E 398 
 
 .676 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 DDDDSDETD41 
 

 
 
 c*^ 
 
 
 £ ** v % : ; 
 
 **. 
 
 
 \ o^ 
 
 
 % • 
 
 
 .#"%. 
 
 
 ^ 
 
/•^ -Sip* ^°- 
 
 "W 
 
 **°* 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 J *V 
 
 
 
 
 
THE 
 
 BOUNDARY QUESTION 
 
 AND 
 
 R. FRANKLIN S RED LINE 
 
 shown to ne 
 
 THE RIGHT ONE. 
 
 BY A BRITISH SUBJECT. 
 
 TV\om34 Co Hen. Gtt*"\"V:*v\ 
 
 w 
 
 mean these remarks for the people of America. I may be told it is 
 ;e. If so, I shall reply, th i er too late to tell the troth 1 
 
 table audience; and I result in this case will bear out I I 
 
 n." — Burke's Pari 
 
 <^>N EW-YOR :" 
 PRINTED AT THE ALBION OFFICE, 
 
 So. 3 Barclay- Street. 
 
 1843, 
 
.GfTL 
 
THE BOUNDARY QUESTION REVISED; 
 
 AND DR. FRANKLIN'S RED LINE SHOWN TO BE THE RIGHT ONE 
 
 BV A BRITISH SUBJECT. 
 
 *' I mean these remarks for the People of America. I may be told it is too late. If 
 so, I shall reply, that it is never too late to tell the truth to a reasonable audience ; 
 and I hope the result in this case will bear out that opinion."— Burke's Parliamentary 
 Speeches. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The Boundary question has become matter of history. Diplomacy had done 
 its work, in arguing and explaining it. The treaty of 1842 compromised what 
 ;he treaties of 1783, 1794, 1815, and the award of the King of the Nether- 
 lands in 1831, had left unsettled. Cut scarcely had the two contracting na- 
 tions ratified the final deed when the voice of discontent was raised, and doubts 
 as to the construction of some portions, and dissatisfaction at the tenor of 
 others, were heard in boih hemispheres. Thus another important document 
 attests, the almost unavoidable imperfections of those very acts, which require 
 the clearest exercise of human wisdom. 
 
 The particular branch of the treaty of Washington, to which the following 
 pages have reference, is the North-Eastern Boundary between the United States 
 and the British North American possessions. 
 
 Almost every one has heard of the discovery of certain maps relating to that 
 subject, only made known to the public since the ratification of the treaty by 
 the Presdent and Senate of the United States, and the Queen of Great Britain. 
 The existence of these maps has been so made known by the publication in the 
 G:obe newspaper, at Washington, in December, 1842, of the speeches of Mr. 
 Puves, chairman of the Committee of Foreign Affairs, on the 17th of August 
 preceding, and of other senators, during the debate on the question of the rati- 
 fication of the treaty. 
 
 The map of chief interest is one discovered, by Mr. Jared Sparks, in tho 
 trchives of the Bureau des Affaires Etrangeres in Paris, in the year 1S41 ; and 
 ->y him transmitted to Mr. Webs'er, Secretary of State at Washington, pre- 
 vious to the negociation held there with Lord Ashburton. in the early part 
 of 1842. y 
 
 The following extract from Mr. Sparks' communication to Mr. Webster ex- 
 plains the transaction : — 
 
 " While pursuing my researches among the voluminous papers relating to 
 the American Revolution in the Archives des Affaires Etrangeres in Paris, I 
 found in one of the bound volumes an original letter from Dr. Franklin to 
 Count de Vergennes, of which the following is an exact transcript : — 
 
 "Passy, December 6, 1782. 
 
 " Sir : I have the honor of returning herewith the map your Excellency senf. 
 me yesterday. I have marked with a strong red line, according to your desire, 
 the limits of the United States, as settled in the preliminaries between the 
 British and American plenipotentiaries. 
 
 " With great respect, I am, &c, 
 
 " B. FRANKLIN." 
 
 '• This letter was written six days after the preliminaries were signed ; and 
 if we could procure the identical map mentioned by Franklin, it would seem to 
 afford conclusive evidence as to the meaning affixed by the commissioners to 
 the language of the treaty on the subject of the boundaries. You may well 
 suppose that I loat no time in making inquiry for the map, not doubting that it 
 would confirm all my previous opinions respecting the validity of our claim. 
 
In the geographical department of the Archives are sixty thousand maps and 
 charts ; but so well arranged with catalogues and indexes, that any one of them 
 may be. easily found. After a little research in thn American division, with the 
 aid of the keeper, T came upon a map of North America, by D'Ariville, dated 
 1746, in size about eighteen inches square, on which was drawn a strong red \ 
 line throughout the entire boundary of the United States, answering precisely 
 to Franklin's description. The line is bold and distinct in every part, made 
 with red ink, and apparently drawn with a hair-pencil, or a pen with a blunt 
 point. There is no other coloring on any part of the map. 
 
 " Imagine my surprise on discovering that this line runs wholly south of the 
 St. John, and between the head waters of that river and those of the Penobs- 
 cot and Kennebec. In short, it is exactly the line now contended for by Great 
 Britain, except that it concedes more than is claimed. The north line, after 
 departing from the source of the St. Croix, instead of proceeding to Mars Hill, 
 stops far short of that point, and turns off to the west, so as to leave on the 
 British side ail the streams which flow into the St. John, between the source of 
 the St. Croix and Mars Hill. It is evident that the line, from the St. Croix to 
 the Canadian highland, is intended to exclude all the waters running into the 
 %St. John. 
 
 " There is no positive proof that this map is actually the one marked by 
 Franklin ; yet, upon any other supposition, it would be difficult to explain the 
 circumstances of its agreeing so perfectly with his description, and of its being 
 preserved in the place where it would naturally be deposited by Count de Ver- 
 gennes. I also found another map in the Archives, on which the same bound- 
 ary was traced in a dotted red line with a pen, apparently colored from the 
 oth^r. 
 
 " I enclose herewith a map of Maine, on which I have drawn a string black 
 line, corresponding with the red one above mentioned." 
 
 WJien Mr. Rives brought forward, during the debate on the treaty, this com- 
 munication of Mr. Sparks, Mr. Benton informed the Senate that he could pro- 
 duce a map of higher validity than the one alluded to. He accordingly re- 
 paired to the library of Congress, and soon returned with a map, of which an 
 account is given in the following extract from the published speech of Mr. 
 Rives : — 
 
 " A map has been vauntingly paraded here, from Mr. Jefferson's collection, 
 in the zeal of opposition, (without taking time to see what it was), to confront 
 and invalidate the map found by Mr. Sparks in the Foreign Office at Paris ; but 
 the moment it is examined, it is found to sustain, by the most precise and re- 
 markable correspondence in every feature, the map communicated by Mr. 
 Sparks. The Senator who produced it could see nothing but the microscopic 
 ' dotted line running on in a north-easterly direction ; but the moment other 
 eyes were applied to it, there was found in bold rdief, a strong red line, indi- 
 cating the limits of the United States, according to the treaty of peace, 
 and coinciding minutely and exactly with the boundary traced on the map of 
 Mr. Sparks. That this red line, and not the hardly visible dotted line, was in- 
 tended to represent the limits of the United States according to the treaty of 
 peace, is conclusively shown by the circumstance that the red line is drawn 
 on the map all around the exterior boundary of the United States, through the 
 middle of the northern Lakes, thence through the Long Lake, and the Rainy 
 Lake to the Lake of the Woods ; and from the western extremity of the Lake 
 of the. Woods to the river Mississippi ; and along that river to the point where 
 and boundary of the United States, according to the treaty of peace, leaves it, 
 the thence, by its easterly course, to the mouth of the St. Mary's, on the 
 Atlantic." 
 
 "Here, then," continued Mr. Rives,' "is a most remarkable and unforeseen 
 confirmation of the map of Mr. Sparks, and by another map of a most im- 
 posing character, and bearing every mark of high authenticity. It was printed 
 and published in Paris, in 1784, (the year after the conclusion of the peace), 
 by Lattre, engraver of maps, &c, to the King of France. It is formally enti- 
 tled on its face, 'A map of the United States of America, according to the 
 Treaty ol Peace of 1783.'— (' Carte des Etats Unis de VAmeiiaue, suivant 
 
ie Tra>tc de Paix de 1783.') It is dedicated and presented (' dcdice ct prt- 
 scntee,') to his Excellency Benjamin Franklin, Minister Plenipotentiary of the 
 United States of America, near the court of France,' and while Dr. Franklin 
 vet remained in Paris, for he did not return to the United States till the spring 
 of the year 1785. Is there not, then, the most plausible ground to argue that 
 this map, professing to be one constructed ' according to the treaty of peace of 
 1783,' and being 'dedicated and presented' to Dr. Franklin, the leading ne- 
 eociator who conducted that treaty, and who yet remained in Paris while the 
 map was published, was made out with his knowledge and by his directions ; 
 and that, according as it does identically with the map found by Mr. Sparks in 
 tie archives of the Foreign Affairs at Paris, they both partake of the same 
 presumptions in favour of their authenticity." 
 
 During this debate in the Senate, Mr. Benton refused altogether to believe 
 in the authenticity of the maps alluded toby Mr. Sparks ; but he observed tha<- 
 " if they were really authentic, the concealment of them was a fraud on tho 
 British, and that the Senate was insulted by being made a party to the fraud." 
 And further, that " if evidence had been discovered which deprived Maine of 
 the title to one- third of its territory, honor required that it should be made 
 known to the British." 
 
 Mr. Woodbury and Mr. Buchanan, in their speeches, seemed to consider 
 the maps discovered by Mr. Sparks as merely shewing the old boundaries 
 claimed by France in her colonial disputes with Great Britain. But this opi- 
 nion is refuted by the fact, that the red line on the map. supposed to have been 
 traced by Franklin, as well as on the one produced by Mr. Benton, goes out to 
 sr a beyond the exterior bounds of the American continent, in accordance with 
 the treaty of 1783, which gives twenty leagues out beyond the sea-coast, or 
 the jurisdiction of the United Slates. 
 
 Since the existence of these maps was thus made known to the public, it 
 has been understood that another map, which formerly belonged to Baron 
 Steuben, a Prussian officer in the service of the United States, but which has 
 been for many years in possession of a gentleman of New York, has been 
 transmitted to the State Department in Washington ; and that it also shews a 
 line in strict accordance with those before mentioned, and with the British 
 claim. 
 
 Later-still, a pamphlet has been published in London, by Mr. G. W. Fea- 
 therstonhaugh, (Feb. 3d, 1843), which contains the following statement : — 
 
 " Shortly after the departure of Lord Ashburton (for America), an ancient 
 map, which had apparently been hid away for near sixty years, was discovered 
 in one of the public offices, with a red line drawn upon it, exactly conforming 
 to the British claim ; and, upon a careful consideration of all the circum- 
 stances connected with it, no doubt was entertained that that map was one of 
 the maps used by the negociators of the treaty of 1783, and that the red li;:o 
 inarke'i upon it, designated the direction of the boundary they had established. 
 But this map was not signed, and could not be authenticated. A map, how- 
 ever, engraved in 1785, only a year, perhaps, after the ratification of the 
 treaty of 1783, by W. Faden, ceographerto the king, was taken to the United 
 States by Lord Ashburton. This was evidently copied from an official map, 
 and probably from the one last mentioned. It had the boundary line traced in 
 the copper, and was coloured exactly in the same direction with the red lino 
 on the map that CGuld not be authenticated, running from the ^'t. Croix along 
 the highlands south of the St John, and thence to the Lake of the Woods, ac< 
 cording to thelerms of the treaty."* 
 
 * An intelligent gentleman in Boston called the attention of the author to the men- 
 tion of another map with a red line, in connection whh ihe negociation of JTS2. and 
 which he supposed to be identical with i he one discoveicd by Mr. Sparks. In rtfe- 
 rence to this map, there is in tho official correspondence of John .lav, (one of the com- 
 missioners with Dr. Franklin, Mr. Adams, and Mr. Lauren?, for the United States), an 
 account of a conference between him and Count d'Aramia. the Spanish minister at 
 Paris, in July, 178-2, in which it was agreed-that the Count shcu'd s.>nd him a map. with 
 a red line traced on it. in accordance with the boundary proposed by Spain for the 
 western portion of Ihe United Slates. 
 
 "A few days afterwards."' writes Mr. Jay, H he sent me '.he map, with his proposed 
 
6 
 
 We have thus an account of four maps recently discovered, coinciding in 
 the main point of the boundary line intended by the treaty of 1783, and all 
 confirmed, as to the authenticity of that line, by the semi-official map published 
 in London, in 1785, by the Geographer to the King, the correctness of which' 
 had never been objected to by the government of the United States at any 
 time after its appearance. 
 
 This semi-official map was submitted by Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster, 
 and by him communicated to the Maine Commissioners, as appears from a 
 passage in their letters to him, dated Washington, June 29th, 1842, in which 
 they say — "the map (Faden's) referred to is a small one, of small preten- 
 sions." 
 
 The circumstances thus brought to light have led to numerous comments in 
 the newspapers of England, the United States and Canada, it is not the object 
 of this publication to discuss the merits of the new question now at issue. No 
 opinion is offered as to whether the maps alluded to were good evidence in 
 favour of the British claim ; or whether the government of the United States 
 was justified in withholding all knowledge of those in their exclusive posses- 
 sion from Lord Ashburton during the negociations ; or whether Mr. Webster 
 was justified in communicating those maps to the Senate and the Maine and 
 Massachusetts Commissioners under a solemn injunction of secresy, and in 
 arguing against the claim of England, and resisting Lord Ashburton's first 
 proposal for a line of boundary far short of the line he considered England to 
 be justly entitled to, while the department over which Mr. Webster presided ■ 
 possessed evidence in favour of the English claim, which Mr. Rives declared { 
 to the Senate he considered "of a most imposing character." The discus- | 
 sion of those questions is left for others. The object of the author in this brief 
 enquiry is to treat the subject as one of history. And he has been led to this i 
 publication from the recent promulgation of arguments, which not only impugn [ 
 the intellect and the information of Benjamin Franklin, but which also imply, : 
 in contempt of all former reasoning on the part of Great Britain and in despite j 
 of the several maps before alluded to, the belief that the claim of England had 
 no honest or equitable foundation. 
 
 The following is one of these articles containing such a line of argument ; | 
 and it is selected, as coming from a writer of respectability, and who has been 
 already well known for his researches into the boundary question. This article 
 is from the Boston Daily Advertiser, edited by Mr. Nathan Hale, (the brother- 
 in-law of Mr. Everett, United States Minister of London,) and is, it is believed, 
 from his pen. 
 
 The article quotes some remarks from the London Times, of February 4th, 
 1843, on the subject of what Mr. Hale calls "the wonderful discovery of the 
 red line map, as exhibited in Col. Benton*s speech and in Mr. Feathcrston- 
 haugh's pamphlet," and then continues as follows : 
 
 " With the existence of trie map above referred to, and of others probably 
 copied from it, we have of course been aware, since the publication by Mr. 
 Benton of his speech in the Washington G'obe, and even at an earlier date. 
 We supposed it probable, that some one like Mr. Featherstonhaugh, on the 
 other side of the Atlantic, would be disposed to make such a use of it, as it 
 seems has actually been made, and to represent it as affording some positive 
 and substantial evidence in support of the British claim, which as such, ought 
 
 line nrirked on it in red ink. He ran it from a lake near he confines of Georgia, but 
 east of the Flint River, to the confluence of the Kanawa -with the Ohio, thence round 
 the western shores of Lakes Erie and Huron, and thence round Luke Michigan to Lake 
 Superior.— Life of John Jay by his Son. Vol. //., p 472. 
 
 Mr. Jay further states that (Dr. Franklin agreeing with him that this line was prepos- 
 terous on the part of Spain), he gave the map to Count Veigenees on the JOth of 
 August. 
 
 It is almost needless to remark that this could not well be misl aken. bv any one giv- 
 ing a thought to the subject, for the map sent by Frankiin to Count de Vergennes, on 
 Dec. 6th. after the preliminaries of the treaty were signed, on whichwere marked the 
 boundaries of the whole of the United States, totally different to those here proposed 
 to the westward, and marking the line to the eastward and southward for twenty lea- 
 gues out to sea, in accordance with the treaty of 1783; that discovered by Mr. Spark* 
 being exactly so marked. 
 
7 
 
 to have been produced before the negociation was closed. We have forborne 
 to take any notice of it, until some use of it should be made, because we do 
 nn regard it as affording any evidence which ought to have any influence 
 whatever, on the mind of an inquirer possessed of the facts, as they are estab- 
 lished by the real and unquestionable evidence in the case. 
 
 " It is indeed a matter cf surprise, as is most justly remarked by Mr. Sparks, 
 that Dr. Franklin should thus have traced a part of the boundary line of tho 
 United States, as defined by the treaty which he had recently signed. It ia 
 singular that he should have executed this apparently simple and easy task so 
 carekssly as to have made such a blunder, as it unquestionably is, in making a 
 part of the boundary then deemed unimportant, but since magnified in impor- 
 tance by accidental circumstances. It will be remembered, that the extent of 
 the boundary traced on the French map by Dr. Franklin, by the " strong red 
 line," could not have been less in extent than five or six thousand miles, whilo 
 the portion of it which we assume to be erroneous was less than a hundred 
 and fifty, in a part of it which may well have escaped the attention of any one 
 not specia ly charged with the duty of understanding it. That Dr. Franklin did 
 either not understand the line that had been agreed upon, or that he, together 
 with the other negotiators, made a most egregious error in the language of the 
 treaty in which they undertook to describe it, is most apparent, to any one 
 who will compare the two. As exhibiting such a blunder on the part of Dr. 
 Franklin, this map is a remarkable and curious document ; but as atfording any 
 evidence of the meaning of the treaty, or of the actual intentions of the nego- 
 tiators, we do not regard it as deserving of the slightest weigh'. 
 
 "Those boundaries were discussed, agreed on, and defined, in the treaty, in 
 conformity with the previously existing disposition of the several tracts of 
 country, as described in charters, proclamations, commissions of Governors, 
 and acts of Parliaments; and whatever may have been the impression of Dr. 
 Franklin in regard to the boundary, when viewed on the map, his understand- 
 ing of the stipulations of the treaty undoubtedly was that it accorded with the 
 previously established boundaries of the several Provinces, as described in 
 the documents whose language is substantially recited jn the treaty. 
 
 " It would have been an absurdity, therefore, to suppose that the production 
 of this document would have had any influence in the negotiation had it been 
 produced — because in fact it ought not to have any, in any judgment to be 
 formed upon the question on which it is supposed to have a bearing. 
 
 " That a charge of fraud and trickery is founded upon the non-production of 
 such a paper as this, to which a fictitious importance has been given by a 
 variety of accidental circumstances, is not surprising, in such a man as Mr. 
 Featherstonhaugh, who, in the execution of an important public commission, 
 has manufactured a line of highlands where none exist. But we do not appre- 
 hend, that either the British or American public, will feel that there is anv 
 foundation for such a charge, when they discover, on investigation, how insig- 
 nificant is the argument— to make the most of it — which can be based upon 
 the red line drawn by the pen of Dr. Franklin. 
 
 14 Wc shall pursue the subject further hereafter, unless we shall find that it 
 has been taken up by some abler hand." 
 
 Now, the author of the following observations believes firmly that the claim 
 of Great Britain to the line of boundary so long contended for was in accord- 
 ance with the spirit, the letter, and the common sense of the treaty of 1783 ; 
 and aho with " all equity, good conscience and honour ;"* and that conse- 
 quently the red line traced on the map discovered by Mr. Sparks, and confirmed 
 by the several other maps which have simultaneously come to lighc, is the right 
 one. He, therefore, offers these pages to the public to show what he believes 
 to have been the rightful pretentions of England on the question, and the man- 
 ner in which the arguments of the American Secretary of State and of the 
 Maine Commissioners, during the negociation with Lord Ashburton, could hare 
 been replied to. 
 
 * The words of John Adams' letter to Lieutenant Governor Gushing, of Massachu- 
 setts, dated October 25, 17St, in reference to the river meant as the St. Croix, of the 
 treaty of 1783. 
 
Every word of the text of the following observations was written some 
 months before Mr. Sparks' discovery was known to the author, and during the 
 negociations at Washington, a few notes subsequently added will speak for 
 themselves. The manuscript was never shown to any citizen of the United 
 States until after the confirmation of the treaty by both Governments. For 
 although the writer was convinced of the justice of the British claim, he felt 
 that it would have been useless to discuss the question on mere theoretic 
 grounds of probability, no evidence then existing of force sufficient to satisfy 
 the immense majority of the American people that they were mistaken in their 
 unanimous belief in the validity of their own pretensions. Therefore it was, 
 that he was one of those who was most anxious for the compromise of a dis- 
 pute, which there seemed so little chance of otherwise terminating without a 
 national quarrel and a war. 
 
 The author rejoiced in the conclusion of the treaty of Washington. He 
 thought the terms of settlement good, under the circumstances of the case ; 
 and he hoped that the boundary was thenceforward forever mere matter of 
 history. The materials of this publication are selected from a great mass of 
 notes on the subject, accumulated during three years tolerably constant atten- 
 tion to it. They would never have been printed but for the revival of the 
 question by the recent discoveries. They are offered to the public not for the 
 provocation of argument, but to show an old truth in somewhat of a new aspec', 
 and by a series of easy probabilities, leading to the conviction that Franklin's 
 red line was the right one. They do not pretend to embrace the many inci- 
 dental questions which have risen from the main ones. But it is believed that 
 they will be found to condense and simplify the principal arguments ; and re- 
 ference will be frequently made to o'.her sources, for the information of thoso 
 who might like to consult them. 
 
 The object of all such enquiries as this should be the elucidation of truth. 
 Such object is alone worthy of two such nations as the United States and the 
 United Kingdom. For more than a quarter of a century they have both been 
 occupied in a laborious attempt to discover the real meaning of the most im- 
 portant document they ever jointly executed — the treaty which established the 
 independence of the one country, and was meant to secure the peace of both. 
 If, in such an enquiry, truth should be paramount to all other considerations, 
 candour is the best, if not the only means by which it could be reached. Let 
 argument or evidence tell as it may, it can be in the long run but for the com- 
 mon benefit ; and it is in the hope that some effect on the future may be pro- 
 duced by the following pages, which cannot now disturb the past, that '.he 
 author has resolved on making them public. 
 
 The manuscript of these observations has been communicated to several 
 American gentlemen who have taken part larjely in the discussion of the 
 question. Every one of those who have perused them has given the author 
 credit for sincerity in his treatment of the subject. He hopes that his printed 
 pages will be met in the same spirit ; and that they will, at any rate, give no 
 offence to those whom they may fail to convince. 
 
 Boston, March, 1843. 
 
OBSERVATIONS ON THE QUESTION OF THE BOUNDARY LINE 
 BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES, NEW BRUNSWICK AND' 
 CANADA. 
 
 From a minute examination into the merits of the Boundary question, I am 
 convinced that it admits of two diametrically opposUe opinions, on conscientious 
 grounds Reason and illustration have been brought to bear on either Bide 
 with a bewildering plausibility. But I hold that no power of sophistry could so 
 far pervert a series of positive truths, as to throw them into a chaos of doubt 
 in the minds of cand d and disinterested ei quircrs, if there was not an inhe- 
 rent obscurity in the questions at issue This goes far to absolve the persons 
 who have been officially concerned in this matter for the last quarter of a cen- 
 tury, from much of the odium which deservedly attaches to quibbling states- 
 men or pettifogging negociators. 
 
 A question like this should be examined broadly, and fairly discussed. It is 
 too important to admit of any narrow issue. The boundary between two ra- 
 tions does not come within the limits of retail dealing. Yet many of the pub- 
 lications to which this question has given rise, abound in all the littleness of 
 special pleading. This has necessarily involved many of the points in contra- 
 dictions and inconsistency. Few writers on either side have admitted the rea- 
 sonings of their opponents ; and some, on both sides, have i-n fact more than 
 once felt themselves forced to prove too much. The Americans have all 
 laboured to establish that the north eastern boundary line of the United States, 
 as fixed by the treaty of 1783, is identical with that which was traced by the 
 Royal Proclamation of 1763, and confirmed by the Quebec Act in 1774, esta- 
 blishing the boundaries between the then British provinces and Nova Scotia \a 
 and that the line they now insist on is identical with it. A - 
 
 British writers have differed among each other on this point ; some endea- 
 vouring to show that the line of the Proclamation of 1763 is not only different 
 from that of the treaty of 1733, but that the line now claimed by the United 
 States is different from both of them. Others pretend that the line of 1763, 
 and that of 1783, are exactly the same, and that the line now claimed by Eng- 
 land i3 identical with it. 
 
 Various contradictions have arisen from such conflicting opinions ; but they 
 do not affect the truths of the question. 
 
 I consider it necessary, in attempting to argue the various points of the 
 treaty of 1783, to place one's self as much as possibh in the position of the 
 framers of that treaty, reasoning as they may be supposed to have reasoned, on 
 such documents as were known to them, and with such views as to the physical 
 features of the country as they must be believed to have entertained. Later 
 researches and after discoveries ought not, I think, to affect the main question, 
 viz: What were the intentions of the framers of the treaty 1 (a) And data 
 which were unknown to them, though they may corroborate, ought not to be 
 suffered to shake our convictions, reasonably formed, as to what the framers of 
 the treaty knew, and what they meant to express. (/-■) 
 
 (a) See paiagraph 2, p. 14, of the Statement on the part of the United States submit- 
 ted to the King of the Netherlands, dated Washington, Jnne 1st, J 8 Id And if higher 
 authority be reqnired. the following extract from Vattel can furnish it — " Since the 
 sole object of a lawful interpretation of a deed ought to be the discovery of the thoughts 
 of the authors of thatdeed, whenever we meet with any obsrurhy in it, we are to con- 
 sider what probably were the ideas of those who drew up the deed, ai d to interpret it 
 accordingly." 
 
 (6) To prove the great difficulty of understanding the intentions of the framers of 
 treaties, from the dry wording of the tieaties themselves, we have on y to refer to the 
 difference now existing between the governments of the United States and Great Bri- 
 tain, as to Art. V11I of the Treaty of Washington, executed a few months back— (9th 
 August, 1842.) Arguments are put forth by the President, to prove that England aban- 
 doned her views of the right of visitation, because no mention is made o it in the 
 above named article. But when trie British negociators assumed that the intention of 
 England in the treaty T of :783 was to maintain the conrection between their provinces, 
 to secure the whole course of the river St. John in tnese provinces &c , they were in- 
 variably met by the argument, that we must look to the letter of the treaty, in which 
 those objects have no mention. See statement on the part of the United States, p . 2? . 
 
We can only reach their intentions, to a certain extent, by conjecture. But 
 this must not be objected to as a mere flight of fancy. Imagination, founded] 
 on probabilities, is reasoning. It is, moreover, reasoning of the highest order, j 
 For by its ingenuity, in tracing analogies and penetrating motives, it becomes j 
 far superior to that process which is confined to the classification of facts, or the 
 arrangement of things evident, and relative to which there can be no doubt. 
 
 I will now briefly state the main points of the controversy : 
 
 The Royal Proclamation, before alluded to, was issued on the 7th of Octo- 
 ber, 1763, the whole of Canada, and all the possessions claimed by France in 
 that portion of North America having been ceded to Great Britain, by the treaty 
 of peace between the two countries of the month of February preceding. 
 
 The object of this proclamation was the establishment of the colony, pro- 
 vince, or government of Quebec, including the country subsequently called 
 Lower Canada ; and the boundaries of that government were, by said procla- 
 mation, fixed as follows : 
 
 " Bounded on the Labrador coast by the river St. John ; (c) and from thence 
 by a line drawn from the head of that river, through the Lake St. John to the 
 south end of Lake Nipissing, from whence the said line, crossing the river St. 
 Lawrence and Lake Champlain, in forty-five degrees of north latitude, passes 
 along the highlands which divides the rivers that empty themselves into the 
 said river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the sea, and also along the 
 north coast of the Bay des Chaleurs and the coast of the Gulf of St. Law- 
 rence, to Cape Rosiers ; and from thence, crossing the mouth of the river St. 
 Lawrence, by the west end of the island of Anticosti, terminates at the afore- 
 said river St. John." 
 
 The boundaries of the province of Quebec were enlarged in another quarter 
 by the Act of Parliament of 14 George III. chap 83, (1774,) commonly called 
 the Quebec Act. But those adjacent to Nova Scotia and Massachusetts, were, 
 by that act, defined in words nearly similar to those used in the proclamation 
 of 1763. 
 
 By Article I. of the Treaty of 1783, His Britannic Majesty acknowledged 
 the thirteen United Slates therein mentioned, to be free, sovereign, and inde- 
 pendent States ; and relinquished all claims to the government, propriety, and 
 territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof. 
 
 Massachusetts Bay was one of those States. A very important question, 
 therefore, in the true understanding of the Boundary question, is, what were, 
 at the time of the negociations which ended in the Treaty of 1783, the acknow. 
 ledged and admitted territorial rights of the province of Massachusetts Bay 1 
 
 Article If. of the Treaty of 1783 is as follows : 
 
 " And that all disputes which might arise in future on the subject of the 
 boundaries of the United States may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and de- 
 clared that the following are and shall be their boundaries, viz : from the north- 
 west angle of Nova Scotia, viz : that angle which is formed by a line drawn 
 due north from the source of the St. Croix river, to the highlands ; along the 
 said highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river 
 St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic ocean, to the northwest- 
 ernmost head of Connecticut river ;***** 
 
 " 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 rivers that fall into the Atlantic 
 ocean from those which fall into the river St. Lawrence : comprehending all 
 islands within twenty leagues of any part of the shores of the United States, 
 and lying between lines to be drawn due east from the points where the afore- 
 said boundaries between Nova Scotia on the one part, and East Florida on tho 
 other, shall respectively touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic ocean ; ex- 
 cept such islands as now are, or heretofore have been, within the limits of the 
 said province of Nova Scotia." 
 
 The above extracts from Article II. of the treaty of 1783 contain the germ 
 of the long dispute between England and the United State3. No less than 
 
 (c) Nut the liver of the same name which falls into the Bay of Fundy, but a stream 
 vrhich falls into the mouth of the river St. Lawrence. 
 
11 
 
 five points therein mentioned led to directly opposite opinions between the two 
 governments, viz : 
 
 1st. The North West angle of Nova Scotia. 
 2d. The true source of the St. Croix river. 
 3d. The Highlands. 
 
 4lh. The northwesternmost head of Connecticut river 
 5th. The distinction between the Atlantic ocean and the Bay of Fundy. 
 The United States have contended that the N. W. angle of Nova Scotia of 
 the treaiy of 1783 is to be found at a spot 145 miles nor.h of ihe source of the 
 r'ver St Croix ; that is to the north of the river St. John, which falls into the 
 Bay of Fundy, and of the river Restigouche which falls into the Bay of Cha- 
 leurs. 
 
 One American writer(d) on the subject, however, contends that the Resti- 
 gouche ought not to be considered as included among those rivers which empty 
 into the Atlantic ocean, and that consequently the due north line from the 
 Eource of the Si. Croix, should instead of intersecting the Restigouche, stop at a 
 point terminating on the Highlands south of it, and full fifty miles south^of the 
 point to which it has been run by the government of the state of Mane. 
 
 These opposing opinions would pretty clearly indicate that the North West 
 angle of Nova Scotia was not a positive and well authentic geographical posi- 
 tion even after the date of the tr aty of 1783. It is admitted on all hands that 
 previous to the date of that document the N. W. angle of Nova Scotia might 
 have been sought for on the banks of the river St. Lawrence, in accordance 
 with the ancient boundaries of the colony of Massachusetts Bay according to 
 its charter dated 1691, and at the source of the river St John according to the 
 propositions made by the Congress ol the United States in view to a negotia- 
 tion for a 'reaty of peace with Great Brittain in 1779. 
 
 England has, however, all along maintained that the point designated in the 
 treaty of 1783 as the N. W. angle of Nova Scotia (but which is, correctly 
 speaking, only the N. E. angle of the United States) is to be found where the 
 due north line from the river St. Croix strikes the ridge of Highlands which 
 are to be fuund upwards of one hundred miles south of those claimed as the 
 true boundary by the United States. 
 
 Amidst this diversity of assertion it was all along clear that the main object 
 was to ascertain what was the line of Highlands meant by the framers of the 
 treaty of 1783, and at what particular portion of them a line drawn due north 
 from the river St. Croix wou'd strike. 
 
 Jn order to accomplish this object it was agreed by the treaty of amity, com- 
 merce, and navigation of 1794, commonly ca led Jay's treaty, that comms- 
 sioners should be appointed by each nation to ascertain what was the river de- 
 signated in the 10th Article of the treaty of 1783. Five- commissioners were 
 accordingly named ; and on their disagreeing an umpire was chosen, who re- 
 commended a compromise, and in consequence the most northern source of 
 the river was fixed on as the starting point whence to trace the due north line 
 to the Highlands. 
 
 From this most erroneous, though well meant decision, ail the subsequent 
 embarrassments arose. 
 
 Had the due north line been traced from the westernmost of the Scoodiac 
 lakes, in accordance with the oiiginal grant of Nova Scotia to Sir Wm. Alex- 
 ander of 1621, and which had ever been considered and followed as the real 
 title deed lor ascertaining the boundaries of the Province, the line must have 
 struck " the Highlands," as no doubt the framers of the treaty of 1783 meant 
 it to do at a point about twenty miles distant, which would have left no room 
 for further contest. But by starting from the northern source of the St. Croix, 
 the line, running considerably to the eastward, passed clear of the Highlands, 
 and only came close to a detached elevation called " Mars Hill," which was 
 but an isolated point geologically connected with the main chain of Highlands, 
 but not forming a visible portion of it. 
 
 (d) This writer is Mr. Nathan Hale, quoted in the introductory pages for an opinion 
 respecting the map discovered by Mr. Jared Sparks, and the article in which he thus 
 gives his opinion a«s to the true situation of the N. W. angle of Nova Scotia is to be 
 found in the American Almanac for 1840. 
 
12 
 
 At this point the British commissioners for running the due north line claim- 
 ed ihat it should stop, and that the range of Highlands westward to the h.ad 
 of Connecticut river formed the second boundary line of the treaty. 
 
 The American comti>i>sior;ers insisted that no actual ridge of Highlands 
 having been strurk by the due north line it should sill run on, intersecting the 
 river St. John and never stopping til it reached the highlands beyond the 
 source of the river Restigouche, and close to the river St. Lawrence, as before 
 mentioned. 
 
 Finding it impossible to conciliate these two conflicting claimers, the two 
 governments agreed, by the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, December 24, 
 1814, to provide for a final adjustment of the boundaries by the nomination of 
 two commissioners to ascertain ai d determ ne the d sputed points; and that 
 in the event of the commissioners differing a reference to a friendly sovereign 
 was to take place. 
 
 The commissioners appointed in con r ormity with the sa : d article could not 
 agree ; and on the 29th cf September 1827 the two powers signed a conven- 
 tion making provision for a reference, and the King of the Netherlands was 
 chosen, and he accepted the office of arbiter. 
 
 The statements and counter-statements on either side, laid before the royal 
 arbiter, were drawn up with consummate skill and ingenuity. These docu- 
 ments with their appendages and the award of the arbiter," printed but not 
 published, form a folio volume of abo it GiiO pages. 'I he diplomatic corres- 
 pondence, reports of commissioners, and various detached publications official 
 or professional, pamphlets, articles in reviews and newspapers, would almost 
 form a library. To attempt an abridgment of the whole, preserving eny tiling 
 like the spirit of the several arguments, would be altogether futile. ° 
 
 The King of the Netherlands delivered his award on the 10th of January 1831 , 
 at the Hague in Holland, to Sir Charles Bagot the British ambassador, and Mr. 
 Preble the American minister. The British minister accepted the award. 
 The American minister protested against it (January 12, 1S31) on the ground 
 that the arbiter had exceeded his powers in recommending a compromise, Ins 
 duty being confined to the fact of choosing one or the other of the adverse 
 claims(e ) 
 
 ^ Several years passed over in vain attempts at a settlement by ncociatiou. 
 New commissioners of survey and exploration were appointed ; new reports 
 made; new views brought, forward ; but nothing definitive was done till the 
 appointment of Lord Ashburton by the queen of Great Britain, on a special 
 mission to the U. itcd States, to settle this and other points of difference be- 
 tween the countries. His lordship arrived at Washington in April 1812. Four 
 commissioners from the state of Maine and three from Massachusetts repaired 
 to the scene of negociatiou on the 11th of June following ; and the negocia- 
 tions almost immediately afterwards begun between Lord Ashburton ad Mr. 
 Webster, United States Secretary of State, and through him with the seven 
 commissioners. 
 
 In the correspondence which ensued some of the o'd grounds of argument, 
 in connexion with the treaty of 1783, were entered on° snd four particular 
 subjects were discussed at some length, viz : 
 
 First, Is the Restigouche an Atlantic river 1 
 
 Second, What was meant by the American Congress in 1779, when they 
 instructed their commissioners to propose the river S°t John, from its source to 
 its mouth, as the eastern boundary between the United States and Nova 
 Scotia] 
 
 Third, Were the words "The Sea," as used in the Proclamation of 1763, 
 and the words " The Atlantic Ocean," as used in the second article of the 
 treaty of 1783, identical wi h each other ? 
 
 Fourth, Was it intended by the treaty of 1783, that the river St. John 
 should be included, in its entire course, within the British possessions ! 
 
 The consideration of these four points embraces the entire merits of the 
 
 (e) The author of these, observations happening to be at the Hague at that tame, 
 and enjoying the confidence of both the British ambassador and the American minis- 
 ter was thus early initiated into the respective meiits of the boundarv question. 
 
13 
 
 question so long in dispute, viz., What were the intentions of the framers of the 
 treaty of 1783 1 and if now proceed to notice them striatum. 
 
 I pass over the manifest geographical errors in the treaty, particularly in its 
 second article, which defined the boundaries. But I am satisfied that its 
 framers believed (in common with their contemporaries and the generation pre- 
 ceding them) that the country between the river St. Lawrence and the 
 ocean, which they were then about to portion out, was essentially a hilly, or 
 highland, country, and that there was running through it, from the head of 
 Connecticut river, for an extent of 70 or 80 miles up to the 46th degree of 
 north latitude, a line of Highlands, which at that point branched off into two 
 distinct ranges, one running to the northward, parallel to the course of the river 
 St. Lawrence, and the other considerably south of it, running to the N. E., 
 and tending towards the Bay of Chaleus(/.) 
 
 The first of these ranges, taken from ihe heads of the Connecticut river to 
 its termination near the bay of Charleurs, may be fairly considered, in general 
 terms, to separate the rivers emptying into the St Lawrence from those which 
 fall into the sea, including the Ristigouche and all rivers south of it. 
 
 The second or southern line of Highlands, from the heads of Connecticut 
 river to the heads of the St. Croix, absolutely separates the rivers flowing into 
 the St. Lawrence from those flowing into the Atlantic ocean, viz., Connecticut 
 river, the Androscoggins, Kennebec, and Penobscot. 
 
 The application to any ridge of highlands of the description " dividing, or 
 separating rivers" did not require that such ridge should so divide rivers in 
 every part of its course. It is sufficient if rivers flow from one side of the ridge 
 all through its course, and from both sides of the ridges in parts of its course. 
 
 Nor is it necessary that a well understood ridge of Highlands should be a 
 continuous chain of mountains from one end of its course to the other. Occa- 
 sional breaks in the general line of elevation may, and in fact, do always exist 
 without depriving the line of its character of a Highland Ridge. 
 
 Both the ridges of the disputed territory viewed in this aspect, amply bear 
 out the description of " Highlands dividing rivers." 
 
 I believe that the first or northern branch of Highlands formed the " High- 
 lands" designated bv the Proclamation of 1763 ; and that the second or south- 
 ern branch formed the " Highlands" meant by the treaty of 1783 (g.) 
 
 I think that the rivers alluded to in the Proclamation of 1763, and in the 
 treaty of 1783, as emptying into the St. Lawrence, were the St. Francis and 
 the Chaudiere : but that the small streams to the northward of the latter were 
 not considered as coming under the denomination of " rivers." 
 
 I think the words " the sea" were use i in the Proclamation to show that the 
 "Highlands" therein mentioned had reference generally to all the rivers of 
 Nova Scotia and Massachusetts ; but that the words " ihe sea" were not 
 meant to imply tha> the northern portion of those highlands, that is to say 
 from the 46ih degree of latitude upwards, divided from those rivers and their 
 sources ; other " rivers" emptying into the St Lawrence, the small streams in 
 that portion of the line of highlands being too insignificant to be designated as 
 rivers, in the broad geographical sense of the term. 
 
 In briefly stating mv own opinions, I do not attempt to explain or refute the 
 various contradictions and conflicting opinions of others who have examined 
 the subject, writien on it with so much talent, and given evidence of such 
 minute research. 
 
 My conviction is that the line designated by the Proclamation of 1763, is 
 nearfy identical with that claimed by the United States, and that the line 
 
 (/) See Goverm r Pownall's "Topographical description of the middle British American 
 colonies, published in 1776," in which lie expressly specifies two ridges " All the rivers which 
 hare their sources amidst the northern ridge of this great range, fall into Panada or St. Law. 
 rence river, as the St. Francis, Chaudiere, and many others, all which have their sources amidst 
 the southern ridges, fall into the Bay of Fundy, or into the main ocean." 
 
 This extract contains absoluie evidence as to the two ridges of highlands, and as to the dis- 
 tinction between the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic ocean. 
 
 (g-)To enter fully into the reasoning which has confirmed me in these opinions, would lead 
 me far beyond the limits I have piescribed to myself. It is sufficient to say, that the arguments 
 ot American writers as to the first point, and ot English writers as to the second, along with 
 nay own close examination of the various questions at iasue, have led me to tluse conclusions 
 
14 
 
 meant by the treaty of 1783 is nearly indentical with that claimed by Gre 
 Britain. 
 
 That "a New Boundary" was meant by the treaty of 1783, is, I thin 
 clearly demonstrable, for the following reasons : — 
 
 1st Because the minister, Mr. Townsend, positively asserted in the d 
 bates in the British Parliament, (February 17th, 1783,) that " a new line 
 boundary was intended by the treaty. 1 ' 
 
 2d. Because the variations in the wording of the treaty of 1783, from tr 
 language of the Proclamation of 1763, are obviously designed to show that 
 new boundary was intended. 
 
 3d. Because, had not a new boundary line been intended, the description i 
 the treaty would assuredly have followed, word for word, that of the Proch 
 mation of 1763 and of the commissions to the various Governors of Nov 
 Scotia. 
 
 4th. Because the domestic line of boundary, so to call it, between th 
 British Provinces designated by the Proclamation of 1763, would have bee 
 utterly and manifestly unfit for a boundary line between two independent na ! 
 tions, cutting off the communications between two of the provinces (Quebe.j 
 and Nova Scotia) which remained faithful to the mother country, and giving 
 territory between those two to a third province, (Massachusetts Bay) whicl' 
 had successfully revolted and shaken off its allegiance. 
 
 5th. Because all the negotiations and projects for peace, from 1779 tJ 
 1782 (h,) indisputably prove that the Congress of the United States neve' 
 imagined the possibility of England conceding, as a boundary between her pro 
 vinces and those which had successfully revolted, the entire line of the Pr jc j 
 lamation of 1763 : but that, on the contrary, ample documentary evidence n>! 
 toriously exists, to show that the Congress itself was the proposer of othe; 
 lines of boundary, and that it never attempted to propose an adherence to th« 
 provincial line designated in the Proclamation of 1763, the Quebec act M 
 1774, and in the commissions to the Governors of Nova Scotia. 
 
 6th. That the 11th article of the treaty of 1733, which defines the bounds 
 ries, although it contains several geographical enors, is yet most specific in de M 
 scribing the highlands which were to form one portion of the " new boundary.' 
 and in laying down what the framers of the treaty meant, as the point whii'h 
 was then to form the northeast angle of the United States, erroneously called 
 in that article, the northwest angle of Nova Scotia ; and 
 
 7th That the words of that 11th article of the treaty of 1783 can leave' 
 little, if any, doubt on the mind of a candid and careful enquirer that the south- 1 
 em ridge of highlands was the line meant a* that with which the intersection ' 
 of the due north line from the source of the St. Croix, was to form the ano-le i 
 from which the boundary was to be traced westward to the head of Connecti- 
 cut river. 
 
 I will now revert to the four branches of the subject particularly discussed 
 in the written communications between Lord Ashburton and the Maine Com- 
 missioners, through the medium of Mr. Webster. 
 
 With regard to the first of these questions, taken on its own merits, and to 
 refute the opinion of the Commissioners that the Restigouche is an Atlantic 
 river, it may be enough to refer to the article in the American Almanac, for 
 1840, communicated by Mr. Nathan Hale, and already alluded to. 
 
 Secondly, as to the pretension that the United States' Congress, in the in- 
 structions to their commissioners, in 1779, to propose the River St. John as 
 the boundary, meant to indicate the river Madawaska, as the northern branch 
 of the St. John, (i.) I must observe that this is not, as it appeared to Lord 
 Ashburton, " a new discovery," of the Maine Commissioners, (k.) The notion 
 was put forward in an article in the North American Review, for April, 1841 ; 
 but this pretension was originally started at page 28 of the "Definitive State- 
 ment" on the part of the United States, laid before the Kin* of the Nether- 
 lands. ° 
 
 (A) See the instructions from Congress to the Commissioners, dated 14th August, 1729— Secret 
 Journals, vol. 2. p. 225— and 15th June, 1781-Secret Journals, vol. 2, p. 445. 
 
 (»' ) See the lettter from the Maine Commissioners to Mr. Webster, June 29 1849 
 (i.) See Lord Ashburton's letter to Mr. Webster, July 11, 1842. 
 
15 
 
 Now, no map, I believe, calls the river Madawaska by any but its present 
 name, as a tributary, not a branch, of the St. John. On Mitchell's map, the 
 course of the St. John from the westward is clearly, though not accurately, 
 traced and named. This assumed northern branch has no name at all affixed 
 to it on Mitchell's map ; but in the United States Official Map, (by Dashiel) 
 of the State of Maine, and the adjacent British provinces, this river is called 
 the Matawaska ; and, referring to the '• Definitive Statement" of the American 
 Commissioners (Messrs. Gallatin and Wm. P. Preble) we find at pp. 83, 84, 
 that " the various upper branches of the river St. John have no other distinc- 
 tive names but those of West, Northwest, Southwest Branch, &c, while one 
 of them is exclusively distinguished by the name of South or Maine Branch." 
 Now as these designations have no possible reference to the Madawaska, Mr. 
 Preble appears thus to have in some measure refuted by anticipation the pre- 
 sent pretension that the Madawaska was considered a branch of the St. John. 
 But a still stronger evidence exists on this subject. On the 19th of January, 
 1765, a petition was addressed to the Governor of the Province of Quebec, on 
 the part of the tribe of Maracitte Indians, representing that they were en- 
 croached upon by the Canadian inhabitants hunting beaver on their lands — 
 M which tract begins at the Great Falls of St. John's, and runs as far as Fe- 
 misquata, including the Wolf river (or Riviere du Coup) and the river Mada- 
 waska, which rivers discharge themselves into the river St. John. See the 
 Quebec Gazette, Jan. 24, 1765. 
 
 But in another point of view this pretension of the Maine Commissioners is 
 untenable. The proposition of Congress to make the St John the boundary 
 was for the purpose of giving a boundary between the British provinces and 
 the United States, more satisfactory to England than the old domestic boun- 
 dary of the proclamation of 1763, and one more fitting to fulfil the great object 
 of securing an unobstructed communication between Nova Scotia and Canada. 
 Now a line from the source to the mouth of the St. John (supposing that 
 source to have been at the lake Medousa of Mitchell's map) would obviously 
 have been a worse boundary for the British possessions than the line due north 
 from the St. Croix to the Highlands near the St Lawrence. I f would have 
 given nothing towards the north of the least consequence to England, while 
 towards the south it would have given all the territory between the St. John 
 and the St. Croix to the United States. But the river St. John in its entire 
 extent (admitting its source to be, as laid down in Mitchell's map, far to the 
 westward of the Madawaska and Lake Medousa) would certainly have been a 
 better boundary for England than the domestic boundary of the proclamation 
 of 1763, because it would have given a considerable extent of country between 
 the highlands therein meant and the river St. John, in the entire of its upper 
 course. 
 
 There can be therefore no doubt as to what Congress meant. They meant 
 to propose the St. John of Mitchell's map, from its source pretty near the 
 northern or upper range of highlands ; (/.) and that being rejected bv England, 
 thev next sought out the next best boundary for the satisfaction of England. 
 
 What, then, did they next fix on I and what principle regulated their new 
 proposal 1 They undoubtedly fixed on the southern range of highlands, 
 dividing the rivers which flow into the St. Lawrence from those which empty 
 themselves into the Atlantic ; and that they specially meant, in article II., of 
 the treaty of 1783, to designate that southern range is, I think, nearly demon- 
 strable. 
 
 In pursuing this inquiry it must be observed that the two important phrases 
 " the Atlantic Ocean" and " the North- West angle of Nova Scotia," (as points 
 of description in the projected new boundary) were first used by the Ameri- 
 can Congress, in their instructions and proposals, and that this was their 
 
 (1.) The following extract from the correspondence of John Jay, seems to leave no 
 doubt on this point : 
 
 " on the 24tu of October, 1782, I dined at Passy with Dr. Franklin, where I found MK 
 Rayneval [(.'ouit de Versenne's principal s< eretary.] He asked us what boundaries 
 we claimed'! We told him the river St. John to the east, and ancient Canada, as de- 
 scribed in the Proclamation, to the north. He contested our right to such an extent k) 
 the north." Jaye Life and Correspondence, vol II. p. 402. 
 
16 
 
 origin. Also, that a great object in framing the Proclamation of 1763, and 
 the Treaty of 1783, had been to adopt natural boundaries — rivers and moun- 
 tains. Therefore, the range of highlands near the St. Lawrence, never having 
 been proposed by Congress, and the St. John river having been rejected by 
 Great Britain, the course of the river St. Croix and the nearest chain oi Hgh- 
 lands to it dividing rivers were selected, as preferable to any imaginary line 
 to be traced through the wilderness from the sources of that river to the 
 westward. 
 
 Again, it must be borne in mind that at no time between 1697, the date of 
 the treaty of Ryswick and 1783, had England admitted the claims of Massa- 
 chusetts Bay to the territory eastward of the Kennebec, but had always in- 
 sisted on the right of the crown to ihat extent, as a portion of the ancient pro- 
 vince of Sagadahock. And this may be a fitting place to advert to the claims 
 put forward by the colony of Massachusetts Bay for the extension of its terri- 
 torial rights, not only to the eastward but to the north as far as the river St. 
 Lawrence. The charter to the New Plymouth Company was dated 1606. 
 The territorial rights under this charte having been forfeited, the new charter 
 dated 1691 to the province of Massachusetts Bay restored them and extended 
 them to the province of Nova Scotia or Acadia, to the province of Sagadahock, 
 formerly granted by Charles II in 1664 to his brother the duke of York, and to 
 the province of Maine originally granted to Sir Ferdinande Gorges in 1639, 
 and purchased from him by the colony of Massachusetts in 1677. But these 
 being all merely war grants many of them subject to equal pretension of right 
 on the part of France, the claim of Massachusetts to Nova Scotia was nullified 
 by the treaty of Ryswick 1697, by which that province was restored to France, 
 and the grant of the Sagadahock territory was at the same time annulled. But 
 even if it were not so, the charter of 1691 (under which Massachusetts claim- 
 ed) gave no territorial rights to the colony farther northward than the heads of 
 the river Sagadahock or Kennebec. To understand the arguments which con- 
 firm this opinion the various documents just mentioned sbodd be consulted, as 
 well as the opinions of the law officers of the crown on several occasions for 
 above a century back, and of individuals more or less connected with the ques- 
 tion. 
 
 The principles which actuated the framers of the treaty of 1783, in as far as 
 the North Eastern boundary was concerned, were : 
 
 1st. T<i satisfy the territorial rights of the thirteen United States, the inde- 
 pendence of which was about to be acknowledged by Great Britain. 
 
 2d. To secure a free and uninterrupted communication between the pro- 
 vinces of Canada and Nova Scotia, which had remained loyal. 
 
 3d. To give to each country the free course of the great rivers emptying 
 into the sea in their respective territories, in conformity with the usage of all 
 nations; as examples of which it may be enough to cite the various negotia- 
 tions between France and England as to their American possessions, and be- 
 tween France and Spain, and the stipulation of the treaty which fixed on the 
 Pyrenean chain as the boundary between ihem.(m) 
 
 Now, what were the admitted territorial rights of thp province of Massachu- 
 setts Bay at the time of negotiating the treaty of 1783 ! 
 
 The claims of the United States to the boundary specified by the proclama- 
 tion of 1763 as the identical boundary traced by the treaty of 1783, rests on 
 the assumption that that proclamation and the commissions of the governors of 
 Nova Scotia defined explicitly the north eastern boundaries of Massachusetts 
 Bay, in defining the southern boundary of the province of Quebec and the 
 western boundary of Nova Scotia And they further maintain that the treaty 
 of 1783 fully confirmed their title to those boundaries. 
 
 But there are two documents frequently and triumphantly referred to by the 
 United States and the State of Maine, to aid in proving that the northern range 
 of highlands was that intended by the proclamation of 1763, which while, in 
 
 (m) Dans de pareil cas, la regie la plus usitie et laplus ccnvenable, est o'etendre les 
 limites dans l'interieur des terres, jusqu'a Ja source des nvieres qui se dech .rgent a 
 la cote, e'est-a-dire ; que chaque nation ade son cote les eaux pendantes," &c. 
 
 Memorial of the Maiquis de la Galissoniere and M. de Silhoultte (commissioners of 
 the King of France) upon the limits of Acadie, dated 4th October, 1751. 
 
17 
 
 my opinion, fulfilling that object, defeat altogether the claim in favour of the 
 assumed right of Massachusetts Bay, founded on that proclamation. 
 
 The first of these documents, the royal commission to Governor Wilmot of 
 Nova Scotia, dated 21st November, 1763, (the proclamation being dated the 
 7th of the preceding month) specifically states that although the westward 
 boundary of the province is formed "by the St. Croix and a line drawn due 
 north from its source to the southern boundary of the colony of Quebec," yet 
 that the said province of Nova Scotia " doth of right extend as far as the river 
 Pentagoet or Penobscot." 
 
 This clearly establishes that wha'ever might be the pretensions of Massa- 
 chusetts Bay, they were not confirmed, or even admitted by (he proclamation 
 of October 1763, or the commission of Montague Wilmot of November 1763, 
 to extend further eastward than the river Penobscot, or further northward than 
 the sources of that river ; the crown reserving to itself, while restricting the 
 limits of the province of Nova Scotia, the right of territorial jurisdiction be- 
 tween the St. Croix and the Penobscot, maintaining its right to erect the ter- 
 ritory between them into a separate government. (n) 
 
 The second of the documents so triumphantly brought forward by the United 
 States is the letter from Mr. Jaspar Manduit, agent of Massachusetts Bay, to 
 the Secretary of the province, dated London, 9th June, 1764, eight months 
 subsequent to the date of the proclamation. 
 
 It is by that letter incontestibly proved, that even then negotiations were 
 going on between the said agent and the commissioners of the Board of Trade, 
 for the final establishment of the territorial rights of the province of Massachu- 
 setts Bay. The province was, even at that date, urging its claims under its 
 disputed charter to the " lands on the river St. Lawrence," as well as the " lands 
 between the Penobscot and St. Croix." It is, therefore, evident that the pro- 
 clamation of 1763 was issued without any reference whatever to the final 
 boundaries of the province of Massachusetts Bay ; that the government of 
 Great Britain only meant by that proclamation as far as it had reference to the 
 tract of country now in question, to establish the southern boundary between 
 the colony of Quebec and Nova Scotia, leaving the pretensions of the province 
 of Massachusetts Bay to the unsetiled territory towards the north and east of 
 the Penobscot wholly in obtyance, and reserving to the crown the right to erect 
 said territory into a separate province if it thought fit so to do, as was (several 
 years subsequently) strongly recommended and urged by Governor Hutchin- 
 son. How the negotiation of Mr. Manduit in 1764 terminated there exists no 
 proof; but it is quite clear that its result did not lead to an acquiescence with 
 his demands. 
 
 The Quebec act of 1774, with respect to the portion of boundary now in 
 question, merely repeated the definition of the proclamation of 1763. The 
 principle of right on the part of the crown to the Sagadahock territory, between 
 the St. Croix and the Penobscot, laid down in Wilmot's commission, was never 
 abandoned ; and being once laid down it was not considered necessary or fit- 
 ting to repeat it in the commissions to succeeding governors. The words for- 
 merly quoted as inserted in Wilmot's commission were omitted in Governor 
 Parr's commission dated 29th July, 1782, which proves that they were not so 
 omitted by virtue, or in consequence of the treaty of 1783. The territory in 
 question was consequently a disputed matter between the crown and the pro- 
 vince of Massachusetts Bay, when the war of the Revolution broke out in 1775. 
 It is unnecessary to say that so it remained during the war.(o) 
 
 (r») It is to be remarked that the MS. letters of Governor Hutchinson of Massachu- 
 setts of the years 1770, l77l, 1772 bear i^ut this view m the amplest manner, and strongly 
 recommend that course to the Home Government. These letters, remaikableinmore 
 points than one, are preserved among the public records in Boston. 
 
 (o^ Extracts from an attested copy of a letter fiom Edmund Burke — then Parliamentary Agent 
 to the State of New York— to the Committee of Correspondence for the General Government of 
 New York, giving a full account of the debates in Parliament on the passage of the Quebec 
 Act, and the discussions on the various amendments. 
 
 Beaconfield, August 2d, 1774. 
 
 " I must observe to you that the proceedings with regard to the town of Boston, and the pro- 
 vince of Massachusetts bay, had from the beginning been defended ou their absolute necessity, 
 
18 
 
 And when the American Congeress thought they could advantageously 
 negociate for peace, what were their propositions with respect to "the rio-hts 
 of the Massachusetts Bay"?" Does not every line of the various instructions 
 to their commiss oners, from 1979 to 1782, prove that the rights of the Massa- 
 chusetts Bay were altogether matter of conjecture and argument 1 Did they 
 put forward the old claims to " the lands on the St. Lawrence 1 Did they even 
 ask for the Highlands of the proclamation of 1763 (the Southern boundary of 
 Quebec,) in their entire extent, as a boundary for the State of Massachusetts 
 Bay? No. Their first demand was, as we have seen, for the river St. John, 
 from its source to its mouth, and the Highlands to the northward, close ad- 
 joining ; and this proposal, notwithstanding the great desire of peace on the 
 part of England, was peremptorily rejected. 
 
 The British government, so far from swerving from their original pretensions 
 to the Sagadahock territory, or yielding to the cla ms of Massachusetts Bay, 
 tinder their then obsolete charter, all rights under whbh were really forfeited 
 by the cession of Nova Scotia to France, by the ireaty of Ryswick, in 1697, 
 actually claimed (during the negociations of 1782,) farther westward, on the 
 part of England than they had done in 1764; for they claimed first as far 
 westward as the Pisquataqua river, then as far as the Kennebec, refusing all 
 admission of the asserted rights of Massachusetts Bay to any territory °east 
 and north of that river. And as late as the 8th of October 1782, seeing the 
 extreme difficulty of coming to an understanding, one of Dr. Franklin's pro- 
 posals to Mr. Oswald was that " the true line east between the United States 
 and Nova Scotia, should be settled by commissioners after the war ;" which 
 proposal was at once rejected, by the British Government, to whom Mr. Os- 
 wald had referred it. 
 
 It was, then, with these pretensions that England went into the negociations 
 for peace in 1782; and it was in this admitted uncertainty as to territorial 
 rights, on the part of the United States, that the long-disputed boundaries 
 were, on the one hand, brought down, step by step, from the river St. Lawrence 
 to the Highlands near its banks ; then to the river St. John ; and finally to the 
 southern range of Highlands; and on the other hand, advanced from the Pis- 
 quataqua, to the Kennebec, thence to the Penobscot, and thence to the St. 
 Croix. The treaty of 1783 was, in fact, a treaty of compromise. 
 
 not only for the purpose of bringing that refractory town and province into proper order, but foi 
 holding an example of terror to the other colonies.'' 
 
 He then states the predominant feeling among men in power, to check the growth of the colo- 
 nies. He says, "it was not thought wise to make new grants of land, hut upon the weightiest 
 considerations, if at all, prerogative was to be strengthened as much as possible." 
 
 He continues, "I next inquired upon what principle the Board of Trade would, in the future 
 discussion which must inevitably and speedily arise, determine what belonged to you and what 
 to Canada. 
 
 "I was told that the settled uniform doctrine of the Board of Trade was this : that in ques 
 tionsof boundary when the jurisdiction and soil in both the litigating provinces belonged to the 
 Crown, there was no rule but the King's will, and that ho might allot as he pleased in both 
 the one and the other. They said also, that, under these circumstances even where ihe King had 
 nctually adjudged a territory to one province he might afterwards change the boundary, or if he 
 thought fit erect the parts into separate and new governments at his discretion. They al'edged 
 the example of Carolina, first one province then divided into two separate governments, and to 
 which afterwards had a third, lhat of Georgia, taken from the southern division of it." * * 
 
 "Although doubting the soundness of some of these principles, at least, in the extent in 
 which they were laid down, 1 certainly had no cause to doubt but that the matter would always 
 be determined upon these maxims by the Board of which they were adopted. The more clearly 
 their strict legality was proved, tne more uneasy I became of their consequences. By this bill a 
 new province under an old name, was in fact erected— the limits settled by the Proclamation 
 of 1763, were cancelled. On your side a mere construc'ive boundary was established ; and the 
 construction when examined, amounted to nothing more than the King's pleasure. 
 
 " I did not press to have the line called the boundary between New York and Canada, be- 
 cause we should again fall into discussion about the bounds of the other colonies. It would be 
 asked why the line along Nova Scotia, New Hampshire, and the northern Massachutetts claim 
 was not called the boundary of the Provinces as well as of New York 7 It would be said that 
 the ict was to settle a constitution for Quebec, and not for adjusting the limits of the colonics : 
 and in the midst of this wrangle the whole object would have infallibly escaped." 
 
 This letter has never yet been published, it was communicated to me by a friend, forming a por. 
 tion of the vast store of materials collected by him from public and private sources, for the com- 
 pletion of a work, the three already published volumes of which have secured to him the fore- 
 most place among American historians. This letter, carefully considered, in reference to the 
 claims put forward by American Writers, that the Proclamation of 1763, and the Quebec act of 
 1774, in defining the southern boundaries of Quebec, defined the northern boundary of Massachu- 
 setts Bay, seems to me a conclusive refutation of those claims as matter of acknowleged right. 
 
19 
 
 The second principle in framing the treaty of 1783, was to secure the com- 
 munication between the provinces of Canada and Nova Scotia. Nothing short 
 of the last mentioned lines of boundaries could have thoroughly effected this ; 
 and thus it was that England insisted on these lines, and that the American 
 Congress, from whom the various proposals for boundaries emanated, modified 
 their several propositions to meet that object. 
 
 They first hoped that the river St. John would satisfy England on that point. 
 Finding their mistake, is it not preposterous to suppose that they would go buck 
 and propose for the first time the Highlands near the St. Lawrence, and the 
 line of provincial boundary as between Quebec and Nova Scotia - ? Assuredly 
 it is. And there is not an iota of evidence, to establish that such a proposition 
 was ever contemplated during the negociations. 
 
 Such a proposition, besides being altogether inadmissable as regards the 
 second principle before mentioned, would have been destructive to the third, 
 namely, the securing the free course of the rivers to the respective countries. 
 The St. John was cut across by the north line of the commissions to the gover- 
 nors of Nova Scotia; a matter of small importance, as long as the whole of 
 its course lay within the British Possessions; but a consequence not to be 
 contemplated, when part of those possessions were to be declared independent 
 of Great Britain. 
 
 Did England, when she yielded her claims to go westward to the Kennebec 
 or the Penobscot, ever dream of demanding a boundary line running east to 
 west, that would cut either of those rivers across, leaving their upper parts in 
 her territory, and their lower course and mouths in that of the United States'! 
 No. True to the principles which have invariably presided over the framing of 
 boundary lines, she accepted " the Highlands" which divided the sources of 
 those rivers from the sources of other rivers ; as the American Congress, acting 
 ©n the ;-arne obvious principle, when they found that the St. John could not be 
 ebtained as a line, had proposed the said highlands as the natural boundary that 
 would secure all the principles involved. 
 
 I may now observe that it was in the first proposition of Congress, namely, 
 for the St. John's river from its source to its mouth, r.s the north-eastern 
 boundary, that the words, '• rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean," were 
 first brought into use. These words were chosen advisedly and of necessity. 
 The words, " which fall into the sea," would have failed to convey a descrip- 
 tion of the restricted boundary agreed upon ; besides which, they had been pre- 
 viously and properly used in the Proclamation of 1763. The object now being 
 to show that a different line of highlands from those of the proclamation was 
 intended, and two lines being recognized at that day, the description of them 
 inserted into the 11th article of the treaty, was at once simple, and, as the 
 framers of the treaty no doubt thought, not to be misunderstood. 
 
 To imagine that "the sea," and "the Atlantic Ocean," as applied to the 
 two distinct ranges of highlands, were ever considered convertible terms, ap- 
 pears to me beyond belief. Let any candid enquirer look at any map, which 
 may be believed to have lain before the Congress, who proposed the line of high- 
 lands now in question. Are not the words "Atlantic Ocean," in connection 
 with the range of highlands from whence the rivers Connecticut, Penohscot 
 and Kennebec flow, so prominent that noo her couiJ be well used in describing 
 them clearly ; while the same Congress knew full well, that the words, " the 
 sea," formerly used to specify the northern line of highlands, could not, with- 
 out confounding both ranges, be applied in a description of the southern range, 
 with which they now had to deal. 
 
 if a different line of boundary from that of 1763 was not intended in 1783, 
 why alter the words, " the s^a," into the words, " the Atlantic Ocean I" Had 
 a larger range of boundary been intended, and had " the Atlantic" borne a 
 more extended sense than " the sea," the propriety of the change would have 
 been admitted at once. But the case was the very reverse ; and the manifest 
 object being to give a restricted boundary, and "the Atlantic" being evidently 
 a less extensive term, the change that was made seems so obviously required 
 by the circumstances of the case, that all further argumuit to prove its pro- 
 priety and necessity appears to me superfluous. But, for the sake of argument, 
 it may be still asked, why, if no change of boundary was meant, was Mitchell's 
 map, published in 1755, eight years anterior to the proclamation, and of course 
 
20 
 
 not showing the boundary specified in that document, alone used by the com- 
 missioners who framed the Treaty of 1783, in their official consultations toge- 
 ther, as it was proved to be by the testimony of John Adams 1 
 
 I think abundant reasons have been given to show, that the boundary line of 
 the Proclamation, and of the Quebec Act, could not have been intended by the 
 treaty ; but supposing even that the lines were identical, and that the wurds, 
 " the sea," and " the Atlantic," are synonimous, for what possible object could 
 the latter have been substituted for the former] It cannot be pretended that 
 this occurred accidentally, in a cautiously prepared, well considered, solemnly 
 executed, document. It must have been done by design ; and if so, there 
 must have been an object. To prove that the change was designedly made in 
 the treaty, we have only to look to the commissions of the governors of Que- 
 bec, subsequent to its date. In all of these the same change of words is 
 made ; " the Atlantic Ocean" being substituted for " the sea," in the descrip- 
 tion of the southern boundary of Quebec, proving, that instead of the highlands 
 which formerly formed the boundary, other highlands — and no one ckm be mis- 
 taken as to what other highlands — were substituted. But in the commissions 
 to the various Governors of New Brunswick, after the western portion of Nova 
 ►Scotia was formed into a separate province under that name no variation is 
 made from the wording of the previous commissions to the Governors of Nova 
 Scotia; the words being, invariably, "from the St. Croix due north to the 
 southern boundary of the province of Quebec.'''' 
 
 If, then, I would ask again, no change was made by the treaty of 1783 from 
 fche Proclamation of 1763, why did not the description of the eastern boundary 
 of the United States in the treaty merely mention " a line due north, from the 
 St. Croix to the southern boundary of the province of Quebec 1" Because the 
 southern boundary of Quebec was itself changed, from the northern range of 
 highlands to the southern ran. : e, and because it became neces-ary to specially 
 describe that southern range by words that proved the difference between 
 the two. 
 
 Bui it will be observed, that the words of the commissions of the Governors 
 of New Brunswick, after the treaty, remained the same as in those of the pre- 
 vious commissions to the Governors of Nova Scotia, becanse it was indifferent 
 to them where the southern boundary of Quebec lay. To it their proper juris- 
 diction extended, be it where it might. For the Governors of Quebec, how- 
 ever, the change was absolutely essential, because it brought down their juris- 
 diction from the northern to the southern range of highlands. It was, conse- 
 quently, necessary to specify, as is clearly done in their commissions subse- 
 quent to the treaty, the highlands, which had become the southern boundary 
 of the province. (p) 
 
 The framers of the treaty were, no doubt, satisfied that the range of southern 
 highlands was very clearly described by their being called "highlands sepa- 
 rating rivers that empty into the Atlantic ocean," in contradistinction to the 
 other well-known range, previously described as " highlands separating the 
 rivers that empty into the sea." Had the framers of the treaty foreseen any 
 possible plea of ambiguity in the change they made, they would, no doubt, 
 have designated the highlands as " the southern range," or have stated the par- 
 allel of latitude in which they had their course. It is to be regretted that they 
 did not so describe them ; but they cannot be blamed for the omission of what 
 they must have thought, under all the circumstances of the case, and in per- 
 fect understanding with each other, a mere waste of words. 
 
 The United States' authorities and the Maine commissioners contend that the 
 northern range of highlands answers the description of the Treaty of 1783, 
 that is to say, that it divides the rivers of the St. Lawrence from the Atlantic 
 rivers. Argued as a qnestion of logic, and admitting the major to include the 
 minor, perhaps that assertion may be true, for the Atlantic ocean is, no doubt, 
 a portion of the sea. But the framers of the treaty were not chopping logic. 
 
 [p] Great stress hns been laid by American writers on the disputes about jurisdiction existing 
 ever since the date of the treaty of 1783, between the provinces of Quebec Lor Lower Canada] 
 and New Brunswick. These disputes prove nothing but >t difference of opinion as to ihe extent 
 of jurisdiction; and that very difference shows, that the Governors of Lower Canada considered 
 that their rights under the treaty of 178J extended far to the southward of the southern boundary 
 Of Quebec according to the proclamation of 17( ; 3. 
 
21 
 
 They were describing territorial boundaries in geographical terms, taken from 
 the words printed on the map that lay before them ; and, assuredly, in that 
 point of view the northern highlands do not answer the description applied by 
 the treaty to the southern range ; nor could they do so in a geographical sense 
 unless the southern range, had happened to be entirely abraded, or swallowed 
 tt i by an earthquake. 
 
 The expression, "'the highlands which divide the rivers that empty into the 
 St Lawrence, from those which flow into the Atlantic ocean." of course means 
 nil the rivers. The phrase " the rivers" can mean nothing less Now, even 
 ?dmitting (again for argument sake), that the Risfigouche, the Miramichi, and 
 the St. John, are Atlantic rivers ; and, allowing that the northern range of 
 highlands separates them from some of the St. Lawrence rivers, it cannot be 
 pretended that it so separates the north and east branches of the Penobscot, 
 which, unquestionably, flows into the Atlantic from the southern range of high- 
 lands. It, therefore, appears that the northern range can have no pretension to 
 be considered the range of highlands described in he treaty, when viewed in 
 comparisonwkh the southern range, which does completely separate all the 
 rivers flowing into the St Lawrence, from all the river- Bowing into the At- 
 lantic. It must, I think, be admitted, that it doesfu!51 the brief, b ;t ample 
 description, given of it in the treaty of 1783 ; and bad the due north line from 
 the St. Croix been run, asmusthave been intended by the framers of the -treaty, 
 in accordance with the ancient boundary of Nova Scotia, mentioned in the 
 grant, (the model from which all the subsequent designations of boundaries has 
 been borrowed, (q) toSir WmAlexander, in 1621, from '■ the westernmost source" 
 of that river, no question could have arisen as to what highlands it would strike. 
 The manifest error made by the commissioners, under the treaty of amity, 
 1794, of adopting the northern branch of the St. Croix, instead of the west- 
 ernmost source, is not further insistedon here, though it may be fairly stated, 
 as the main cause of the long pending dispute, and as having given the prin- 
 cipal pretext for the claim set up by the United States. 
 
 I will not go further into the discussion as to the relative meanings of the 
 words " the sea," and " the Atlantic ocean." There is, only, one point dwelt 
 on by the Maine Commissioners, as proving them to be synonimous terms, and 
 which point was, long ago. made, in page 26 of the American statement, laid 
 before the King of the Netherlands, namelv, the passage in the proclamation 
 of 1763, quoted in the note of the Maine Commissioners of July 16, 1S42 (r) 
 
 This point does not, I think, penetrate very deep into the argument. Terms 
 to be synonimous, must be susceptible of being applied indifferently. Now, 
 if the positions of the two divisions of the passage quoted by the conmission- 
 ers be reversed, will the words sea and Atlantic bear transposition, and still 
 preserve the sense of the whole'? Certainly not. Every one knows that the 
 Atlantic ocean is part of the sea ; and that all rivers flowing into the Atlantic 
 flow at the same time into the sea, (as before admitted), and, therefore, a sen- 
 tence specifying " the Atlantic ocean" might, very appropriately, be referred to 
 in a subsequent sentence, in which it is called '■ the sea as aforesaid." But the 
 question now at issue, namely, the geographical application of the words "the 
 sea," and the " Atlantic ocean," in describing separate objects, when no way 
 whatever affected by this passage of the proclamation. The admirable rea- 
 soning of the British statements, "laid before the King of the Netherlands, on 
 the distinction between the Atlantic ocean and the Bay of Fundy. obviate the 
 necessity of all further remark on that branch of the subject ; though even that 
 reasoning might be strengthened by a reference to the usual descriptions in the 
 geographies and gazetteers of rivers flowing into the Bay of Biscay, in con- 
 tradistinction to others flowing into the sea. or the Atlantic ocean. 
 
 But as one individual, an agent on the English side of the dispute, has been 
 
 \g" Pep statement on the part of the United States, page 16. 
 
 fr] " No jjovernor of cur other colonic or plantations in America do presume to grant wa- 
 rrants of survey, or pass patents for any lands beyond the heads or source* of any of the rivers 
 which fill into the Atlantic Ocean, from the west, or north west " &e. And the proclamation 
 then proceeds to declare that the !;in<r docs reserve under his sovereignty and dominion, for the 
 use of the Indians, "all the lands and territories lying to the westward of t'ie sources of the 
 rivers which fall into the sea from the west and north-west, as aforesaid, ' &rj 
 
22 
 
 quoted in the American il statement'' before alluded to, as having used the ex- 
 pression "rivers which fall into the sea or Atlantic ocean," 1 will just refer to 
 the American map of the State of Maine by Osgood Carlton, (founded on the 
 first survey of the country subsequent to the treaty of 1783,) which in its title 
 professes to show the course of the rivers flowing into " the Atlantic ocean and 
 the Bay of Fundy."(s) 
 
 These individual errors, discrepancies, or admissions, or whatever else they 
 may be called, are most numerous on the part of the agents at both sides of the 
 question, and cannot affect the real principles at stake, which are to be tho- 
 roughly understood only by long and minute investigation of the subject. 
 
 I will add a word or two with respect to maps, as they have been brought 
 into the late discussion. If Faden's map of 1785, which traces the boundary 
 line in accordance with ihe British claim, was influenced by his appointment to 
 be Geographer to the King, (as insinuated by the Maine Commissioners, (t) ) it, 
 at any rate, proves that, even within two yea-s after the ratification of the treaty 
 of 1783 England put forth the claim to the disputed territory, which it has been 
 over and over asserted on the part, of the United States, she never dreampt of 
 putting forward until during the negotiations for the treaty of Ghent in 1814. 
 
 Passing by, however, the numerous maps brought forward in evidence on 
 cither side, I must remark that one map has been often alluted to, the produc- 
 tion of which would have given me more satisfaction than all the others put to- 
 gether. That is Dr. Franklin's oven map, a section of which, containing the 
 1 ne of boundary marked out with his own hand, was sent by him to Mr. Jeffer- 
 son, then Secretary of State, with a letter dated Philadelphia, April 8th, I 790. 
 This letter, the last public one which, I believe, he wrote, may be found in the 
 last page, vol. 6th and last, of Duane's edition of Franklin's works, Philadel- 
 phia, 1827. 
 
 To see this original section of so remarkable a document in this controversy, 
 was one of my chief objects in going to Washington in April, 1840, soon after 
 I began to study this subject. The late Mr. Forsyth, then Secretary of State, 
 assured me that the map was not to be found in the Department. (m) I thought 
 it strange that so important a document should have been lost ; but I was shown 
 by Mr. Forsyth and some gentlemen in his office, a large map by Mitchell, 
 which they all believed to be the identical map that was before the Commis- 
 sioners at Paris or Passy, during the negotiations in 1782 and 1783. On this 
 map a pencil line was traced, through the line of highlands and watercourses, 
 in accordance to what I believed to have been the boundary of the Proclama- 
 tion of 1763. The next and last time I saw this map, it was in the possession 
 of the Maine Commissioners at Washington, during the negotiations in June, 
 1842. Judge Prtble considered it as of the first importance to the question, 
 and affirmed his belief that it was the identical map mentioned by Dr. Franklin 
 in his letter to Mr. Jefferson, and that the pencil line was the line traced by 
 Franklin's own hand, as the boundary of the treaty of 1783. 
 
 Now, independent of Mr. Forsyth's statement that Franklin's section of map 
 sent to Mr. Jefferson was lost, I must observe that this map in Judge Preble's 
 possesson was an entire copy of Mitchell's map, the several sections all bearing 
 the same discolouring marks of age, and all pasted on canvass. I would more- 
 over observe, that Dr. Franklin states in one of his letters, (see the appendix to 
 the statement of the American Commissioners submitted to the King of the 
 Netherlands.) " I am perfectly clear in the remembrance that the map we used 
 in tracincr the boundary was brought in the treaty by the Commissioners from 
 England." 1 
 
 It is therefore clear that the large map lately in Jud^e Preble's possession 
 
 (.?) I found this original map in the Massachusetts Land Office, Boston, where it now 
 .-til! is, I have no doubt. 
 
 (0 See their letter to Mr. Webster. June 29, 1842 
 
 (d) 1 have since learned from good authority that, it wa< to be seen there as late as 
 trie \earlS28 Its disappearance dates from that vear, and I may here mention that in 
 the American " statement" so often before referred to, it is stated that " some maps may 
 have escaped notice ; but not a single • ne has beer, omitted that has come within the 
 knowledge of the American Government," p. 30. And this passage conveys a very 
 strong, though a negative, admission of the obligation under which the Government 
 felt itself, to produce all maps, which might be considered as evidence on the question 
 at is.sue. 
 
23 
 
 So many efforts have been made in the discussion of the boundary question 
 to ?s:ertain the general state of opinion in relation to it which exsted at the 
 period of the treaty of 1783, that whatever can throw any light on that particu- 
 lar branch of the enquiry may be considered worthy of observation. I am, 
 therefore, induced to call attention to a pamphlet which I lately met with in a 
 was not the section of Dr. Franklin's map sent by him to Mr. Jefferson ; it is 
 very doubtful that the map which belonged to the British Commissioners found 
 its way to the State Department at Washington ; and there is not an iota of 
 proof that the pencilled line on the large map in question was meant to trace 
 the boundary of the treaty of 1783, or that it was traced by any one employed 
 in negotiating that Treaty. (v) 
 
 I cannot conclude these observations, without a remark or two in relation to 
 the North West angle of the United States. 
 
 That the framers of the treaty of 1783 could not have con-idered that angle 
 as an "understood," "determined," " well known" point, is admitted by the 
 Maine Commissioners, when they statfi that previous to the treaty of 1783 there 
 had been three several admitted or proposed North West angles of Nova Sco- 
 tia ; viz :— the first where the due North line struck the river St. Lawrence ; 
 the second, where it struck the highlands of the Proclamation of 1763; the 
 third at the source of the St. John river. 
 
 It consequently became necessary in framing the treaty to give a description 
 of the point (as it was established antw by that treaty) from which the bounda- 
 ry was to commence; and therefore the introduction of the words "from the 
 north-west angle of Nova Scotia, viz : that angle which is formed by a line 
 drawn due north from sources of the River St. Croix to the Highlands which 
 divide those rivers that empty themselves into the St. Lawrence from those 
 which flow into the Atlantic Ocean." I will not now stop to prove that it was 
 in reality a north-east angle of the United States, not a north-west angle of 
 Nova Scotia ; nor is it necessary again to advert to the north west anorle of 
 Nova Scotia attempted to be established by Mr. Nathan Hale, with much more 
 appearance of reason certainly than attaches to the north-west angle of the 
 other American writers on the subject. 
 
 Among the arguments brought forward by various American writers agimst 
 the line of Highlands claimed by Great Britain, one very much relied on 
 is the series of reproaches addressed to the English Ministers in the year 1783, 
 by certain members of both houses of Parliament, for having conceded a line of 
 boundary identical with that now claimed by the United Statea. Two particu- 
 lar debates (those of Feb. 17th, 1783) are cited, and relied on as " conclusive 
 of the question," to use the words of a recent American write. (w) The mea- 
 gre reports of these debates which are extant, contain statements of a very 
 vague and general nature in reference to the line of boundary specified in the 
 treaty of 1783. The impression on my mind relative to those debates has always 
 been, that the reproaches in question were chiefly founded on the cession to the 
 United States of the district of country between the Kennebec and the St. 
 Croix ; and that they had no reference whatever to the country north of the line 
 of Highlands claimed as the boundary by Great Britain. There is nothing in 
 the report of the debates to warrant the latter construction; bur almost every 
 one of them attentively considered bears out the former one. Yet it has been 
 repeatedly taken for granted by American writers, that those reproaches were 
 founded on the admitted fact that the provisional articles of the treaty of 1783 
 conceeded to the United States the very line of Highlands she now claims north 
 of the St. John river.(ar) 
 
 (v) There seems to be great probability that the map alluded to in Mr. Featherston- 
 hough's pamphlet, alluded to in the introduction to these remarks, discovered in one 
 of the public offices in London, after Lord ASuberion's departure for America, was the 
 map in question. 
 
 (w) In the New York " Courier and Enquirer" an editorial article. 
 
 (x) An article in Wilmer and Smith's Liverpool '• Times," as late as the 10th of March 
 1643, reverts to this mistaken opinion. It is as follows : 
 
 Liverpool, 10th March, 1843. 
 [From Wilmer and Smith's " Times"] 
 
 The "Ashhurton Capitulation," as it is phiased here bv the leading organs of the 
 late government, has been again brought prominently before the public during the 
 last lew days, by a postscript to the pamphlet of Mr. Featherstonhiiugh, one of the 
 
24 
 
 private library in the city of Boston, and which is, I think, altogether explaaa- 
 tory of the views of the opposition speakers in the debate alluded to, and 
 strongly confirmatory of the interpret** ion which I have always gtVento them. 
 
 The title page of- this pamphlet, r . -Wished in London, shows no author's 
 name ; but it, is signed " Fortius.*' ai : ►ears the date on the 40th (which is the 
 last) pago, of Ffi.b. 5, 1783. I will give an extract from tKe portion which re- 
 lates to the North Eastern Boundary ; ?nd I think it furnishes convincing proof 
 not only that the reproaches addressed to the Ministers and the 'commissioners 
 of that day, by the press as well as in Parliament, had no reference whatever 
 to the line of boundary at present claimed by the United States ; but that the 
 Highlands of the treaty were understood at that period, even by those who 
 disapproved of the treaty, to be ihe identical ridge claimed as the true line of the 
 treaty, by Great Britain. From the fact that the boundary line is pointed out 
 in this pamphlet, as running "from the head of the liver St. Croix, along the 
 ridge of the highlands at the back of Massachusetts Bay, to the source of the 
 Connecticut river," it is not to he believed that those who cavilled at the 
 treaty had any notion that the boundary line crossed the St John, or extended 
 to the highlands to the north of that river. 
 
 It will be also perceived that the most serious reproaches made against 
 Lord Shelburne, having reference to the north east boundary, in this pamphlet, 
 are for having given up to America " the vast tract of country extending 
 from the St Croix to the Kennebec, and the whole of the countries surrounding 
 Lake George and Fake Champlain." But not a word of allusion is made to the 
 district between the head of the St Croix and the St. John, or to the large 
 tract north of it, either in the pamphlet or in pailiament ; and it seems impossi- 
 ble to suppose that to the series of reproaches so minutely specifie J, would not 
 have been added another for the cession of what is now '• the disputed terri- 
 tory," had such a cession been believed to have been included within the 
 boundaries agreed upon, by the commissioners who framed the treaty of 1783. 
 
 " However personally and peculiarly unplcasing to your lordship it may be, 
 and however devoid of entertainment it may prove even to the public, yet so 
 fatal are the concessions made by the limits agreed on between us and America, 
 that I owe it to my country and myself on this most important point, to go into 
 a detail, with geographical precision, And to convince every impartial person, 
 that no possible situation or circumstances could justify a minister in. thus 
 abandoning the interests of the empire. Here, at least, I renounce all decla- 
 mation, and stand on facts. By the line of partition passing up the river St. 
 Croix, the vast tract of country extending from that river to the Kennebec, is 
 given up to America. It is true, indeed, that this country was included in the 
 original charter of the province of Massachusetts Bay ; but the general court 
 could not grant any part of it without the consent and permission of the crown 
 of England ; and no gran's were ev<^r attempted beyond the river Penobscot. 
 By the passage of the line from the head of the river St. Croix, along the 
 ridge of the highlands at the back of Massa'.husctts Bay to the source of the 
 Connecticut river, and passing thence through the 45th degree of northern 
 latitude into the river St. Lawrence, the whole of the countries surrounding 
 Lake George and Lake Champlain, wi:h both those lakes, and the two forts of 
 Crown Point and Ticonderago, are ceded to America," etcetera — Letter to the 
 Earl of Shclbournc on the Peace, London, 1783, 2d edition, pages 16, 17, 18. 
 
 commissioners who surveyed the Northeast Boundary on behalf of ihe British govern- 
 ment. Admitting the map* to have been identified as the one marked by Dr. Franklin, 
 the question would still have been leL where it was ; for as a well-informed provincial 
 contemporary very forcibly observes— 
 
 " It would have shown Dr. Franklin's opinon of the treaty, and nothing else ; but 
 the opinion ol Dr. Franklin, or of any other individual, however intelligent or well- 
 informed, was by no means conclusive as to the real effect of the words of trie treaty. 
 It is quite clear, from the discussions in the British houses of parliament, when the 
 treaty was laid before them, that every body, both ministers and opposition, interpreted 
 the treaty according to the American claim ; and, from that time down to the * ear 
 1800 or larer, every English map of any authority or importance, laid down thf boun- 
 dary precisely as the Americans claimed it ; and if the rec orded opinions of statesmen 
 and geographers had been considered conclusive as to the effect of the treaty, it 
 would have been determined in favour of the United StaU^nani' yj^rs ago. 
 
 But the subject will be elaborately disclosed in the bouseMf (JmnflCis. when the 
 motion of which Lord Palmerston has given notice, conies bdjpe iwdSUle 23d. 
 

 V V 
 
 <r>_ 
 
 «4> ..... -V, , * 
 
 
 O N 
 
 V 
 
 %&/,<& % 
 
 ^ 'Hi: ^<0 
 
 \J> 0~ - o » • 
 
 ^ 0°, 
 
 
 - ° v <^ <** 
 
 
o* .'JL'.^o 
 
 * O 
 
 0*" - o ■ 
 
 
 
 ^. *'T7i* A 
 
 ^ *: 
 
 
 A