'‘/OS. Wasrn d#**'*. / 1 /1 s' ✓ 'A c/S NO MISTAKE: tz/£ A-S& OR, y/a s/u A VINDICATION OF THE r ■ E o i ••' Sir Sprir.-r.: :\ir j v •. •' •'•■'■ Vffw* I 2 ^4^ V- < - '* ■» nr *s ? •-> ?; i NEGOTIATORS OF THE TREATY OF 1783, RESPECTING THE NORTH EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE UNITED STATES. IN A CONVERSATION BETWEEN JOHN BULL and JONATHAN. By W. R. HAMILTON, F.R.S. PRESIDENT OF THE ROYAL GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY. LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM NICOL, 60, PALL MALL. 1842. NOTICE. The greater part of the facts and arguments in the following sheets are drawn from, or suggested by the Reports and Documents prepared for Par¬ liament by Messrs. Featherstonehaugh and Mudge. April , 1842. CONVERSATION RESPECTING TUE NORTH EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE UNITED STATES. JOHN BULL - JONATHAN. J, B. Well, Jonathan, how are you going on? how are all friends on the banks of the Potowmack ? Jon. Very bad. J. B. How so ? What’s the matter ? Jon. These eternal misunderstandings between our two Governments. J. B. What are they discussing now ? Jon. Oh, there’s the Caroline affair, not yet cleared up, the Slavery question, the Creole business, the right of Visit, the N. W. Boundary, and the N. E. Boundary of our States. J. B. As for most of these subjects of difference, I don’t think you need fret about them much just now. The Caroline affair is almost forgotten, and on both sides of the border there has been a good deal of giving and taking, with and without law; besides you have tried and acquitted M‘Leod, and there’s an end of it: the Slavery question will soon settle itself, as the Blacks are likely enough to take the law into their own hands; 2 the Creole affair, and the conduct of our officers at Nas¬ sau will be adjudged in our courts according to Law; the Right of Visit, which you talk so loud about, is no¬ thing more than the adherence to the practice of Ships- of-war in all times, as the only means of ascertaining that a trader met at sea has a bond fide right to the flag she bears, by which practice pirates are kept down, and law¬ ful commerce, your’s with the rest, protected for the benefit of all nations; as to your N. W. Boundary, it is so distant, and the claims on both sides are of such a complicated nature, that I see no chance of their being brought to an end for some years to come. In the mean¬ time our respective interests in that part of the world are not of that immediate importance to cause any great anxieties about the result. But I cannot understand why the question of the North Eastern Boundary of your States has not been settled long since. Jon. That’s the most difficult of all. J. B. Why so ? Jon. Because we have told you where the real boun¬ dary is, and we have had it surveyed, and we are all of the same mind; that is to say, the line we point out is the right one, we have over and over again said it must be so, and still your government is so unreasonable as to pretend that we are quite wrong, and want to cajole you out of your rights. J. B. But the treaty is in English, and we both speak the same language ; where’s the difficulty ? Jon. There is no difficulty at all, if you will but read the words and interpret their meaning, as Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Gallatin, Mr. Adams, and all our best statesmen, have explained them. J. B. Well, where is this Treaty? Let us read it over quietly by ourselves, and try to make it out according 3 to the plain meaning of the words ; which must of course be that of the negotiators who used them. Jon. The words of the Ilnd. Article of the treaty of 1783, which relate to our boundaries to the North and East, are as follows: “ That all disputes which might arise in future on the subject of “ the boundaries of the said United States may be prevented, it is “ hereby agreed and declared, that the following are and shall be “ their boundaries, viz. From the North IFest Angle of Nova Scotia, “ viz. that Angle, which is formed by a line drawn due north from the “ Source of St. Croix River to the Highlands, along the said High- “ lands, which divide those rivers which empty themselves into the “ River St Lawrence, from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, “ to the North-westernmost head of the Connecticut River; thence “ down along the middle of that river to the 45th degree of North “ Latitude; * * * * * * * * * 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 aforesaid boundaries between Nova Scotia on the one part, and “ East Florida on the other, shall respectively, touch the Bay of “ Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean, excepting such islands as now are, “ or heretofore have been within the limits of the said province of “ Nova Scotia.” Now in the first place, friend Bull, we Americans maintain that the great, and indeed the only important part of the above stipulations still to be settled, is to ascertain which, and where, are the Highlands or line of Highlands intended by the Negotiators; i. e. which line of Highlands between the Atlantic and the St. Law¬ rence, answers to the description given of them in the words “ which divide those Rivers, which empty them- 4 “ selves into the St. Lawrence from those which fall into “ the Atlantic.” J. B. I understand, hut how did you find the N. W. angle of Nova Scotia? That stands first in the Treaty. Jon. This angle is still to be looked for: because al¬ though we know the Western side of it, viz. the due North Line, we have still to fix the base, on which that due North line is to strike. J. B. And how did you get at that due North line ? Jon. About ten years after the peace of 1783 a joint commission was appointed, to ascertain in the first place, which was the source of the St. Croix River intended by the Treaty; the Surveyors went, or affected to go over the whole ground ; and very luckily for us you consented, after some haggling, that the northernmost source of the St. Croix should be taken as the point in question; and though the western sources of that river come from the highest hills, and supply the largest stream, and though they marked the boundary of the country in former times, and though you lost more than a million of acres by that arrangement, no doubt is now thrown upon its validity by either of the parties : and there is, therefore, no further question as to the due north line, which forms the western side of the N. W. angle of Nova Scotia. J. B. That being so, how did you proceed to ascertain the Northern side of the N. W. angle of Nova Scotia? Jon. We managed that affair pretty well too, as far at least as it went, but this is still the main gist of the ques¬ tion, and your people are so very obstinate they wo’nt hear reason. »/. B. Well, but what did you do? Jon. A joint commission was formed after the treaty of Ghent to survey the country, and we laid it down as the first principle, on which the Commission was to conduct 5 its proceedings, that as both parties were already well acquainted with all the Rivers which flowed through our respective countries southwards, i. e. the Kennebec and the Penobscot, into the Atlantic, and the St. Croix and St. John’s into the Bay of Fundy, all that was wanting to settle the dispute, was to follow up the due north line from the Northern Source of the St. Croix, until we should find Rivers, or the heads of Rivers, emptying themselves northerly into the St. Lawrence, and there we said must necessarily be the line of Highlands dividing the waters according to the Treaty; and the prolongation of those Highlands to the East of the due North line would of course form the North side of the North west angle of Nova Scotia. J. B. But what did our Commissioners say to this first principle of your’s? Jon. Oh! they agreed to it without hesitation, and said it was an excellent idea. J. B. And what was the result ? Jon. Plain enough. After journeying northwards for seventy or eighty miles, we of course found one of these streams flowing into the St. Lawrence, namely, the Metis, the source of which lay about thirty miles south of the St. Lawrence, near the G8th meridian : from this point, at which we consider the exploratory North line to have terminated, we commenced an examination (rather cursory to be sure), of the country about fifteen or twenty miles south of the St. Lawrence, in a westerly direction; and observing where some waters flowed northwards and others southwards, w r e were perfectly justified in de¬ ciding this to be the line of dividing Highlands in¬ tended by the treaty ; and our Surveyors laid them down as a succession of heights from the G8th to the 71st meridian; the heights being here not more than twenty 6 or twenty-five miles south of Quebec. From this point it was necessary to find a continuation of Highlands to meet the culminating range of the real High Lands, where are the sources of the Kennebec and Penobscot, in order to connect this new boundary line of ours with that range, and then continue it along those well known High Lands to the westernmost source of the Connecticut. You will see this connecting line of hills laid down on our Mr. Burnham’s maps, if those maps are not all destroyed : the hills indeed have since been proved to be fictitious, but we consider ourselves entitled to maintain, and we do maintain (and we have got Mr. Gallatin, and other great and straightforward statesmen on our side,) that it is not at all necessary now to find Highlands dividing rivers according to the treaty ; and that the mere fact of rivers or streams being so divided, of which those flowing northwards empty themselves into the St. Lawrence, proves that this dividing ground however low, or swampy, or however few and unconnected the elevated points upon it may be, is still nevertheless, for the purposes of the treaty, a range of Highlands dividing the rivers which empty themselves into the St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic. J.B. I admire your ingenuity and your candour, but let me in my turn, as I really wish to understand the matter, ask you a question or two, on the words of the treaty. In the first place I observe, that the boundaries to be described in the second article are not to be new boun¬ daries, but the then existing boundaries of the United States—the words are: “ The following are and shall be “ their boundaries.” Consequently you cannot pretend that your Negotiators in 17So aimed at getting as part of the American Union any territory, which was at the 7 time known to belong to the British Crown, as part either of Canada, or of Nova Scotia. Jon. Certainly not! We claimed then only our own chartered rights, and we claim not an acre more now: except of course what we got by your admission of the Northern instead of the Western source of the St. Croix. The concluding words of the article deny us the posses¬ sion of any islands, even should they be within our own limits, if they had ever been within those of Nova Scotia. J. B. Agreed. The next thing I observe in the second Article, is that the starting point, from east to west, of your Northern boundary, is said to be “ From the north west angle of Nova Scotia .” Now tell me, who first made use of that term, the N.W. angle of Nova Scotia ? Jon. The American Negotiators in 1782; when they required of Mr. Oswald in Paris, that the United States should be bounded, north by a line to be drawn from the Northwest angle of Nova Scotia , along the Highlands, which divide the rivers, which empty themselves into the St. Lawrence, from those that fall into the Atlantic, to the North westernmost head of the Connecticut River. J. B. Whereabouts would this project of yours, if accepted, have placed this N.W. angle of Nova Scotia ? Jon. At the source of the St. John River. J. B. How do you make that out ? Jon. Because, at the same time they proposed that their Eastern boundary should be the St. John from its mouth to its source; and it is evident that the terminat¬ ing point of the Eastern boundary must have coincided with the starting point of the Northern boundary. J. B. What was the issue of that proposal ? Jon. It was rejected by your Government, who would not hear of the St. John being the boundary, and sub¬ stituted the St. Croix, to which we assented. 8 J. B. What were the grounds, which induced your Negotiators, after our rejection of the St. John as a boun¬ dary, still to speak of this angle of Nova Scotia in terms, plainly implying that they at least conceived there would be no difficulty in finding it?—They take it as a point already ascertained, or as very easily defined, viz. as formed by a due North line from the source of the St. Croix to the highlands. What was their authority for this expression ? Jon. It was the most natural definition they could make use of. It was adopted from the Royal Commissions of Montague Wilmot, Esq., in 1763, of Lord William Camp¬ bell in 1765, and of Francis Legge, Esq. in 1773, when these gentlemen were successively appointed to the Go¬ vernment of Nova Scotia. J. B. What were the terms used in these Commis¬ sions ? Jon. Nova Scotia was described as bounded to the West “ by the River St. Croix to its source, and by a line drawn due North from thence to the southern boun¬ dary of our Colony of Quebec .” Such due North line necessarily formed with the Southern boundary of Que¬ bec two angles; of which the one to the East became (by construction ) the N. W. angle of Nova Scotia. J. B. What was this Southern boundary of the Colony of Quebec ? and on what occasion was it fixed? Jon. After the peace of 1763, by which Canada was given up toGreat Britain, a Royal Proclamation was issued defining the Southern boundary of Quebec, as “ from the “ 45 degree of N. Lat. passing along the Highlands, “ which divide the Rivers that empty themselves into the “ river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Sea, “ and also along the North Coast of the Bay des Cha- “ leurs and the Coast of the Gulph of St. Lawrence to 9 “ Cape Rosiers.” And by the Quebec Act of 1774 the same is described as containing: “ all the territories, “ islands and countries in N. America, belonging to the “ Crown of Gt. Britain, bounded on the South by a line “ from the Bay of Chaleurs along the highlands which “ divide the rivers that empty themselves into the St. “ Lawrence from those which fall into the Sea, to a “ point in 45 degrees of N. Lat. on the Eastern bank of “ the river Connecticut.” J. B. You have explained to me most satisfactorily the origin of the due North line, and why it was adopted in the Treaty : and you have shewn me also the identity between the S. boundary of Quebec, and the N. boun¬ dary of Nova Scotia, both of them in the line of High¬ lands : but what was the origin of this expression, so often repeated, “ the Highlands, which divide the waters flowing into the St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic, or into the Sea ?” » Ton. It was taken by your Government in 1763 from the Reports of Mr. Pownall who, when Governor of Massachusetts before and during a part of the seven year’s war, was very active in obtaining accurate intelli¬ gence, (as far as accuracy could be secured without actual survey) of the line of hills, and the courses of rivers, be¬ tween the Atlantic and the St. Lawrence; mainly, we sup¬ pose, with a view to the military defence of the Colonies, or possibly to an attack on the French possessions in Canada. The result of his enquiries was sent home, and on your becoming masters of those French possessions, your Government naturally made use of his information; it being then in their power to define precisely the limits between the old Colonies and the new Conquest, when there were no national jealousies or ambitious views to detract from the one, or add to the other. 10 J. B. Did Governor Pownall immediately publish these geographical notices ? Jon. Not until 1776. J. B. In what terms does he designate the Highlands you allude to ? Jon. They are correctly stated in your Commissioners’ Report of July 1840: as for example. 1. “ The highest “ part of this tract of Mountains may be defined by “ aline drawn N. W. from the white hills (about 44. 10.) “ to the 45th parallel of North Latitude: 2. Going from “ the same line, in Lat. 45. of the greatest height of “ this range of Mountains, and folloicing them to the “ east northerly , they all seem to range as united, until “ again divided by the Bay des Chaleurs. 3. The Con- “ necticut River rises in N. Lat. 45. 10. at the Height “ of the Land. 4. A range, running hence across the “ East boundary line of New Hampshire, in Lat. 44. 30. “ and trending N. E., from the height of the land between “ Kennebaeg and Chaudier Rivers. 5. All the heads of “ Kennebec, Penobscot, and Passamaquoddy (St. Croix) “ riverSy are in the height of land running E. N. E.” J. B. But if there be no doubt as to the identity be¬ tween the Southern boundary of Quebec and the High¬ lands described by Governor Pownall, as adopted by you, and as embodied in the Treaty, in what consists the dispute between the two Countries ? Jon. Precisely in this, that you assert that Governor Pownall’s Highlands, the Highlands of the Treaty, the Southern boundary of Quebec and the Northern boun¬ dary of Nova Scotia, are that line of Highlands which lies almost direct between the Source of the Connecticut, and the Western extremity of the Bay des Chaleurs, but which line we deny to be the Treaty line, because, we assume as the Highlands of the Treaty the dividing 11 grounds between the St. Lawrence, and the upper course of the St. John. J. D. But I cannot understand your objection to our Highlands, which according to the latest surveys, are by far the most elevated of the two lines; from which rise the Connecticut, the Kennebec, the Penobscot and the St. Croix to the South, and the St. Francis and the Chaudiere to the North, which are notoriously the continuation of the culminating ridge, between the 71st' and the 72nd degrees of Longitude, common to both lines, first designated by your own negotiators in 1782 as the dividing Highlands; whereas on the contrary the heights which your Surveyors have claimed as the Treaty line, are in many places broken, are no where of any considerable height, give rise to no considerable streams, send none whatever into the Atlantic, whatever they may do with some inconsiderable rivers that fall into the St. Lawrence, were never designated as Highlands, and above all have no connection whatever with the cul¬ minating Ridge, common to both. Jon. But you must be aware that the Northern boun¬ dary of Massachusetts has in former times been the sub¬ ject of dispute, and that we once even claimed as our own, quite up to the St. Lawrence. J. B. These claims of yours were war claims: claims against France, as a Rival power, when she was in pos¬ session of Canada—but which were repeatedly abrogated by treaties, prior even to the peace of Utrecht; and they were not confirmed by Great Britain in 1763 on her conquest of that country: but on the contrary no time was lost after that event, in fixing the Southern boun¬ dary of Quebec, where nature had placed the Northern boundary of Massachusetts, viz. at the Highlands , where are the sources of all her Rivers. 12 Jon. But there are various English Maps, which give to our provinces a much greater extent Northwards. J. B. You have only to look at the history of those Maps, and you will see clearly that the English and French Mapmakers up to the conquest of Canada, were in the habit of driving their respective pretensions, the one party extravagantly North, the other as extravagantly South. They are of course good for nothing as autho¬ rities. Jon. But Mitchell’s Map, with its due North line pro¬ longed far North of the St. John: how do you get over that? J. B. Mitchell’s was one of those controversial Maps I allude to, and as it was published prior to the Treaty of 17G3, such due North line cannot have any official value: besides, it proves too much even for you; for the North line is carried in it quite up to the South bank of the St. Lawrence; it has therefore no weight whatever, in support of one set of Highlands or another. Jon. I low do you explain the language held by some of the Members of your Parliament in February 1783, finding fault with the preliminary Treaty for giving to us large portions of Canada and Nova Scotia, and as bringing our boundary within twenty four miles of Montreal? J. B. It is clear from the tenor of that discussion, and from the history of the preceeding negotiations, that the cessions complained of were those to the East of the Ohio on one side, and those between the Penobscot and St. Croix on the other. If the opponents of the