(25
5533
*qə
M
།།
***
T OF US. SENATE COM
1838
B 716,681

1780
T
Ex Libris Thornburst.
CARTAS
Tag
**
quamar
ET
JUSTITIA ANIMIS
aishare Bra
CREE
и
ANT
14
no. 319
E
398
.152
M
¿
25th CONGRESS,
2d Session.
SENATE. ]
4.0. Comance Ste Co
IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
JULY 4, 1838.
Submitted, and ordered to be printed, and that 20,000 additional copies be furnished for the use
of the Senate.
Mr. BUCHANAN submitted the following
REPORT:
[ 502 ]
Milevante
da Seh
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred the "bill to
provide for surveying the northeastern boundary line of the United
States, according to the provisions of the treaty of peace of seventeen
hundred and eighty-three," have had the same under consideration, and
now report:
-
That the first section of this bill directs "the President of the United
States to cause the boundary line between the United States and the ad-
jacent British provinces, from the source of the St. Croix river directly
north to the highlands which divide the waters that fall into the Atlantic
ocean from those which fall into the river St. Lawrence, thence along said
highlands from the northwest angle of Nova Scotia to the north western-
most head of Connecticut river, as particularly defined in the treaty of peace
concluded at Paris the third day of September, 1783, to be accurately sur-
veyed and marked, and suitable monuments to be erected thereon, at such
points as may be deemed necessary and important."
304891
-
The second section provides for the appointment of a commissioner and
surveyor by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Sen-
ate, "who may employ such assistants, under the direction of the President,
as shall be necessary, and who shall make an exact return of their proceed-
ings to the President, with a correct map of the country over which said
line passes, exhibiting the prominent points of its topography and the loca-
tion of the marks and monuments by them made and erected."
The third and last section merely provides for the compensation of the
commissioner and surveyor.
This bill, then, proposes that Congress shall create a commission, inde-
pendently of Great Britain, to run and mark the northeastern boundary of
the United States, conterminous with that of New Brunswick and Canada,
provinces of the British empire. It asks no previous consent from Great
Britain; it does not require that Great Britain should become a party to
the survey; and yet that country has a common interest with the United
States in the correct establishment of this boundary, according to the treaty.
It would be premature and inexpedient, the committee believe, to resort to
such a course of separate action towards a neighboring and friendly power,
between which and the United States there is a reciprocal desire to main-
tain the most friendly relations, until every other means of amicably adjust-
Blair & Rives, printers.
16 p
[ 502 ]
ing the dispute shall be exhausted. Before the committee could recommend
the adoption of such a measure to the Senate, they ought to be satisfied, be-
yond a reasonable doubt, first, that the United States have a clear title to the
disputed territory which would be embraced within their limits by the
proposed survey; and, secondly, that no other and more friendly expedient
remains untried of bringing this long pending controversy to a conclusion.
The committee will, therefore, proceed to consider the question under
this two-fold aspect. And, first, in regard to our title.
This title depends altogether upon the correct construction of the defini-
tive treaty of peace between the United States and his Britannic Majesty,
concluded at Paris on the third day of September, one thousand seven hun-
dred and eighty-three.
2
By the first article of this treaty, "his Britannic Majesty acknowledges
the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode
Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Caro
lina, and Georgia, to be free, sovereign, and independent States; that he
treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relin-
quishes all claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the
same, and every part thereof."
The United States had declared their independence almost seven years
previous to the date of the treaty. They had maintained this declaration
before the world; and the treaty is not only a solemn recognition of that
independence by Great Britain, but an express acknowledgment that she
treated with them as free, sovereign, and independent States. We were
equals treating with an equal. Great Britain was not a superior assigning
territory to an inferior. No superiority was claimed on the one side, or
would have been acknowledged on the other. Great Britain then claimed
no such prerogative as she now asserts, of assigning an appropriate bound-
ary to the United States, as a new power, formerly under her dominion.
The treaty must, therefore, be construed as a solemn agreement entered
into by one sovereign and independent nation with another, equally sove-
reign and independent.
It was not necessary expressly to have prescribed the limits of the United
States by the treaty. At its date, the boundaries of each of the thirteen
States were well known. The first article acknowledged each of them
to be sovereign and independent, and relinquished "all claim on the
part of the British King to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights
of the same, and every part thereof;" and this would have been sufficient.
The commissioners who framed the treaty were, however, not content
with such a general recognition. Its second article proves their desire to
prescribe the limits of our boundary in a manner so precise and specific,
as forever to prevent all disputes upon the subject. This second article is
as follows:
ART. 2. "And that all disputes which might arise in future, on the sub-
ject of the boundaries of the said United States, may be prevented, it is
hereby agreed and declared, that the following are, and shall he, their bound-
aries, viz: from the northwest 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 highlands which divide those rivers
that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall
into the Atlantic ocean, to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut
:
;
3
[ 502 ]
river," &c. It is unnecessary, here, to repeat any more of the treaty descrip-
tion.
In every delineation of territory, the all-important point is to fix the place
of beginning with the greatest possible precision and certainty. To prevent
all dispute thereafter, this was done by the commissioners. The north-
west angle of Nova Scotia" was a well known point. This can be clearly
established by the most authentic official documents, which, it will conclu-
sively appear, from the highest intrinsic evidence, were before the commis-
sioners at the time they formed the treaty. It is true that this point had
never been fixed by actual survey, nor had it been marked by the erection
of any monument; but that it could be found upon the ground at the in-
tersection of two clearly defined lines was a mathematical truth, suscepti-
ble of demonstration. This northwest angle of Nova Scotia, which was
notorious, although the very spot had not been ascertained, was fixed upon
as the place of beginning of our boundary, in order to prevent all future
disputes; and yet, strange as it may appear, this is the very point now
contested by the British Government. Whether with any good reason,
it will be the task of the committee to inquire.
It is agreed by both parties that the map, called Mitchell's map, a copy of
which is annexed to this report, was the one used by the commissioners at
the formation of the treaty. It was published in 1755, and bears upon its
face an official stamp ; having been undertaken with the approbation and at
the request of the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations. Who-
ever may inspect this map will, at once, perceive the natural formation
of that region. The river St. Lawrence runs from the southwest to-
wards the northeast; whilst numerous tributaries rising in the highlands to
the south of it, and, passing north through its valley, empty themselves
into the main stream. These tributaries are all necessarily short; because
the highlands from which they flow run at no great distance from the
river, and in a parallel direction to it, throughout its whole course. From
these highlands, on the south, proceed the head waters of the Connecticut,
the Androscoggin, the Kennebeck, the Penobscot, the St. John, and the
Ristigouche, all flowing into the Atlantic ocean, through different bays.
And here it may be observed, that there is not a single stream, which rises
on the south side of these highlands, throughout this whole region, which
does not first empty itself into some Atlantic bay; not one of them
flows directly into the main ocean. Such is the natural formation: High-
lands running in a parallel direction with the St. Lawrence, and
dividing the streams which fall into that river on the north, from
those which seek the Atlantic ocean in the south. In 1755, when
Mitchell's map was published, the British possessions in North America did
not extend north of the St. Lawrence. At that period, it will appear from
the map that the northwest angle of Nova Scotia was to be found on the St.
Lawrence, at the point intersected by the line running due north from the
source of the St. Croix. This north line is distinctly marked upon the
map. On the west of it, the words "New England" are printed in large
letters, and on the east "Nova Scotia."
If this map were, alone, to be the guide, and if the place of beginning of
our boundary, mentioned in the treaty, had been simply "the northwest
angle of Nova Scotia," without further qualification, the State of Maine
would have extended to the St. Lawrence. In what manner was this north-
west angle of Nova Scotia brought as far south as the highlands separating
[ 502 ]
(6
the streams which flow in opposite directions to the St. Lawrence and to
the Atlantic? In February, 1763, Great Britain acquired Canada froni
France by treaty. Canada, New England, and Nova Scotia being then
all subject to the British Crown, the King thought proper, in creating
the province of Quebec, to extend its limits south of the St. Lawrence, so
as to include the valley of that river. The reasons were obvious. Quebec,
the seat of Government, was situate on its northern shore. It was one of
the most important cities in North America, and the trade and business of
the people along the numerous streams which flowed into the St. Lawrence
from the highlands south of it, would naturally centre there. Besides, it
was obviously convenient that the limits of the different provinces should
be regulated, as far as practicable, by the course of the rivers; and it would
have been highly inconvenient that the valley south of the St. Lawrence,
within sight of the capital of the province of Quebec, and necessarily hav-
ing constant intercourse with the opposite shore, should continue attached
to remote and distant Governments. The King, therefore, by his procla-
mation, dated on the 7th of October, 1763, declared that the Government of
Quebec should be bounded, south of the St. Lawrence, by a line crossing
that river and the Lake Champlain, in forty-five degrees of north latitude,
and passing along the highlands which divide the rivers that empty them-
selves into the said river St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the sea,
and also along the north coast of the Bay des Chaleurs and the coast of the
Gulf of St. Lawrence, to Cape Rosiers." Thus the province of Quebec was
extended south, so as to include the vale of the St. Lawrence, and its south-
ern line was fixed along the highlands from whence its tributaries flowed.
New England and Nova Scotia were deprived of thus much of their form-
er territory; but they still retained all that portion of it watered by
streams whose sources were on the south side of these highlands, and which
emptied themselves into the sea. This was a natural and proper division.
After the date of this proclamation, where was "the northwest angle of Nova
Scotia" to be found? Can doubt or difficulty rest upon this question? We
must look for it on the line running north from the source of the St. Croix,
at the point where this line intersects the southern line of the province of
Quebec, "running along the highlands which divide the rivers that empty
themselves into the said river St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the
sea." This point is, and necessarily must be, the northwest angle of Nova
Scotia. It is demonstration itself. To run these two well described lines
upon the face of the earth, is to ascertain that angle. The commissioner,
therefore, who formed the treaty, well and wisely placed the beginning of
our boundary at a point which could be rendered absolutely certain, by
merely running these two lines. Those, who choose to examine Mitchell's
map, will find that the due north line marked upon it from the source of
the St. Croix, crosses the southern line of the province of Quebec, in these
dividing highlands, about the forty-eighth degree of north latitude.
But the British Government deemed it proper to fix the boundaries of the
province of Quebec, even with more solemnity than by royal proclama-
tion. This was done by an act of Parliament passed in the year 1774,
"for making more effectual provision for the Government of the province
of Quebec, in North America." By this aet, the separating boundary be-
tween that province on the north, and Nova Scotia and New England on
the south, was still more clearly and distinctly defined than it had been in
the proclamation.
4
[ 502 ]
The following language is employed, to wit: "bounded on the south by
a line from the Bay of Chaleurs, along the highlands which divide the
rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, from those which
fall into the sea, to a point in forty-five degrees of northern latitude on the
castern bank of the river Connecticut." In both the proclamation, and the
act of Parliament, the dividing highlands are described in the very same
language. The highlands which divide the rivers that empty themselves
into the river St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the sea." The
termini of this boundary are more precisely fixed by the act of Parliament
than by the proclamation. This act makes the southern point of the line
commence on the eastern bank of the river Connecticut, in latitude forty-
five, and terminate at the Bay of Chaleurs. Its extremities are two well
known natural objects. This bay is in latitude about forty-eight. The act
of Parliament seems to have been prepared with great deliberation. It was
intended to fix the boundaries between vast provinces of the same empire;
and no act of legislation demands greater care and attention. The Bay of
Chaleurs on the north, in latitude forty-eight, and a point on the Connecti-
cut, in latitude forty-five at the south, were to be the two extremities; and
the intermediate line was to pass along the highlands running between
these two points, which divide the rivers that empty themselves into
the St. Lawrence on the one side, from those falling into the sea upon the
other. After this act of Parliament, is it possible to conceive of a more extra-
ordinary pretension, than it would have been in the Government of Quebec
to have claimed jurisdiction, not only to these dividing highlands whence
streams flow into the St. Lawrence, but a hundred miles south and east
of them, embracing a region of country watered by a large river, the St.
John, and its numerous tributaries flowing into the sea? Such a claim
would have broken down the barriers between these provinces, erected with
so much care by the act of Parliament, and made rivers running north into
the St. Lawrence, mean the same thing as rivers running south into the
ocean. And yet the present attempt of the British Government to make Mars
hill the northwest angle of Nova Scotia rests upon no other or better princi-
ple, as will be shown hereafter.
5
The com nissions of the different Governors of Quebec, in describing
the boundaries of their jurisdiction, followed the language of the proclama-
tion of 1763, until after the passage of the act of Parliament in 1774. The
first commission which subsequently issued was to Guy Carlton, Esq., in
the same year, and it adopts the language of that act. The southern limits
of his jurisdiction are described in its language " to be a line from the Bay of
Chaleurs, along the highlands which divide the rivers that empty them-
selves into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the sea, to a
point in forty-five degrees of northern latitude, on the eastern bank of the
river Connecticut." Thus this province had for its southern boundary
highlands dividing streams running in opposite directions between a bay,
and a fixed point on a river. Was ever boundary better defined?
It would be a waste of time to recite the numerous commissions which
have issued to the Governors of Quebec, of Nova Scotia, and, after this
province was divided, in 1784, of New Brunswick; all speaking the same lan-
guage. The western limit of Nova Scotia, and afterwards of New Brunswick,
is uniformly described to run from that point where a line drawn due
north from the source of the river St Croix would intersect the southern
boundary of Quebec, and from thence "to the northward by the said bound-
[ 502 ]
6
ary as far as the western extremity of the Bay des Chaleurs." These com-
missions place the natural construction upon one expression, which, in the
act of Parliament, at first view, might appear vague. In it the Bay of
Chaleurs is mentioned generally, without a special reference to any par-
ticular part of it, though from the whole context the evident meaning was,
the western extremity of that bay. The commissions to the Governors of
Nova Scotia, and afterwards New Brunswick, render this certain, by speci-
fying "the western extremity of the Bay des Chaleurs."
Enough has already been shown to fix with precision what was the
acknowledged southern boundary of the province of Quebec at the date of
the treaty in 1783, and what it has remained ever since. It was then clearly
known to have been a line from the western extremity of the Bay of Cha-
leurs, to a point on the eastern bank of the Connecticut, in latitude forty-
five, and running along the highlands dividing the tributaries of the
St. Lawrence, from the sources of streams flowing into the sea. Where,
then, was the northwest angle of Nova Scotia known to be at the date of
the treaty ?
Without going back to the creation of this province, in 1621, by James
the First, which the committee deem unnecessary, though it would add
strength to the argument, they will content themselves with a reference to
the first commission which was issued to the Governor of Nova Scotia,
after the date of the proclamation of 1763. Before the proclamation, this
province, as well as New England, had extended north to the St. Lawrence.
After its date, it was necessary to make the commissions of the Governors
correspond with the extension of the province of Quebec south of that river.
Accordingly, the royal commission to Montague Wilmot, Esq., bearing date
on the 21st November, 1763, limits and restrains the province of Quebec,
thus: "To the northward our said province shall be bounded by the south-
ern boundary of our province of Quebec as far as the western extremity
of the Bay des Chaleurs;" and again, to the westward "it shall be bounded
by a line drawn from Cape Sable, across the entrance of the Bay of Fundy,
to the mouth of the river St. Croix, by the said river to its source, and by
a line drawn due north from thence to the southern boundary of our col-
ony of Quebec." The next commission, which issued to Lord William
Campbell on the 11th August, 1765, changes this description only by com-
mencing with the western instead of the northern line, thus: "On the
westward by a line drawn from Cape Sable across the entrance of the
Bay of Fundy, to the mouth of the river St. Croix, by the said river
to its source, and by a line drawn due north from thence to the southern
boundary of our colony of Quebec, to the northward by the said boun-
dary as far as the western extremity of the Bay des Chaleurs." In every
commission which has issued since to all the Governors of Nova Scotia, and
afterwards of New Brunswick, the same identical language has been used.
On the 29th day of July, 1782, but four months previous to the conclusion
of the provisional treaty of peace with Great Britain, the commission
granted to Governor Parr describes the limits of Nova Scotia in precisely
the same manner. And here it may be proper to observe, that the St.
Croix has since been ascertained by a joint commission of the two Gov-
ernments, and a monument has been erected at its source.
Were not, then, the commissioners who franied the treaty fully justified in
the conviction, that when they established the point of beginning of the boun-
[ 502 ]
daries between the United States and Great Britain, at "the northwest angle
of Nova Scotia," they were fixing it at a point long known and well estab-
lished? To render assurance doubly certain, however, they describe where
it is, in the very language which had been uniformly used by the British
Government in proclamations, in acts of Parliament, and in numerous com
missions to the Governors of Quebec and Nova Scotia. "The northwest
angle of Nova Scotia," says the treaty, "is that angle which is formed by a
line drawn due north from the source of St. Croix river to the highlands."
To what highlands? The treaty answers, "the highlands which divide those
rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, from those which
fall into the Atlantic ocean." The northwest angle of Nova Scotia, then,
is to be found in these highlands, at the point where the dividing due north
line between New England and Nova Scotia, which commences at the
source of the St. Croix, meets the southern boundary of the province of
Quebec. The act of Parliament of 1774, was doubtless before the com-
missioners. They use its very language in the treaty. "Along the high-
lands which divide the rivers that empty themselves into the river St.
Lawrence, from those which fall into the sea." The only change of this
language in the treaty is, that "the Atlantic ocean" is substituted for "the
sea." Both are evidently intended to convey the same meaning.
The
solicitude of the commissioners to preserve this highland boundary through-
out between the two nations is manifest. Under the act of Parliament, the
southern extremity of this line is described to be "a point in forty-five de-
grees of northern latitude, on the eastern bank of the river Connecticut."
In the treaty it is "the northwesternmost head of Connecticut river." From
thence the treaty line runs "down along the middle of that river, to the
forty-fifth degree of north latitude."
Thus the British Government surrendered that small portion of the pro-
vince of Quebec between the northwesternmost head of Connecticut river
and the forty fifth degree of north latitude, in order to have a continuous
highland boundary from the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, to the source
of the northwesternmost head of the Connecticut. To accomplish this
object, a part of what had been taken from New England, when the
province of Quebec was established, in 1763, has been restored by the
treaty. The great purpose was, that the entire line should consist of the
highlands "which," in the language of the treaty and the act of Parliament,
"divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, from
those which fall into the sea" or "the Atlantic ocean."
7
The committee will now proceed to show what was the construction
placed upon this treaty fifteen years after its ratification, by solemn offi-
cial declarations of high and responsible agents of the British Govern-
ment.
To render it more manifest that these declarations are wholly inconsis-
tent with the present claim of Great Britain, it will be necessary first to
show precisely the extent of that claim. It comprehends all that portion
of the State of Maine which lies north of the red line marked upon the map
No. 2, annexed to this report, and embraces about one-third of its whole
territory. This red line leaves the due north line from the source of the
St. Croix, at the distance of forty miles from the monument there erected,
and one hundred miles south of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, marked
A; and thence passes to the westward, not along highlands which divide
the rivers that empty themselves into the St. Lawrence from those which
[ 502 ]
fall into the Atlantic ocean, according to the terms of the treaty, but
along highlands dividing the rivers which flow into the St. John from
those which fall into the Atlantic. These highlands are far south of the
St. John; and if the British claim could be established, the whole of that
river, from its source to its mouth, with all its branches, would be within
British territory. Now, if it can be demonstrated that agents of high
character, acting under the express authority of the British Government,
several years after the date of the treaty, have expressly admitted, in their
official arguments and correspondence, that this north line from the source
of the St. Croix, not only crosses the St. John, but runs as far north as the
streams emptying into the Bay of Chaleurs, what ought to be thought of
this recent pretension?
A short time after the conclusion of the treaty a question arose between
the two Governments what river was intended by the St. Croix of the
treaty. In order to determine this question, commissioners were appointed
under the fifth article of the treaty of November, 1794, commonly called
Jay's treaty. Ward Chipman, Esq., the agent of the British Government,
contended that the true source of the St. Croix was at the head of the
Scoudiac lakes, at the point marked W on the second map. In his argu-
ment in 1797, to establish this position, and to defeat the position taken by
the United States, he expressly admits that "this north line [from the
source of the St. Croix to the treaty highlands] must of necessity cross the
river St. John." Admitting this fact, his leading purpose seems to have
been to remove this line as far west as he could, so that it might cross the
St. John at as great a distance from its mouth as possible, and thus embrace
as much of its course as was attainable within British territory. In prose-
cuting his argument, he says, "but if a north line is traced from the source
of the Cheputnatecook, (as insisted upon by the United States,) it will not
only cross the river St. John, within about fifty miles from Fredericton,
the metropolis of New Brunswick, but will cut off the sources of the rivers
which fall into the Bay of Chaleurs, if not of many others, probably the
Mirramichi among them, which fall in the Gulf of St. Lawrence." Thus
it
appears that, in 1797, the British Government had never thought of con-
tending that the highlands of the treaty were to be found south of the St.
John, or even south of the sources of the streams which empty into the
Bay of Chaleurs.
Robert Liston, Esq., at the time of these proceedings, was his Britannic
Majesty's minister to the United States. He was consulted by Mr. Chipmau
on the propriety of acceding to a proposition made to him by the agent of
the United States. This proposition need not be stated. Mr. Liston in his
reply, dated at Providence, on the 23d October, 1798, advises Mr. Chipman
to accede to the proposition, because "it would give an addition of territory
to the province of New Brunswick, together with a greater extent of navi
gation on St. John's river." The British Government now claim the whole
river, and all its tributaries, from its source to its mouth.
8
<<
-
The committee might here enumerate, if they deemed it necessary, the
numerous maps of this region which were published in England, between
the proclamation of 1763 and the treaty of 1783, and subsequently until
after the treaty of Ghent in 1814, embracing a period of more than half a
century; in all of which, without a single exception known to the commit-
tee, the western line of the province of Nova Scotia, afterwards New Bruns.
wick, crosses the river St. John, and the northwestern angle of Nova Scotia
is placed north of that river.
9
[ 502 ]
Previous to the treaty of Ghent, the British Government had become
convinced of the great importance of having a direct communication, with-
in their own territory, between their provinces of Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick, and the city of Quebec. It will be seen from an inspection of
the map No. 2, that the territory of the State of Maine, now in dispute, in- .
tercepts this communication. It was one object of the British commis-
sioners at Ghent, to obtain a cession of this territory. They did indeed
make a faint and feeble suggestion that our title was doubtful; but this was
not seriously urged. As the occasion was solemn and the object one of
great importance, can any person suppose that if they had even entertained
doubts where "the northwest angle of Nova Scotia" was to be found, they
would not then have earnestly insisted on the pretension which they now
so seriously maintain? From the date of the treaty of 1783, until the con-
ferences at Ghent in 1814, during a period of more than thirty years, our
title was unquestioned, as it still remains unquestionable.
In a protocol of August 8, 1814, the British commissioners stated the
following as one among other subjects, upon which, it appeared to them, that
the discussions between themselves and the American commissioners would
be likely to turn: "A revision of the boundary line between the British
and American territories, with a view to prevent future uncertainty and
dispute."
In a note of the British to the American commissioners of the same date,
they specify more particularly what they mean by this general proposition;
and in conclusion state, If this can be adjusted, there will then remain
for discussion the arrangement of the northwestern boundary between Lake
Superior and the Mississippi; the free navigation of that river; and such
a variation of the line of frontier as may secure a direct communication
between Quebec and Halifar."
It will be perceived that they do not propose to ascertain and fix a line
previously agreed upon, by the treaty of 1783, but to vary that line in such
a manner as to secure a direct communication between Quebec and Halifax.
This was in substance a proposition to obtain a cession of territory, and was
so considered by the American commissioners. Accordingly, on the 24th
August, 1814, they replied, that "they had no authority to cede any part of
the territory of the United States; and to no stipulation to that effect will
they subscribe."
On the 4th September, 1814, the British commissioners observe, that
they are unable to reconcile this declaration with the statement previously
made by the American commissioners, "that they were instructed to treat
for the revision of their boundary lines," "although the proposal left it open
to them [the American commissioners] to demand an equivalent for such
cession either in frontier or otherwise.'
They then proceed to insinuate the first doubt in regard to our title, in the
following language: "The American plenipotentiaries must be aware that
the boundary of the District of Maine has never been correctly ascertained;
that the one asserted at present, by the American Government, by which
the direct communication between Halifax and Quebec becomes inter-
rupted, was not in contemplation of the British plenipotentiaries, who con-
cluded the treaty of 1783; and that the greater part of the territory in
question is actually unoccupied.
"The undersigned are persuaded that an arrangement on this point might
be easily made, if entered into with the spirit of conciliation, without any
prejudice to the interests of the District in question."
[ 502 ]
This note contains the first intimation ever made by Great Britain of any
doubt as to the title of the United States to the disputed territory. The
British commissioners first endeavor to obtain it by cession; and, failing in
this attempt, they intimate, rather than assert, a claim to it.
10
This faint pretension was promptly repelled by the American commis-
sioners in their note of September 9, 1814; and it is due to them that the
committee should present their views in their own language.
"With regard to the cession of a part of the District of Maine, as to
which the British plenipotentiaries are unable to reconcile the objections
made by the undersigned with their previous declaration, they have the
honor to observe that at the conference of the 8th ult. the British plenipo-
tentiaries stated as one of the subjects suitable for discussion, a revision
of the boundary line between the British and American territories, with a
view to prevent uncertainty and dispute; and that it was on the point
thus stated, that the undersigned declared that they were provided with
instructions from their Government; a declaration which did not imply
that they were instructed to make any cession of territory in any quarter,
or to agree to a revision of the line, or to any exchange of territory where
no uncertainty or dispute existed. The undersigned perceive no uncer-
tainty or matter of doubt in the treaty of 1783, with respect to that part
of the boundary of the District of Maine which would be affected by the
proposal of Great Britain on that subject. They never have understood
that the British plenipotentiaries, who signed that treaty, had contemplated
a boundary different from that fixed by the treaty, and which requires
nothing more in order to be definitely ascertained, than to be surveyed in
conformity with its provisions. This subject not having been a matter
of uncertainty or dispute, the undersigned are not instructed upon it; and
they can have no authority to cede any part of the State of Massachusetts,
even for what the British Government might consider a fair equiva-
lent."
Three subsequent notes, one from the British commissioners, dated
19th September, 1814, an answer from the American commissioners of
the 26th September, and a reply from the British commissioners dated
8th October, seem to have contained all the subsequent correspondence on
this subject. In this last note, they declare that "the British Government
never required that all that portion of the State of Massachusetts inter-
vening between the province of New Brunswick and Quebec, should be
ceded to Great Britain; but only that small portion of unsettled country
which interrupts the communication between Quebec and Halifax, there
being much doubt whether it does not already belong to Great Britain."
Thus it appears that in 1814, Great Britain would gladly have accepted a
small portion of the disputed territory, by cession, and granted an equiva-
lent therefor, either in frontier or otherwise; and yet. strange as it may
seem, her claim has since grown to such a magnitude that she now de-
mands the whole by right, under the treaty of 1783.
Our commissioners at Ghent, having successfully resisted every attempt
for the dismemberment of Maine, agreed upon an article with the British
commissioners, not to revise or to change the ancient treaty boundary, but
to run and establish upon the ground that very boundary, without any altera-
tion, and to ascertain "the northwest angle of Nova Scotia," its place of
beginning. This article is the fifth in the treaty. Under it, each party
appointed a commissioner. These commissioners disagreed. According
11
[ 502 ]
to the treaty the question was then referred to the King of the Netherlands,
as umpire, whose award was rejected by the United States, because it did
not even profess to decide the controversy according to the terms of the
submission, but proposed a compromise, by a division of the disputed
territory between the parties. Great Britain has also since announced her
abandonment of this award; and now, at the end of more than half a
century after the conclusion of the treaty of 1783, the question not only
remains unsettled, but threatens to involve the two nations in a dangerous
dispute.
The committee will now proceed to state the principles on which Great
Britain rests her claim to the disputed territory, and to give them such an
answer as in their judgment they merit. She contends, in the first place,
that the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, mentioned in the treaty, is to be
found at Mars hill, in the line due north from the monument at the source
of the St. Croix, and forty miles distant from it; and that the highlands
of the treaty are those running to the westward from that point, and
dividing the sources of the streams flowing north into the St. John, and
south into the Penobscot. A reference to map No. 2 will clearly show the
extent of this claim.
Great Britain contends, in the second place, that, if this be not the truc
treaty line, it is impossible to find it; that, then, the description of the treaty
would become void for uncertainty; and that no mode remains of ermina-
ting the controversy, but by abandoning the treaty altogether, and agreeing
upon a conventional line.
The committee trust that a sufficient answer has already been given to
this last proposition. They have endeavored, and they believe successfully,
to prove that the northwest angle of Nova Scotia was a well-known point,
capable of being easily ascertained, ever since the proclamation of 1763, by
simply running a due north line from the source of the St. Croix, to inter-
sect the southern line of the province of Quebec, which consists of the
highlands running from the western extremity of the Bay of Chaleurs to
the head of Connecticut river, and dividing those rivers that empty them-
selves into the river St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the
Atlantic ocean. It is certain as the laws of nature, that these highlands,
from which we know that streams do flow in opposite directions, can be
found on the face of the country.
In support of the first proposition, the Government of Great Britain con-
tends that, as the eastern boundary of the United States runs "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 as the St. John, though nowhere men-
tioned in the treaty, has its mouth also in the Bay of Fundy, that, there-
fore, the St. John is not a river which falls into the Atlantic ocean, accord-
ing to the description of the treaty. They assert, therefore, that, in looking
for the highlands of the treaty, you must search for highlands south of the
St. John. This brings them far south to Mars hill; and from thence, west-
wardly, along the highlands, marked in map No. 2, to the western boun-
dary of the State of Maine, where they first reach the highlands which,
as they contend, "divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river
St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the Atlantic ocean." The whole
argument of the British Government, it will be perceived, rests upon the
assumption that the St. John is not a river falling into the Atlantic ocean,
because it has its mouth in the Bay of Fundy.
Gag
[ 50% ]
12
Now, what are the objections to this extraordinary pretension, as the
committee are constrained to call it?
mere
And, first, what is the Bay of Fundy, if it be not a part of the Atlantic
ocean? A bay is a mere opening of the main ocean into the land
interruption of the uniformity of the seacoast by an indentation of water.
These portions of the ocean have received the name of bays, solely to dis-
tinguish them from the remainder of the vast deep, to which they belong.
Would it not be the merest special pleading to contend that the Bay of Na-
ples was not a portion of the Mediterranean, or that the Bay of Biscay was
not a part of the Atlantic ocean?
Again the description of the treaty is, "rivers which fall into the Atlan-
tic ocean." Can it be said, with any propriety, that a river does not fall
into the Atlantic, because, in reaching the main ocean, it may pass through
a bay? And yet this is the British argument. The Delaware does not fall
into the Atlantic, because it flows into it through the Bay of Delaware; and,
for the same reason, the St. John does not fall into the Atlantic, because
it flows into it through the Bay of Fundy. The committee know not how
to give a serious answer to such an argument. The bare statement of it is
its best refutation.
But, like all such arguments, it proves too much. If it be correct, this
portion of the treaty of 1783 is rendered absurd and suicidal; and the wise
and distinguished statesmen, by whom it was framed, must be condemned
by posterity, for affixing their names to an instrument, in this particular, at
least, absolutely void. Although they believed they would prevent "all
disputes which might arise, in future, on the subject of the boundaries of
the United States," by fixing their commencement at "the northwest angle
of Nova Scotia," and running from thence along "the highlands which di-
vide those rivers which empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, from
those which fall into the Atlantic ocean," yet it is absolutely certain, that
there was not a single river in that whole region of country which, accord-
ing to the British construction, did fall into the Atlantic ocean. They all
fall into bays, without one exception. Neither can we plead ignorance as
an excuse for these commissioners; because it is fully in proof, that they
had Mitchell's map before them, from which the fact clearly appears. The
Ristigouche does not fall into the Atlantic, because it has its mouth in the
Bay of Chaleurs; nor does the Penobscot, because its mouth is in the Bay
of Penobscot; nor do the Kennebeck and Androscoggin, because, after
their junction, they fall into the Bay of Sagadahock. The same is true,
even of the Connecticut, because it empties itself into Long Island sound.
All the rivers in that region are in the same condition with the St. John.
Thus it appears, if the British argument be well founded, that the com-
missioners have concluded a treaty, and described highlands, whence
streams proceed falling into the Atlantic, as a portion of the boundary of
the United States, when, from the very face of the map before them, it is
apparent no such streams exist.
There is another objection to the British claim, which is conclusive.
Wherever the highlands of the treaty exist, they must be highlands from
which on the north side streams proceed falling into the St. Lawrence.
This portion of the description is as essential as that from their south side
streams should issue falling into the Atlantic. Now the British claim aban-
dons the former part of the description altogether. Their line of highlands
commencing at Mars hill is at least a hundred miles south of the highlands
13
[ 502 ]
whence the tributaries of the St. Lawrence flow. Between these highlands
and those claimed by the British Government the broad valley of the St.
John spreads itself, watered by the river of that name, and the streams which
empty into it from the north and from the south. The two points on the
western line of New Brunswick are distant from each other more than
a hundred miles; and when you arrive at the British highlands, you find that
they divide the sources of the St. John and the Penobscot, and not the
sources of streams falling into the St. Lawrence and the Atlantic ocean,
according to the description of the treaty.
But, even suppose it were possible to prove that neither the St. John nor
any other river in that region falls into the Atlantic ocean, would this fact
essentially benefit the British Government? If this portion of the descrip-
tion should entirely fail, would it render the other portion void? Certainly
not. It might be said that the commissioners were mistaken as to where
the streams emptied themselves which flowed from the southern side of the
treaty highlands; as to the existence of these highlands, there could be no
mistake. They are the boundary; and the streams flowing from them are
mere matters of description. Can they be sufficiently identified, indepen-
dently of this mistake? If they can, the question is settled. Now, fortu-
nately on this subject, no doulit can exist. Two circumstances concur to
identify them, about which it is not possible there can be a mistake. Ac-
cording to the act of Parliament of 1774, they constitute the southern line
of the province of Quebec, between the western extremity of the Bay of
Chaleurs, in latitude 48, and the eastern bank of the Connecticut river, in
latitude 45; and it is equally certain that from them, all along in regular
succession, streams proceed falling into the St. Lawrence. A mistake in
one part of a description of boundary, has never been held to vitiate the
whole, provided sufficient remains clearly to designate the intention of the
parties.
But how is it possible ever to embrace Mars hill in the line of high-
lands running from the western extremity of the Bay of Chaleurs and
forming the southern boundary of the province of Quebec? It is clear
that in this, and in this alone, the northwestern angle of Nova Scotia
is to be found. Mars hill is one hundred miles directly south of this
line. You cannot, by any possibility, embrace that hill in this range;
unless you can prove that a hill in latitude 461 is part of a ridge directly
north of it in latitude 48; and this, notwithstanding the whole valley of the
St. John, from its southern to its northern extremity, intervenes between
the two. The thing is impossible. Mars hill can never be made, by any
human ingenuity, the northwest angle of Nova Scotia.
Particular emphasis has been placed by the British Government on the
word "highlands," mentioned in the treaty; and comparisons have been
made between the height of Mars hill and that of different parts of the
highlands which divide the streams of the St. Lawrence from those of the
Atlantic. Even in this they have failed; because it has been shown that
the summits of the more elevated portions of the treaty highlands are
considerably above that of Mars hill, the highest point on the ridge
claimed by Great Britain. The committee, however, deem such a question
to be wholly immaterial. When highlands are spoken of as dividing
waters flowing in different directions, the meaning is plain. From the very
nature of things, they must exist and slope off in opposite directions; but
whether they consist of table land, of mountains, or even of swamp, still
…………….
[ 502 ]
14
if there be a height of land, from which streams flow down in different
directions, this is sufficient. It is not their elevation, but their capacity to
divide, which gives them their character.
It is strange that the mere incidental mention of the Bay of Fundy in
the treaty, though not at all in connexion with the St. John, which is not
even named, should have been the foundation of the whole superstructure
of the British argument. The reason why it was mentioned at all is
obvious. It was palpably not for the purpose of creating a third class of
rivers flowing into that bay, distinct from those flowing into the St. Law-
rence and the Atlantic, as the British Government contend; but merely
for the purpose of specifying with greater precision the commencement
of the eastern boundary of the United States. Several rivers in that por-
tion of the country had borne the name of St. Croix; from the fact that the
early French navigators, actuated by motives of piety, had planted a cross
at their mouth when they were first discovered. Hence it was necessary, in
specifying the beginning of our eastern boundary, to state that it was in the
middle of that St. Croix which had its mouth in the Bay of Fundy. Not-
withstanding this description, it has been seen, that which was the true St.
Croix, became a subject of dispute between the two Governments. Still
both parties were prevented from claiming that any river which did not flow
into that bay was the St. Croix of the treaty.
The Bay of Fundy has been twice mentioned in the treaty. After start-
ing at the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, and from thence sweeping round
the boundaries of the United States to this bay, it was necessary to fix as
precisely as possible the point at which our eastern boundary commenced.
This was essential for a double purpose. In the first place it was the ex-
treme northern point from which a line was to be run due east twenty leagues
into the ocean, according to the treaty; within which space the United
States were entitled to all the islands along their coast, except such as were
within the limits of Nova Scotia; and, in the second place, it was the point
from which our eastern line was to commence, and to run to the north-
west angle of Nova Scotia.
Had the commissioners omitted to fix this point with as great precision
as they could, they would have been guilty of culpable neglect. Having
done so, and having mentioned the Bay of Fundy as that part of the
ocean in which the St. Croix has its mouth, the British Government have
used it, not merely as it was intended, to mark the eastern boundary of the
United States, but to render the whole treaty, so far as the northeastern
boundary is concerned, absurd, uncertain, and void. Surely the commis-
sioners never could have foreseen any such result. The language of this
portion of the treaty is as follows:
"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, di
rectly north to the aforesaid highlands, which divide the rivers that fall into
the Atlantic ocean from those which fall into the river St. Lawrence, com-
prehending 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."
♥
[ 502 ]
Upon the whole, the committee do not entertain a doubt of the title of the
United States to the whole of the disputed territory. They go further,
and state that if the General Government be not both able and willing to
protect the territory of each State inviolate, then it will have proved itself
incapable of performing one of its first and highest duties. They feel an
abiding reliance, however, in the inherent sense of justice of the British
Government. As soon as that Government shall become convinced that
the disputed territory belongs to the United States, which they persuade
themselves will be the case at no distant day, impelled by a desire of pre-
serving inviolate the faith of treaties, it will hasten to relinquish its preten-
sions. In that event, the committee entertain not a doubt but that this long
contested and dangerous question may be settled to the mutual satisfaction
of both Governments.
15
The committee will now proceed to make a very few observations on the
second question proposed for discussion, which was, does no other and more
friendly expedient remain untried of bringing this long pending controversy
to a conclusion, than the passage of the bill which has been referred to
them by the Senate? They are most happy to be able to answer this ques-
tion in the affirmative. Anxious as they are to cultivate, by every honor-
able means in their power, the most friendly relations with Great Britain, it
affords them sincere pleasure, that the existing state of the negotiations be-
tween the two countries will justify them in forbearing to recommend the
adoption of any measure on the subject by the Senate at its present session.
Negotiation has not yet been exhausted. Although the committee are firmly
convinced that the title of the United States to the territory in dispute is
clear and unquestionable; although they acknowledge that the State of Maine
has just reason to complain not only of the long and vexatious delay which
has been experienced in settling this question, but of the assumption of
actual jurisdiction by Great Britain over a portion of her territory, under
circumstances well calculated, in some instances at least, to excite her sen-
sibility, yet, from the known justice of that power, they still entertain a con-
fident hope that the pending negotiation may be productive of the most
happy results. The important preliminaries of a convention between the
two Governments, for the purpose of exploring and surveying the disputed
lines of the treaty boundary have already been adjusted. In this state of
the question, it seems to them not advisable to withdraw the subject from
the Executive, to which it more properly belongs, and direct the boundaries
to be surveyed, the lines to be marked, and monuments to be erected there-
on, under the authority of Congress. In their opinion, therefore, the bill
referred to them, "to provide for surveying the northeastern boundary line
of the United States, according to the provisions of the treaty of peace of
seventeen hundred and eighty three," ought not to pass.
Entertaining this view of the whole subject, the committee unanimously
recommend to the Senate the adoption of the following resolutions :
Resolved, That after a careful examination, and deliberate consideration
of the whole controversy between the United States and Great Britain, rel-
ative to the northeastern boundary of the former, the Senate does not en-
tertain a doubt of the entire practicability of running and marking that
boundary, in strict conformity with the stipulations of the definitive treaty
of peace of seventeen hundred and eighty-three; and it entertains a perfect
conviction of the justice and validity of the title of the United States to the
full extent of all the territory in dispute between the two powers.
………….
[ 502]
Resolved, further, That, considering that more than half a century has
elapsed since the conclusion of that treaty; considering the extraordinary
delay which has hitherto marked the negotiations and proceedings of the
Governments of the two countries in their endeavor amicably to settle the
controversy; and considering the danger of mutual irritation and collisions
upon the borders of the two kindred and friendly nations, from further pro-
crastination, the Senate cannot forbear to express an earnest desire that
the pending negotiation should be brought to a close, and the final decision
of the dispute made, as early as practicable.
Resolved, That as it would be inexpedient for the United States to proceed,
upon their separate authority, to survey and mark the northeastern bound-
ary, until all reasonable means of effecting that object by the consent and
concurrence of both parties shall have been exhausted, the "bill to provide
for surveying the northeastern boundary line of the United States, accord-
ing to the provisions of the treaty of peace of seventeen hundred and eighty.
three," ought not to pass, and it is, therefore, ordered that it be laid upon
the table.
****
MU
16
FEB 19 1917

49
48
47
A
46
72
N
21
CONNECTICUT
(22)
of the Horthern Part of the
STATE OF MAINE
and of the adjacent
BRITISH PROVINCES
Shewing the portion of that State to which Great Britain lays claim.
Reduced from the official Map with
corrections from the latest surveys, by
JB Dashiell Mashington.
1830.
A. Northwest angle of Nova Scotia,as contended for by the United States.
B. Northwest angle of Nova Scotia,as contended for by Great Britain.
C. Northwesternmost head of Connecticut River as contended for by
Great Britain.
TI
D. Northwesternmost head of Connecticut River, as contended for by
The United States.
V
Salmon
The green colour denotes the Boundary Line, as claimed by the US.
The red colour denotes the Boundary Line, as claimed by G.B.
The Yellow line is that of the Arbiter
RIVER
S
M P
R
Beaurivag
HIR
ANP
Chaudiere
White
Halls Stream
Indians
Perrys s
L
River
Wills
71
A. Chambers.
Riv
Connecticut
L
REFERENCES
Grant to John Baker
to Hebert.
to Stewart.
to EBernant.
to EFanning.
to Man& others.
WASHINGTON.
1.Orleans
Arnold R.
71
637
QUEBEC
17
Engraver,
Margallaway
Amariscoggin R.
Speckled M!
Valore
CO
R.d
Mooseteemag
AMARISCOGGIN
Bras & Nicholas
Vic petas
La Famine R.
DOW
R. Du
Loup
RIVER
E
Kennebec
Dead R.
W. Branch
Metjarmette R.
S.W
mage
Bigelow An
Portland
R
M
Quebe
VW Branch
Branch
70
Bald Mt.
Moose River
od
70
Kamourash
in Branch of the John
N. Russell M
Temiscou
Sagadahock Bay
Du Loup
Black River
Penobscot R.
S.Russell
M!
A
St John R.
Green R."
T
RIVER ST
Umbutas
Take
KENNEREC R.
KTroi
Spencer
320
SFran
Pistol
Aliquash R.
A
East
Peaked su
2
Eberme
MA
Piscataquis
I
053
Dixmont
92
Katahdin M!
Restook M
Branch
R.
69
Totadie
R.
Temisco
Penobscot R
T
MAINTAINI
Matawaska R
Eagle
Cupbscot Bay F
Sebors R.
C
Rimousky
Bangor
PENOBSCOT RIVER
Sugarloaf M
M
Lakes
LAWRENCE
Green R.
Restook R
E
R.
N
Passadumkeg it.
2 Matamiska
Settlement
contended for by Great Britain in 1798
Metis
Matawanikeg R
Boundary
Green M
W
68
Beaver R
H 10
Katwamkeswee or
Grande Fourche R.
Mempticook R.
Mars Hill
Grand
Mon
Scondiac Lakes
B
E
20
Medweng R.
68
Great Falls
ST JOHN
Salmon R.
RIVER
Contemplated Boury of the Commissioners in 1798
ment
in 1798
30
States
Tobiquek.
Boundary contended for by the United
Eel R.
Machias
Matapediac River
Ristigouche
CHARLOTTE
40
Scale of Miles
avic R
60
67
Parish
K
B R
YOR
bobp
Apponen
ATLANT
Eldon
of
Fredericton
60
Quoddy
Head
GManan
67
a
I
River
U N
N
BAY
80
C
66
Grand
Nipisiguit
E W
OF
AS!John
River
Miramichi
R.
66
BAY
W
FUNDY
CHALEUR
I
65
Cape Sable
MIRAMICHI BAY
w
C K
64
C.Rosiers
177
adsen o
SCOTIA
65 Longitude West of Greenwich
49
48
CEAN!
47

49
48
47
46
45
44
72
MAP
OF THE BRITISH AND FRENCH DOMINIONS
Plantation Office,
Feby. 13th 1755.
Sorel
W.J.Stone
Iroquois
71
OT
This Map was Undertaken with the Approbation and at the
Request of the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations;
and is chiefly composed from Draughts, Charts and Actual Suw-
-eys of different parts of His Majesties Colonies and Plantation:
in America; Great Part of which have been lately taken by
their Lordship's Orders and transmitted to this Office by the
Governors of the said Colonies and others.
60
Connecticut River
Sugar
R.
Schachtacooks
Cohasser
Richlieu
NORTH AMERICA.
Richlieu R.
R. Womasca
R.SFT
7. Memarobke
Sunopeel.
Pennycook R.
R.Nicodel
Godfrey R.
A
Long Falls
EXTRACT FROM A
Gusumpex
White
Mountains
Geerish To
Conto cooko
70
Lake
Becancour
Winnepisstocho
Pigwacket JR.
71
Jn! Mitchell.
"Gilman T.
Canterbury
Rock Cape
R.Puante
Nomscot
QUEBEC
IN
BY
Wananoak
Norridgewaok
Carriages from Norridgewaok to R.S.Francis
John Pownall
Secretary
Lobinieres
Acomes Falls
Royals R.
Ossipee R.
R.dy Chene
WARNED
PR
Villiers
Amarisin R.
K
a
Τ
Amaguntick Pond about 60 m.
ca
PhilipsT
to
Carriages
DeLevy
Riv·
NMarblehead
Gorkam
Spurwick
Quebec
York
Beaummt
N.Boston a
R.
38
R.
Sartigan
Biddeford
Scarborough
Arundell
Kennebunk
Schoogun
Ft Hallifax
69
Ts & Falls
Regep sout falls
Saco
VINCE
Orleans
Chaudiere
E
Fort
Western
Custo
almoth
Bellchase
31
N
Brunswick F
Yarmouth
70
30
Wells
Cobesiconte
Richmond F
28
Taconoc Falls
Weskerangan
S&Thomas
Ken
Cushnoc
Fall's
Frankfort Witchasset
Topsam
A
Porpois
Salmon R
Vincelot
Ha
24
Chenbesec L.
P
• B
Bouge
Shepscut
Shepsut R.
Gr. Cove
asco Ba
R. St John
Carriages to Quebec
88
George
T
Mizabeth
Camourasca
Quel R
agadahock B
Pelerins
A
4
L. Kersango
R
Newcastle
68
135
n
Townsend
•
Harrington
Keedaskeeg
ER
Gee
69
L. Panonke
Penobscot R.
Muscongus R.
George F
George R.
Wolves
VIN
Mi Mi Mi
"...
SA
R.
Nioue
/ / / / / / /
SAGADAH OC K
Pistole R.
10
"Pencot
Ourangabena L.
ла
Long
squests
67
Pentagouet Old
E
Lake
Medousa
St
Carriages to Canada
We con
TLA
Pentagouet
7/1961718
S
Saviours
Donevis
Bettiste R
Hott!
good & Rock
Monahegan 1.
30
scot Bay
………………·|||||||||||-
68
J
Metinacus 1.
B Pannachies
Nipissigouche
AALARALL
Ignace
on
St Barnabas
art!
give
Little or Flatton R.
Desart Rock
SD
Mitis
TÍÐÐÐÐПÐÐÐÐÏJÆ
50
Kousaki L.
Passam acad
Passamacadie B.
Mt Camille
Mechisses
66
Ja
St Johns
Menan
Promet Int
70
N T
Passamacadie R.
A
RE
Usual Channel
Matane
n's
XíðŸŸ//íðŸŸêÿÿÿÿÿŸŸŸŸ
River
R. St
-
Lises
Hechtsses Har
67
1
Otter Cove
In
с
I
|||||||||||||||
90
Pas
100
Carriage Harb.
R. Ristigouche
65
Mechicar R
MLewis
Madocteg
Manan
St Johns
Lake
Mush
Trappo
R. Chacody
WEST
macade
St.Johns
Long
Gable
Leas
GA Bass
C.S Mar
//TH
Gulliver's Hot
Lady Mountains
Tary
eaut
Jemseg
Falls
66
R. Canabeki
Horn Ledge
CH
Fiil
F
Cannet Rock
Iskrided its
Wes
OFO
R.Nipissiguit
C. Mispeck
Gaspesians
L. Freneuse Village of
Acadians
R.Minage
R
Bear R.
R. Ristigought
64
O
Bear R.
Marys
Har.
BAY CHALEUR
Wchidichi P
Fork or
Horn Har
Tebogue
Port La
Tour
ANN
#
MooseR.
Shepody
Chimanisti
Annapols
Andac R.
C. Clignecto
Advocas
Hotty
Sagamore
Pugnico
Tusket R.
C
C. Sable
R.
R.
Frnhabitants
Tadiaus
Mia Braz
Block!
R.Bar
Sable R.
R. Caraguet
Annapolis Royal
Milk R
R. Taboquinquel
Shepody Ro
65
R.Poquemouche
Mountains
Patcootyeak R.
Canard
Netto Harb
R.Habitant
Dswart
63
Apple R
R.Tracadi
C Porcupine
R.Pero
100
R. Gaspero
R.Pipibougi
RichibuctoR.
La Heve R.
Ragged
Greens Har
Wager
T
Paulo
Hespotagen
Pesaquid R.
Grante love
Cocain R.
Lunenburg
R. Chediac-
Memruncook
S.Peters Cove
Chignecto Minas
Pesaquide
Abs
~ Port Senior R.
S.Katharines R.
Cod B.
8
old
Fort
x224
ULF
F OF
Istond Pr
ST LAURENCE
Mira
Maranguan
a cs
michi
Gumberland
Ft.
but sention
button
ason of
Hove
B. Verte
C. Conome
R.S&Crowd
Hope
Musaguash R.
Chignecto Ft
Chignecto Bason
Edward
SIAISON
erway
ée
Mutton
Bank
64
Noel
Chediac
:
R. Porcupine
GORST.
///
28M.
arets B
----------- pl
La Heve
Juash
49
48
47
146
45
44
*

!!ה
HEE
HUIPUUJIP
SCIENTIA
ARTES
VERITAS OF THE
LIBRARY VERITAS
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
unnam
VAUJ
1837
HIHNI M
ZEMUATELY UNUSE
TUEBOR
LÆRIS-PENINSULAM-AMŒNAN
CIRCUMSPICE
KALAUJASVISLO
unmakain
VAL GAUARU,
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 01678 0614
SEIDON PATIEIMIKE
1) Ezdis BLATINUMERI
}

7
ܝܙܐ ܐ ܝ