c.»C«X 
 
 ^^<<^ 
 
 cc<:< 
 
 
 
 ^^*r .<*^<,-«*r: CSS cj 
 
 
 <2- «d: '<r<: 
 
 _ <5t. < 
 

 
 crccr 
 
 . AC- CT 
 
 ■<2I 
 
 
 '■<-:' ,V_ -m 
 
 
 
 . ^^< 
 
 c «;■<: 
 
 <r <"<<: 
 
 c cc • <r 
 
 ■ «?.<: ^[x:- <^\ 
 
 ^^ ^^ ■- 
 
 
 c:crr 
 
 cc: 
 
 ccTC: 
 
 C CCC 
 
 
 ^^ElC: 
 
 -•c:^' 
 
 
 <s <s: 
 
 
 
 ;• 5-. <33 
 
 
 
 ccxadCj ^ ■< ■<^^< 
 
 
 
 <<iVoc: 
 
 <r<i«<:L 
 
 <:• <^- csT' 
 
 < <::<<?' <:c<-c< 
 
 
 
 
 
 4Z <•«:< '««Jt. 
 r ^^,<rcc OSS - 
 
 c c. . 
 
 Vj_ <:- 
 
 C C ■ 
 
 <: < 
 
 k( 
 
 <^ e 
 
 ^ V ( ■ 
 
 c-.;- ' Q 
 
 '■• < 
 
 <3: 
 
 H^-x 
 
 ■£-<<_ 
 
 ^-" 
 
 • ■ '■' <:, 
 
 E 
 
 • ' <:: 
 
 ... <lc <c> 
 
 <:. cc «c <x:t< c 
 
 rccc^-i^ Mv<<itCC 
 _«(, v<( «c<:^3Ccc 
 
 ^ <r c<rc> 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 895 610 2