I 
 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 1 H|j|\ HI llliliiiii nil «"«'"'"■ " 
 
 0118957131 ^ 
 
 peumalTfe* 
 

 
 W.//,a^^. Pitt 
 
 THE DECISIOJV 
 
 OF 
 
 THE KING OF THE NETHERLANDS 
 
 CONSinFRF.n IN RKFF.REXCF. TO THE RIGHTS OF 
 
 THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 AM) OF 
 
 THE STATE OF MAINE. 
 
 PORTLAND : 
 
 PHINTfcD BY THOMAS TODD. 
 
 1831. 
 

 The author of ihe following numbers was led to prepare them and to present ihem 
 in their present form hy the repeated suggestion of several of his fellow citizens, who 
 take a deep interest iu the subject to which thev relate. If the question were one 
 of trifling importance and temporary character, — if the stage, to which the proceed- 
 ings have arrived, and the course proposed to be pursued iu regard to them did not ' 
 involve doctrines extending to the fundamental principles of our political federative 
 system of government, he certainly would not have intruded himself at this moment 
 upon the notice of the public. But Maine protests against being condemned un- 
 hcnrd. She solicits, she <lemands as an act of justice of her sister States, of the 
 L'uilcd States, of the high-minded Representatives of the States and of the People 
 of the United States, tlie Senators and Members of Congress, a patient and thorough 
 investigation before pronouncing a decision. Slic asks of them not to search for 
 plausible pretexts in order to get rid of an uncomfortable subject and relieve thcm- 
 eelvcs from a supposed present inconvenience j but to deal out to her that measure of 
 even-handed justice, which shall tend to give strength and durability to the union by 
 strengthening the confidence of the individual States. He has subjoined in an Ap- 
 pendix the letter of Mr. Preble to Mr. McLane of 2oth January, 1831, considering 
 it as presenting a succinct abstract of the whole merits of the original controversy. 
 He has added extracts from the official report of i\Ir. Deane, and from a letter of 
 Mr. Kavanngh as explanatory of the origin of the Madawasca settlement and the 
 proErress of provincial British encroachment and usurpation. Finally, he has ap- 
 pended extracts from the Arguments of the Agent on the part of Great Britain 
 under the Treaty of 1794, with a letter from the Briiish Minister, then resident at 
 Washington, in order that in connection with the debate in Parliament on the pre- 
 liminary articles of 1782, the perfect understanding of all parties, in regard to the 
 highlands of the treaty may be seen without further research. LINCOLN. 
 
 

 f1 
 
 3 
 
 No. 1. 
 Power of the Arbitek.... Intention of Parties. ...Ques- 
 tion Submitted.. ..Opinion. 
 
 We assume it as a principle, not to be contested, that as the 
 United States and Great Britain stood in relation to each other 
 and to the King of tlie Netherlands as independent nations, the 
 King of the Netherlands had no power whatever over any 
 question or difference between the United States and Great 
 Britain, beyond what those two governments expressly and by 
 mutual agreement delegated to him. It was not for him to 
 extend his powers by remote inferences, of which he was to 
 constitute himself the sole judge, nor to enlarge and aid bis 
 jurisdiction by indefinite and latiludinarian construction. It 
 w as not for him to assume the office and attributes of a friendly 
 compounder, governed by no rule or principle but his own 
 discretion, unless such an office and such powers were solemn- 
 ly and expressly conferred upon him by the high parties inter- 
 ested. Let us now turn our attention to the Treaties and Con- 
 vention between the United States and Great Britain, which 
 relate to this subject, in order to ascertain what powers were 
 delegated to the Arbiter, 
 
 Tlie treaty of independence of 1783 provides — "And that 
 "all disputes, wliich 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 the'ir 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 high 
 "lands, along the said high lands, which divide those rivers, 
 "that empty Uiemselves into the river St. Lawrence from those 
 "which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the norlhwestemmost 
 "hcadof 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 soiu'ce, directly north, to the aforesaid high lands, which 
 "di\ide the rivers tliat fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those 
 "that fall into the river St. LawTence." 
 
 The Treaty of Ghent of 1814, recites, "Whereas, neither 
 "(hat point of the high lands lying due north from the source 
 "of the river St. Croix, and designated in the former treaty of 
 "peace between the two powers, as the north west angle of 
 "Nova Scotia, nor the northwesternmost head of Connecticut 
 "river, has yet been ascertained ; and whereas, that part oi the 
 "boundary line between the dominions of the two powers, 
 "which extends from the source of the river St. Croix, directly 
 "north to the abovementioned northwest angle of Nova Scotia, 
 "thence along the said high lands, which divide those rivers 
 "that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, from 
 "those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the northwestem- 
 "most head of Connecticut river ; thence down along the 
 "middle of that river to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude, 
 "thence by a line due west on said latitude until it strikes the 
 "river Loquois or Cataraguy ; has not yet been surveyed," &lc. 
 
 Excluding from the present inquiry what has no relation to 
 it, or relates exclusively to the northwesternmost head of Con- 
 necticut river and the forty-fifth parallel of latitude, it is mani- 
 fest the sole point drawn in question by the parties to the 
 Treaty of Ghent, was the precise place on the surface of the 
 earth of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, it being mutually 
 understood and solemnly agreed by the parties, as it had before 
 been done by them in the Treaty of 1783, that the angle ui 
 question was to be fountl at a point due north from the source 
 of the river St. Croix and on the highlands, or inint de jiar- 
 tagc, which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the 
 river St. LawTence from tliose which fall into the Atlantic 
 Ocean. This place, or point thus situated, the parties agree 
 "had not yet been ascertained," and the straight line due 
 north from the source of the St. Croix to that point and the 
 line from thence along said highhmds w-esterly "had not yet 
 been surveyed.'^ "For these several jnnposes" the Treaty 
 pro^^des, "two Commissioners shall be appointed." It would 
 be difficult perhaps to describe and ddine the objects and 
 powers of the Commissioners in terms more precise and less 
 liable to misconstmction. Under the solemn obligations of an 
 oath "to examine and decide impartially." they were author- 
 
izetl and required "to ascertain and determine the points 
 '•aforesaid in confomiity with the provisions of the Treaty of 
 "peace of 1783, and to cause the boundary aforesaid from the 
 "source of the n\er St. Croix to the n\er Iroquois or Catara- 
 "giiy, to be surveyed and marked according to the said pro- 
 " visions." 
 
 The said Commissioners were also required to "make a 
 map of said boundary" and to "particularize the latitude and 
 "longitude of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia." It was 
 further agreed, that in the event of the two Commissioners 
 dilfering upon all or any of the matters so referrtd to them, 
 they should "make a report or reports, stating in detail the 
 "points on which they differed, and the grounds upon which 
 "their respective opinions were formed." And the high par- 
 ties interested "agreed to refer the report or reports to some 
 "friendly sovereign or State, who should be requested to de- 
 "cide on the differences, which should be stated in the said 
 "report or reports." And the high parties interested "engaged 
 "to consider the decision of such friendly sovereign or State 
 "to be final and conclusive on all the matters so refeiTed." 
 The decision of the Arbiter, therefore, was to be on the mat- 
 ters so referred. The matters so to be referred, were sokli/, 
 CJ-clusiveli/, and enpressh/, hmited to ascertaining that jwint of 
 the high lands described by the Treaty lying due north of the 
 source of the ri\ er St. Croix ^\■here was to be foimd the north- 
 west angle of Nova Scotia, and to the ''impartiar' '■'sitrvei/ing'' 
 and '•marliing'" on the surface of the earth "m conformity 
 luith the provisions of the Treaty of peace of 1783," of a 
 portion of the boundary line of the United States, as prescribed 
 by that Treaty — to wit: "that line drawn from the source of 
 "the St. Croix river duectly north to the aforesaid highlands, 
 "which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean, from 
 "those which fall into the river St. Lawrence ;" thence '-along 
 "the said highlands which divide those rivers that empty them- 
 "selves into the river St. Lawrence, from those which fall into 
 "the Atlantic Ocean, to the northwestenimost head of Con- 
 "necticut river, etc." 
 
 In attenq)ting to run and mark this line as agreed by the 
 parties, the British New Brunswick Agent absurdly contended 
 that the height of the land which bounds the southern border of 
 the bason of the St. John and separates the rivers that fall hito 
 tlie St. John from those which fall into the Penobscot, with a 
 slight deviation so as to meet Mars Hill, standing on the south 
 
side of the St. John between two of its trilnitaiy streams, con- 
 stitutes the high hniris wiiich divide those rivers that empty 
 themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those wliich fall 
 into the Atlantic Ocean. The United States, on the other hand, 
 contended that the highlands of the Treaty were those which 
 had always beon known as such and bounded the basin of the 
 St. LawTence on the south side of that river. Hence arose 
 the question, "which are the highlands described by the Treaty 
 of 1783 as dividing those rivers that empty themselves into 
 the river St. Lawrence from those that fall into the Atlantic 
 Ocean ; at a point on which said highlands due north from the 
 source of the river St. Croix it was agreed, was to be found at 
 the date of said Treaty the northwest angle of Nova Scotia ?" 
 Giving to the language of the Treaty of Ghent a liberal con- 
 stiTiction with a \new to the declared intentions of the parties this 
 was the question, and the sole question, so far as Maine is con- 
 cerned, submitted by the Convention of -^Oth September 1827, 
 to the Arbiter. "It is agreed," says that Convention, '-that the 
 "points of difference which have arisen, in the settlement of the 
 "boundary ** as described in the fifth article of the Treaty of 
 "Ghent shall be referred as therein provided to some friendly 
 "Sovereign or State who shall be invited to investigate and 
 "make a decision upon such points of difference." Again 
 "the map A. ** has been aE;reed on by tiie contracting parties 
 "as a delineation of the water courses, and of the boundary 
 "lines in reference to the said water courses, as contended for 
 "by each party respectively." Instead of deciding, or pretending 
 to decide, the question raised, which resolved itself simply into 
 "the point" of departure "to be ascertained," as described and 
 established by the Treaty of 1783, the Arbiter studiously 
 avoids doing so ; and, after suggesting certain pretended difficul- 
 ties, proceeds to recommend a totally difierent and new line of 
 boundary, repugnant to the Treaty and at variance ^vith the 
 agreement of the parties, viz : the bed of a river instead of 
 highlands dividing rivers. 
 
 The language and description of the treaty is as definite 
 and precise and fiee from all obscurity as it is possible for 
 human language to be. "A line drawn from the source of 
 the river St. Croir directhj north to the highlands whicti 
 divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those 
 which lall into the river St. Lawrence, along the highlands 
 ^vhich divide," Sic. Language equivalent to this is familiar in 
 the treaties of Europe, ll is of no consequence to such a 
 
descriptron wheihcr iho hinds whicli divide the rivers arc more 
 or less elevated. The principle of dividing the rivers and 
 not that of height, is the governing principle. Compare this 
 language with that of the recommendation of the King of the 
 Netherlands — "A line draion due north from the source of the 
 river St. Croir to the point where it intersects the middle of 
 the deep bed of the river St. John, thence along the middle of 
 the deep bed of that river ascending to the point ivhere the 
 river St. Francis empties itself into the St. John, thence along 
 the middle of the deep bed of the river St. Francis ascending 
 to the source of its southwestcrnmost branch, thence a line 
 drawn due west" to the highlands which divide the rivers 
 and thence along the highlands. Here as we have already 
 remarked we not only have the bed of a river instead of high- 
 lands di\iding rivers, but from the source of the river selected 
 we have a due west course to the highlands instead of a due 
 north course. If we take a map of the country and by aid of 
 it examine and compare the description and boundary of the 
 treaty with that of the line of the Arbiter, no language can 
 make the discrepancy more plain, or more perfectly demonstrate 
 that the Arbiter has undertaken to make a new treaty for the 
 parties instead of executing those already in existence between 
 them. 
 
 We have said the question in its largest extent, before 
 the Arbiter, was, "which are the highland.s of the treaty." 
 Strictly and more correctly speaking the question raised and 
 submitted was -where is the northwest angle of Nova Scotia,' 
 it being acknowledged and agreed by the parties that said angle 
 is on highlands of a certain definite description. The question 
 raised b}- the Agents of the two Governments under the Treaty 
 of Ghent involved simply the pomt of departure, as described 
 and established by the Treaty of 1783, and recognized by the 
 Treaty of Ghent. This was emphatically the question dis- 
 cussed, and on which the Commissioners differed. Whatever 
 was said in regai-d to highlands was said solely with a view 
 to establish the point of departure. W]ien that "point" should 
 be once, "ascertained" as required by the Treaty of Ghent, 
 there was no difference of opinion between the Commissioners 
 as to the place of the boundary line or the manner in which it 
 should run to or from the point ascertained. Here all were 
 agreed. The New Bnmsvvick Agent had not the face to 
 claim, nor the British Commissioner the hardihood to sanction 
 or suggest any other manner of running the line from the point 
 
of (Ippaitiirc wlicn ascortaliipd, than siicli as was prcsciihed by 
 the Treaty, viz, along highlands dividing rivers — His Nether- 
 land Majesty having selected the bed of the river St. John as 
 the point of departure was aware that the Commissioners 
 would be embarrassed in any attempt to nni froiri thence along 
 highlands dividiug rivers. Hence, not to decide existing points 
 of difference, but such as probabl}' woidd arise, he proceeds 
 gratuitously to suggest that the line should not be drawn from 
 the point of departure along highlands dividing rivers, but up 
 river. 
 
 It is worthy of remark, and it is but an act of justice to the 
 Arbiter to remark in this place, that in giving his advice on this 
 branch of the subject before biin, he does not make use of the 
 language of decision (U doit ctre considcrc) but studiously 
 employs that of recommendation (il convicndrn ) that is to 
 say that in his opinion the line he proposes would be a suitable 
 one. 
 
 No. 2. 
 Recommendation not Obligatory. 
 
 We have stated in our former nimiber that in order to ascer- 
 tain the powers of the Arbiter we must look into the agreement 
 of the parties, that is to say, into the Treaties and Convention 
 between the United States and Great Britain. There is in such 
 cases from the very nature of the transaction no implied power. 
 Every man feels within him, as the dictate of common sense, 
 that a consciousness of the delicacy of the office, and a proper 
 respect for the high parties interested, impose it as a rule, that 
 the arbitrating Sovereign should never take upon himself to ex- 
 tend the limited special powers delegated to him, beyond the 
 most plain, obvious meaning of the solemn, express stipulations 
 of the parties. It is not only indelicate, — it savors of assump- 
 tion in such cases to resort to inference and construction in order 
 to enlarge his authority. To maintain that the Arbiter is the 
 sole judge of the powers delegated to him and of the measure 
 of his discretion, is to confer upon him the power to make trea- 
 ties for the parties as well as to execute them. 
 
 When the King of the Netherlands was invited by the 
 United States and Great Britain to accept the fimctions of 
 Arbiter, copies of the Treaties and Convention under which he 
 
9 
 
 was to act, were placed in his liands in order that he might 
 fully comprehend the nature and extent of the powers delegated. 
 Ten days afterwaids he returns an answer by his Minister of 
 Foreign Alfairs in which acknowledging the receipt of the invi- 
 tation to accept "/fvf fonctions d' Arbitrc " and attaching a 
 high value to this mark of confidence he accepts ("hs fonctions 
 (F Arbitrv" ) the functions of Arbiter. Such was the language 
 of his Majesty, when after mature consideration with the Trea- 
 ties and Convention before him, he concluded to accept the 
 high honor the United States, in compliance with the wishes of 
 Great Britain, had agreed to unite in conferring. If in the 
 letter of his Minister of Foreign Aflairs, of January 22, 1829, 
 instead of accepting les fonctions d'Arbitre, he had professed 
 to accept the functions of a friendly compounder, the United 
 States would have been imfaithfid to themselves and wanting in 
 duty to the States immediately interested, if they had not forth- 
 with taken the necessary measures to correct the misapprehen- 
 sions of his Majesty. But at that moment there was no such 
 misapprehension. 
 
 We are led to inquire how it was that after the lapse of two 
 years, after the revolution in France, after the successful revolt 
 in Belgium and at the time when unable to sustain himself, 
 he was calling upon England as his "ally," to fulfil her treaty 
 stipulations in which she had guaranteed to him the integrity of 
 his kingdom, how it was I say, that he found himself under this 
 great change in his position, invested with new and enlarged 
 powers having accejited as his decision informs us "les fonc- 
 tions d^Arbitratcur." This term "arbitrateur," as my autlior- 
 ities inform me, is not properly a French word any more than 
 nisi prius or habeas corpus are English expressions. It is a 
 tenii simply of Frencii law and means a "friendly compounder." 
 "Arbitre" on the contrary implies no such power to relax from 
 strict right. Boniface, one of the best lexicographers in France, 
 thus points out the distinction of which we are speaking. 
 "Arbitrateur, (terme de loi,) amiable compositeur, a qui on 
 "donne la liberie de se rcldcher du droit : — CArbitre, au con- 
 "traire, doit guarder les formalites de justice." Who but a 
 lawyer, ready to resort to the most ])altry subterfuges of the 
 profession, would e\er have had recourse to such a substitution of 
 terms in order to give countenance to the conversion of certain 
 limited and specific powers into those of unlimited discretion. 
 Even this substitution of terms, and the nev^- and more extended 
 powers to be derived from it, were not satisfactory to the Arbi- 
 2 
 
10 
 
 ters mind. He was conscious that lie \v;is not currying into 
 effect the Treaty of nb"3. nor confining liiniseif within the 
 powers delegated nor discharging the functions of Art)iter, us 
 prescribed by the Treaties and Conrention between the parties 
 interested. Hence, tliough in deciding the (juestion submitted 
 in regaid to the northwesterninost head of Connecticut river, 
 he makes use of tlie appropriate langTiage of decision, (il doit 
 etre cansiderc) when he gives his advice in regard to that por- 
 tion of the line, in which Maine is more immcn;liately interested,^ 
 he as already remarked, studiously avoids the language ol 
 decision and substitutes that of simple recommendation (il 
 coiiriendro.) 
 
 We have seen that the express, declared and sole intent of 
 the fifth article of the Treaty of Ghent w ns to provide for the 
 survevini; and marking on the svirface of the earth, in conforni- 
 ky witli the treaty of 1783. a portion of our boundary as de- 
 fined and described by that treaty. The language employed 
 in that description is so definite and precise, that it professes of 
 itself to preclude and prevent all dispute on the subject of 
 boundaries. In the debate in the House of Commons, 17th 
 Febniary, 1783, on the preliminary articles, T. Pitt contended 
 that ''the f^reat ciecllencc oUhe Treaty" was that it so "clearly 
 "and so plainly described the limits of the dominions of Gieat 
 "Britain and America, that it was impossible they could be 
 "mistaken, therefore it was impossible there should in future be 
 "anv dispute between them on the score of boundaries." This 
 curious debate, as well as that in the House of Lords on the 
 same day, prove incontestilily that the boundaries as now 
 claimed by the United States, were then understood by the 
 British ^Ministry and by both Houses of Pariiament to be the 
 boundaries described and established by the Treaty. The very 
 abjection that "the line of boundary delivered Canada and 
 '•Nova Sc-otia fettered into the hands of the American Coii- 
 '•gress," and that "the passes and caiT\iiig places" were alt 
 delivered up to the Americans, was then urged by the Earl of 
 Carlisle and others in the Lords and by se\eral speakers in the 
 House of Commons ; but w hat is perhaps more in point, the 
 hii^hlands af the Treaty north fiom the source of the river St. 
 Croix were expressly recognized as those '■'near the river St. 
 LMitrmce." Notwithstanding these and other objections, the 
 preliminary articles were a])proved, and, on the 3d of Septem- 
 ber following, the definitive Treaty of 1783 was signed. There 
 was no pretence or suggestion made at ihaf day by any person 
 
u 
 
 ilui! ihe l)oiuKl-aries prescribed by llie Treaty were or could be 
 any other tliau those now contended for by the United Slates. 
 The en2;raved Map of '-The Rebel Colonies," published 
 at London, 28th Feb. 1783, by the reporter of the debates in 
 Parliament, on the preliminary articles as illustrative of and to 
 accompany those debates, removes every possible doubt on the 
 subject. At the date of the treaty of 1794, the only question 
 which it was supposed could arise in regard to the boundaries, 
 as prescribed by the treaty of 178:3, related to the river St. 
 Croix and its source. Tliis diflicwlty was provided for. The 
 boundaries of 1783 were recognized by the treaty of 1794 ; 
 and in executiua; the provisions of this latter in regard to the 
 St. Croix and its source, the highlands, as now claimed by the 
 United States, were then recognized as "the highlands" of the 
 treaty by the British Agent. ^Vhat was the tme intention of 
 the "parties as expressed in their solemn stipulations in the 
 treaties of Paris and Ghent, therefore, is too manifest to admit 
 of doubt or cavil. There is no room for inference or con- 
 st ructiou- 
 
 Has the Arbiter canied into effect that intention, — has he 
 even professed to do so ? We contend if he had professed to 
 do so, that he has connnitted such a gross, palpable and self- 
 evident mistake, that no Court of Chancery would ever con- 
 firm or carry into eflect such an award. We contend that he 
 had no authority delegated to him, other than what was given 
 for the sole and express purpose of canying into full eftijct, 
 without variation or modification, the treaty of independence. 
 He was no more authorised to depart from that Treaty than the 
 Commissioners who were under oath "to ascertain and deter- 
 mine in conformity with its provisions." Who can maintain 
 that the United States ever did consent to refer to a humble 
 dependent ally of Great Britain the question whether the 
 Treaty of their independence should be repealed eitber in 
 whole or in part ? We maintain that the Arbiter does not pro- 
 fess to carry into effect that Treaty, but, on the contrary, does 
 profess to recommend a new line — he does not decide which 
 is the Treaty boundary, but merely recommends one, which, 
 under the influence then operating upon him he thought might 
 be a suitable one. We maintain that he not only went aside 
 and beyond the specific powers delegated for a special purpose, 
 but that it is evident he was conscious he was doing so ; and 
 hence, assuming to act in a new and different capacity, he 
 employed the language of reconnnendalion and not that of 
 
12 
 
 decision. We contend, therefore, that excepting, perhaps, in 
 respect to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut river, 
 his opinion imposes no obligation on the United States, but is 
 merely void. IVor is the good faith of the United States in 
 the slightest degree committed. They have, to the utmost 
 extent, fulfilled every treaty stipulation. They have done 
 more : They have suffered to be drawn in question what was 
 not susceptible of doubt. They have suffered a bold and 
 reckless invasion on their rights perpetrated under color of the 
 Treaty of Ghent. They have discussed a question which 
 they never ought to have listened to for a moment. As well 
 might they have discussed the question, "Shall the United 
 States remain free and indcjjendent?" Nay, lest it should be 
 urged that acquiescence on their part in the award was to be 
 presumed from silence and delay, the Minister of the United 
 States at the Hague entered his caveat, notifying all parties 
 mterested that the rights of the United States, wliatever they 
 might be, must be regarded as reserved to them in their 
 fiill extent, without their being supposed to be committed by 
 any constructive assent or acquiescence. The rights of the 
 State, therefore, to its territory, remain unimpaired, and the 
 obligations of the United States, arising under the hazard- 
 ous stipulations of the Treaty of Ghent and the Convention 
 of 1827, have been fully redeemed. 
 
 No. 3. 
 Recommendation how made Obligatory. ...Treaty mak- 
 ing POWER. ...Limitation. 
 
 The doctrine, which we are disposed to maintain is, that 
 neither the whole nor any portion of the territory of a State, 
 can be taken fiom it without the consent of the State interest- 
 ed, whetlier for the purpose of being attached to another 
 State, erected into a new State, or transferred to a foreign 
 power. It is very certain that the principle which wll justify 
 tlie taking of a part will justify the taking of the whole, and if 
 one State may thus, without its consent, be put out of the jjale 
 of the Union, so may more. The constitution of the United 
 States assmnes to "guarantee to every State in this Union a 
 republican form of government," and "to protect each of them 
 
13 
 
 against invasion.'" How is this guaranty fulfilled when a 
 State, or a portion of it, is voluntarily abandoned by the United 
 States in time of peace, transferred to a foreign power, and 
 placed under a monarchical government, the State itself mean- 
 while constantl)- remonstrating and protesting against the pro- 
 ceeding ? Congress is vested with the power to dispose of 
 the territory, or other projjcrty belonging to the United States, 
 but even here it is exjiressly provided that nothing in this 
 constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of 
 any particular State. Waiving for the moment, however, 
 this branch of the subject, it appears to the writer of these 
 observations, that unless the constitution in its prescriptions, as 
 well as in its guai-anties and limitations, is no longer to be re- 
 garded — the only mode in which a State or States, or any 
 portion of a State can be peaceably transferred by the United 
 States, to a foreign power, is by Treaty or in pursuance of 
 Treaty. We say peaceably, because in time of wai" a State or 
 several States might be conquered by a foreign power, and it 
 might be impossible for the uncoriquered portion of the United 
 States to reconquer the territory lost. In such a case the rights 
 of States and of the United States are alike swept away by vio- 
 lence. The constitutional obligation to defend the territory and 
 repel invasion, is suspended b)- the want of physical power to 
 fulfil it. Cases, in which the rights of States and of the United 
 States are wrested from them, and each is compelled to submit to 
 superior physical force, afford no nde of construction, either as 
 respects the powers of the United States or the rights of a State 
 under the constitution. Cases like these are analogous to the 
 theoretical right of resistance in a people. It is said to exist un- 
 der all forms of government, but is recognized by the constitution 
 and laws of no government. The constitution of the United 
 States makes no provision for the supposed case of conquest. 
 The statesmen and heroes, who had achieved our independ- 
 ence, and who flamed that instrument, woidd have blushed to 
 recognize in it that such an event was possible. They pro- 
 vided for mutual defence, but not for submission ; for defending 
 the territory of each and repelling invasion, but not for trans- 
 fen-ing or surrendering up a State, or any portion of a State, to 
 the mother country, or to any other foreign power. These princi- 
 ples come in aid of the positions we have already endeavored 
 to maintain, that it was and must have been the sole intent of 
 the stipulations in the Treaty of Ghent and the Conven- 
 tion regulating the submission to an arbiter, to provide for car- 
 
M 
 
 I'y'iHi; Into full and complete eflect, withoiil variation or modifi- 
 cation, the Treaty of 1783. liut to return to the mode of 
 transferring the territory of a State hy the United States to a 
 foreign power. We have said, waiving the question of assent 
 of the State interested, it must be by Treaty or in pursuance 
 of Treaty. If the recommendation of the king of the Neth- 
 erlands, were a decision in pursuance of the Treaties and 
 Convention between the United States and Great Britain, 
 simply carrying into effect the manifest intent of the stipula- 
 tions, in strict accordance wth the provisions of those Treaties, 
 without the assu;iiption on his part of any power not expressly 
 delegated to the Arbiter ; — such a decision would have been,. 
 in good faith, equally obligatory as if inserted in the body of a 
 formal Treaty. But for reasons already explained in preced- 
 ing numbers, that recommendation has, it is believed, no such 
 binding efficacy, but is merely void. It can therefore be- 
 come obligatory only by being formally accepted. It can have 
 the effect of Treaty only by being ratified by the Treaty 
 making power. The President may reject, on his own re- 
 sponsibility, but it requires not only his assent, but that of two 
 thirds of the Senators present, to give to an instrument the 
 validity and force of Treaty. Further, the constitution of the 
 United States provides that, "This constitution ** and all 
 '"Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority 
 "of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." 
 But can the constitution itself, or any of its provisions, its obli- 
 gations and guaranties, be repealed by Treaty ? We contend 
 not. Such a doctrine would give unlimited and uncontrollable 
 power over the rights and liberties and persons and property 
 of the people and the States, to the President and two thirds 
 of the Senate. If they can modify or repeal the constitution 
 in part, they can wholly change it, or repeal it altogether. It 
 is no answer to .say there is no danger that sucii men will ever 
 abuse their authority. The people of the United States hold 
 their rights and liberties at the will of no man, or body of men, 
 however respectable. The very form and pressure and genius 
 of our institutions are opposed to such a doctrine. The Treaty 
 making power is subordinate to the constitution and necessarily 
 limited and restrained by its provisions. 
 
 Note. The debates and map referred lo are to b6 found in Bew's Political Mag- 
 azine, London, 1783, vol. 4. 
 
15 
 
 !\o. 4. 
 
 Consent or a State necessary to the cession of ixb 
 Territory. 
 
 In examining a constitutional question, it will not be forgot- 
 ten tliiit tlie government of" the United States i« not a govern- 
 ment unlimited and absolute in its poivers. but of special and 
 modified sovereignty. It can neither bind the States, nor the 
 people of the United States, in all cases whatsoever. But 
 the jiower to transfer a State to a foreign government necessa- 
 rily implies an absolute and unlimited control over the political 
 institutions and existence of a State, and over the persons and 
 projieily of its citizens and inhabitants. If the United States 
 may transfer a Slate witliout its consent to a limited monarchy, 
 like that of Great Britain, they may transfer it to an absolute 
 one, like that of Russia. Such a doctrine at once annihilates 
 all pretence of State Rights and State Sovereigntv. In prin- 
 ciple there is no difference, in the claim or exercise of such 
 a power, whether applied to a part of a State or to the 
 whole ; whether the population on its territory be scattered or 
 dense ; whether the State be remote and feeble, or central 
 and jMwerful. These latter considerations might address some 
 grave questions to the discretion of the government, but they 
 affect not, in the slightest degree, the abstract principle of its 
 vested and rightful powers. If we turn to the constitution of 
 the United States, we find enumerated, among the declared 
 motives and objects in view, in framing and adopting it, those 
 of "fonning a more perfect union,"' — "providing for the com- 
 mon defence," and "securing the blessings of liberty to oiu-selves 
 and our posterity." In pursuance of these objects, the United 
 States undertake expressly to ''guarantee to every State in this 
 Union a republican form of government," and to "protect each 
 of them against invasion." As the Ignited States assumed up- 
 on themselves this paramount obligation, it became proper to 
 guard against the peace of the nation being committed by hos- 
 tile external operations on the part of a State. Hence the con- 
 stitution provides that "no State shall, without tlie consent of 
 Congress, * * * engage in wa7\ unless actually invaded,'^ 
 or in siich imminent danger as will not admit of delay. Again, 
 to prevent all misconception of the extent and meaning of its 
 provisions, it is. further declared "the powers not delegated to 
 the United States by the Constitution, nor jvohibltccl by it to 
 the States, are reserved to the States respectively ^ or to the peo- 
 
u; 
 
 pie." Whatever sun-enders of power therefore, were made on 
 the part of the States to the United States, it is clear, if reser- 
 vations in a compact for the benefit of the weaker party mean 
 any thing, each, as originally a sovereign and independent pow- 
 er, did reserve to itself its pristine right of repelling all invasion, 
 and maintaining the integrity of its dominion and territory. 
 What frontier or Atlantic State would have consented to enter 
 the Union, if by douig so, she placed herself helpless at the 
 mercy of every invader, provided the United States should be 
 slow or remiss in fulfilling their guaranties ? What State would 
 have become a party to a contract, which rendered her liable to 
 be delivered up, in spite of remonstrance, to a foreign despot, 
 whenever a majority of States, yielding to a time-serving and 
 selfish policy, should think it cheaper and less troublesome to 
 barter away and abandon her, than to defend her. Surely we 
 are not to be told seriously that the United States may right- 
 fully relieve themselves from all constitutional obligations, in 
 regard to an individual State, by transferring that State to a for- 
 eign power ; in other words that they can cancel a UTong done 
 to a State by perpetrating an outrage against it. These are not 
 the principles, and this is not the operation of the constitution, 
 the object of so much pride and the theme of so much praise. 
 The sages who formed it are obnoxious to no such chai'ges, as 
 such a construction of its provisions implies. 
 
 It was not their intention to reduce the States, then sovereign 
 and independent, fresh from the contests of the revolution, 
 proud of their freedom and jealous of encroachment, to the con- 
 dition of humble, dependent provinces, at the mercy and sover- 
 eign disposal of the United States. Their object was the 
 reverse. It was to preserve the rights of all and to produce a 
 conspiring and consenting action of the whole, for the common 
 defence and tlic welfare of the whole, as made up of the wel- 
 fare of all and each of the parts. AVhile, therefore, they pro- 
 vided that the United States "shall protect each State against 
 invasion," they did not deprive the States of the power to 
 protect themselves. They foresaw that notwithstanding the 
 most express and solemn guaranties, the United States might, 
 from various causes, be hesitating and backward m discharging 
 their duty towards a particular member. Hence certain jjro- 
 visions in regard to the militia, and the express recognition of 
 the right in each State, with or without the consent of the 
 United States, to defend its own territories. Nor is it for the 
 United States to say to an indi\'iduai State, you may repel in- 
 
n 
 
 vasion from this section of your tenitory, but not from that' — 
 'you may exercise jurisdiction and protect your inhabitants and 
 citizens in the south, but not in the north.' Nor is it for them 
 to say 'we have transfeiTed one third of your territory to a for- 
 eign power, in spite of your remonstrances and therefore your 
 constitutional right to repel invasion is narrowed do^^n to the 
 remainder — 'wehave transferred the whole, and therefore it b 
 annulled. The only right which is left to you and your people, 
 is the right of unconditional submission to your new masters.' 
 In such a case, a great State would say, 'my constitutional rights 
 are elder than yours. The very instrument, which is the source 
 and sole foundation of your rights, recognizes and guarantees 
 mine ; and it is not for you to lijnit, restrain or annul them.' 
 A great State, in such a case we say, would reply perhaps, ill 
 this manner ; but a great State will never have occasion to 
 do so. A powerful State knowing her rights, will know how 
 to protect them: — the United States will also know them, and 
 know how to respect them. If the territories of such a State 
 were actually invaded by the authorities, military or civil of a 
 foreign power, instantly it would be perceived that the consti- 
 tution of the United States neither requires nor contemplates 
 that she should wait for orders or pennission to act. While she 
 called upon the government of the United States to fulfil its 
 duty toward her, she would herself prepare to repel the invader, 
 and if necessary by her own arm, would, with or without the 
 consent of Congress, drive the aggressor from her soil and inflict 
 upon the instruments of the aggression a merited chastisement. 
 The rights of Maine are the same, her situation and resources 
 only are different. But it is not the intention of the writer to 
 pursue or enter upon an inquiry that tends to still graver ques- 
 tions. His sole object is to sustain the position which, with 
 all deference to better opinions, he thinks he has sustained — 
 that the United States have no constitutional power to deprive 
 a State of a portion of her territory and without her con- 
 sent cede that territory to a foreign power. 
 3 
 
IB 
 
 No. 5. 
 Territory claimed by Great-Britain. ..Jurisdiction de 
 
 facto.-.Madawasca. 
 
 But irbi/ contend for a small jnece of territory, so remote 
 and of so Utile value ! IMaiiy who put this question might pos- 
 sibly put it if the whole State were depending on the issue. We 
 answer, hecausc it is our right, and we cannot consent to have 
 it wTested from us by fraud or violence. But let us in our turn 
 inquire, 'How is it, if the territory is of so Utile importance, 
 that in violation of good faith and in the shameless disregard 
 of treaties, such perseveri)tg efforts have been and continue to 
 be made on behalf of the adjacent British colonies to obtain 
 it r Is it in order to gain the most easy, direct and practica- 
 ble channel of communication between those provinces ? This 
 in tune of peace nc^er has been and nexer would be denied 
 them. It is enough for us to say that, casting an eye at the 
 map of the country, it v\ill be seen that when jjcopled with a 
 hardy race of men, as it would be before half a century, if pre- 
 served to us, that territory will constitute a point of strength 
 for us and of weakness for our adversaries. In extent it is 
 larger than more than one State in the Union. Why should 
 Jlaine yield her undoubted right, and with her right, that which 
 secures to her the moral certainty, in due time, of becoming a 
 large and powerful State, possessing advantages of situation, and 
 occupying a position important to herself, aitd valuable to the 
 United States ? 
 
 At the date of the Treaty of Independence that whole region 
 w-as an unsettled wilderness. Very soon after the provincial gov- 
 ernment of New Brunswick was organized, they discovered 
 and felt the immense importance of this piece of terri^tory. 
 Great Britain had begun to repent of yielding so much to the 
 United States. Under various pretexts she postponed the 
 withdrawal of her forces from the posts and territories in the 
 north-west, and the authorities of New Bruns\vick commenced 
 their intrigues and encroachments in the north-east. They 
 had again driven the remnants of the persecuted neutral Aca- 
 dians fi'om their farms and their homes. These had once more 
 fled into the wilderness, and sought a refuge within the boun- 
 daries of the United States. The seeds of new troubles be- 
 tween America and Great Britain were rapidly developing. 
 These unfortunate people were beyond the reach of succor on 
 ©\ir part. T^vicr tbpy had been driven by rapacity and ^'io- 
 
IP 
 
 lence from their fanns and cottages. They were offered by 
 their persecutors, grants of two and three hundred acres of 
 land each, in their new residence, as security against their 
 being again disturbed, and in 1790 and 1794 tliey were in- 
 duced to accept them. But the threatening storm was dis- 
 sipated bv the Treaty of 19th November, 1794 — provision 
 was made for ascertaining the true St. Croix and its source. 
 Great Britain agreed to withdraw all her troops and garri- 
 sons fro7n all posts and places witliin the boundary lines 
 assigned by the Treaty of Peace. Provision was made that 
 the posts should be formally surrendered within a specified 
 time; but except "within the precincts or jurisdiction of any 
 of the said posts"' "the United States in meantime, at their 
 discretion, extending their settlements to any part icithin the 
 said boundary line." That is to say, the military posts were 
 to be formally surrendered ; but all other places within the 
 boundaries prescribed by the Treaty of 1783, which might be 
 regarded as in British possession, icere to be considered as 
 yielded up and delivered over to the United States, ipso facto, 
 by thf Treaty of 1794. Tlie river St. Croix and its source 
 were determined in 1798. The place near where the due 
 north line would cross the river St. John was perfectly well 
 understood ; and the Agent of the British Government, who 
 had the whole management of the business on her part, in his 
 toritten arguments on the record of the proceedings, fully and 
 explicitly acknowledged the highlands of the treaty to be those 
 now and always claimed as such by the United States. 
 
 The fact that the due north line of the treaty necessarily 
 crosses the river St. John, was at the same time explicitly re- 
 cognized also by the Minister of Great Britain, resident at 
 Wasliington, in a letter addressed to the same Agent.f At that 
 period, to have doubted what were the highlands of the treaty, 
 would have been regarded as evidence of want of understanding 
 or of mental alienation. Here then is an end of all pretence of 
 British jurisdiction, even in Madawasca. Nor is there fi-om 
 that period the slightest trace of it until some years after the 
 date of the treaty of Ghent. On the other hand, during this 
 same period, we find that in \1797, 1801, 1806, 1807, Massa- 
 chusetts made large grants adjoining the due north line, and ex- 
 tending to within about fifteen miles of the place where that 
 line crosses the river St. John. Without pursuing this inquiry 
 further, we refer to the oflicial statement of Mr. Deane,J and the 
 
 tSee Appendix IS'o. 3. { See Appendix No. 2. 
 
20 
 
 letter of Mr. Kavanagh. Maine is not therefore, as some seem 
 to suppose, claiming territory which has always been under 
 British jurisdiction. She is maintaining her ancient boundaries. 
 She is resisting a system of encroachment and usurpa- 
 tion, AT FIRST SECRET AND STEALTHY, NOW OPEN AND PUSH- 
 ED WITH A HIGH HAND. 
 
 Note. In corroboration of ihe universal understanding of ihe meaning affixed to 
 the terms "ilie highlands which divide the rivers," (Sec. employed by llie franiers of 
 the Treaty of Independence^ we miglit urge, in addition to whut has already been 
 stated ill pages 10, 11, that all the engraved Maps, from that io the Annual Register 
 for 1763 to tliat of "the Rebel Colonies" in 1783, and ihence down to one published 
 about the year 1790. concur in laying down the boundary of the hi<^hlaji(h precisely 
 as claimed by the United Slates. An admirable and nearly complete collection was 
 laid betore the Arbiter. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 Letter frum Mr. Preble, Minister at the Hague, to Mr. Mc- 
 
 Lnnc, Minister at London. 
 
 The Hague, 2,5tli Janiiaiv, 1881. 
 
 Dear Sir: I had tlie lionor to receive from the King of the 
 Netherlands on the lOlh inst. a docninent inirporting to he an ex- 
 pression of his opinion on tiic several ])oints suhniitted to him hy 
 the United States of America and Great Britain rehitive to certain 
 portions of tlje hoiindaries of their respective territories. On exam- 
 ining that document it appeared to nie that the Arhiter, overlook- 
 nig the nature of the trust reposed in him, and tlje limitations to 
 the powers conferred upon him, had assumed to set aside the trea- 
 ty houndaries, and to lay down a new, and, in his opinion, inoK! 
 convenient line of demarcation. With these impressions I deemed 
 it my duty to address a letter, in the nature of a protest, to his .Ma- 
 lesiy's Minister of Foreign Affairs, a copy of which I have the hon- 
 or to enclose. It has also occurred to me, that it inigiit not be mi- 
 acceptahle to you, in this state of the question, if I were to suggest 
 to your recollection the more important and principal facts, which 
 have a hearing on the controversy. 
 
 The language of the treaty of I'ari.s of I78;3, which has given rise 
 to the contestation between the high parties interested, is, "And 
 "that all disputes, which might arise in future on the subject of the 
 "Boundaries of the said United States, may be prevented, it is here 
 "by agrceil and declared, that the following are and shall be iheir 
 "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 high- 
 "lands, which divide those rivers, that empty themselves into the 
 "river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, 
 "to the north-westernmost head of Connecticut river; thence, 
 "down along the middle of that river to the forty-fifth degree of 
 "north latitude ; from thence, by a line due west on said latitiidr, 
 "until it strikes the river Iroquois or Calaraguy. ****** 
 "East, by a line to b* drawn tlong the iiuddle of the river St. Croix, 
 
^2 
 
 "from lis iiioiilli ill ilie hay of Fiindy to its source; and, from lO 
 ".source, directly nortli, to the aforessaid lii^'ldaiuls, vvliicli ilivide 
 '■the rivers thai fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those tliat fall in- 
 "to the river St. Laurence." 'J'he nianriei' of carrying this appar- 
 ently exceedingly definite and lucid desci iptioii ol boundary into 
 effect, by running the line as described, and niai king the same on 
 the surface of the earth, was the subject, the sole, exclusive sidiject, 
 submitted by the Convention of the ^9th Sept. 1837, in pursuance 
 of Art. V. of the treaty of (jheiit, 1814, to an .Arbiter. If on inves- 
 tigation that Arbiter found the language of the treaty, in his opin- 
 ion, inapplicable to, and wholly inconsistent with tlie topography 
 of the country, so that the treaty, in regard to its description of 
 boundary, could not be executed according to its own express stip- 
 ulations, the United States had never submitted the question, what 
 practicable !)0undary line should, in such case, be substituted and , 
 established; nor bad they in any way, directly or indirectly, intima- 
 ted a desire that any suggestion should be made, as to what nught 
 Reconsidered a suitable boundary. Such a question of hoimdary, 
 as is here supposed, the United States of America would, it is belie- 
 ved, submit to the definitive decision of no sovereign, and if in any 
 such case they should solicit the friendly intervention of an «//.'/, it is 
 probable they would expect first to be heard, beli)re an opinion was 
 formed as to what line miglil be convenient. Jn the present case 
 especially as any revision or substitution of boundary whatever, 
 bad been steadily, and in a spirit of unalterable determination resis- 
 ted at Ghent and at Washington, they had not anticipated the pos- 
 sibility of there being any occasion for delegating such power, or 
 soliciting such intervention. That such must have been the views 
 of the Government of the United States would appear evident, not 
 only from the history of the negociation at Ghent, but from the lan- 
 guage of the treaty itself, which provides forthe selection <d'an Ar- 
 biter, and defines the object and extent of the powers didegated. 
 'J'he treaty, reciting that "whereas, neitiier that point of the high- 
 "lands lying due north from the source of the river St. Croix, and 
 "designated in the former treaty of peace hrtweeu the two powers, 
 '■as tlie north-west angle of Nova Scotia, nor the iiotth-westermnost 
 "head of Counecticnt river, hasyel been ascertained ; and whereas, 
 "that |)ait of the boundary line between the liominions of the two 
 'powers, which extends from the source of the river St. Croix, di- 
 "rectly north to the abovcinentioned north-west angle of Nova 
 "Scotia, theiice 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 nortlnvesternniost head 
 "of Connecticut river : thence down along the middle of that river 
 "to the forty-fifth dciiree of north latitude; thence by a line due 
 "west on said latitude, until it strikes the river Iroquois or Catara- 
 "giiy ; has not been surveyed"' provides "that for these several ])ur- 
 poses two commissioners shall be apr-.ointed" — .And it would he dif- 
 ficult to describe and define the objects and powers of the conrmis- 
 sioners in terms more precise and less liable to misconstruction. 
 Under the solemn obligations of an oath "to examine and decide 
 impartially," they were authorized and reipiired "to ascertain anil 
 "determine the points aforesaid in conformity with the provisioHs 
 
•23 
 
 "of the treaty of jieace of 1783, and to cause tlic boinidary afuiesaul 
 "from tlie source of die river Sit. Croix to tin; river Irc)(|uuis or Cat- 
 "araguy, to be surveyed and iiiarUed according to the said provia- 
 "ious." It was further aijreed, that in the event of tlie two coinmia- 
 sioners difteriug upon all or any of the matters so referred to them, 
 they slioidd "inalie a repoit or reports, stating in detail the points 
 "on which they diti'ereil, and the grounds ui)un which their respec- 
 "live opinions were formed." And the high parlies interested 
 "agreed to refer the report or reports to some frienrlly sovereign or 
 "State, w ho shuuhl he reipiested to decide on the ditfeiences, whiidi 
 "should be stateil in the said reporter reports." And the high par- 
 ties interested "engageil lo consider the decision of such triei.dly 
 "sovereign or Slate lo be linal and conclusive on all the matters so 
 "referred." Tin! decision of the Arbiter, therefore, was to be on 
 the mntlers so to ha referred. The matters so to be referred, were sole- 
 ly, exclusiveh/, and cr/jrcsstii, liunted to the Hiiipurtial" ''survei/iiig" 
 and '■'■marking" on the surface of tlie earth "m eunformity with the 
 provisions of the treaty of peace of \7S3,^' of a portimi of the bounda- 
 ry line of the United Slates, as [jiescribed by that treaty — to wit: 
 'that line drawn from ihe som-ce of the St. Croi.\ river directly north 
 "to the aforesaid highlands, whiidi divide the rivers that fall into 
 "the Atlantic Ocean, from those which fall into tlie river St. Law- 
 "rence ;" thence "along the said highlands which divide those riv- 
 "ers tliat empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, from those 
 "which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the iiorth-westerniiiost head 
 "ot' Connecticut river, etc." 
 
 The language already quoted of ihe treaty of peace of seventeen 
 lumdred and eighty-three gave rise to three questions, viz: 
 
 1st. VVheie at a point due north I'rom the source of the river St. 
 Croix, are the highlamls which divide those rivers thai empty them- 
 selves into the river St Lawrence from those that fall into the At- 
 lantic Ocean — at which same point on said highlands was also to 
 be found the north-west angle of the long established, well known 
 and distinctly detined Brilish province of \ova Scolia .' 
 
 2d. As there is above the forty tiliii parallel of latitude, a nutn- 
 l>er of tributary streams, all, with ihe exception of Hall's Stream, 
 at the date of the treaty nameless and unknown slreatEis of the wil- 
 derness and whose condiiued waters were only known as forming 
 the river Connecticut ; which of ihe sources of all these streams is 
 "the north westernmost head of Connecticut river?" 
 
 3d. As the boundary of ihe forty fifth parallel of latitude bad 
 ten years before the <iale of the treaty of |ieace been run and mark- 
 ed iii its whole extent by ihe competent aulhoriliesof ihe Sovereign 
 and so continued to be understood and recognized at the dale of 
 the treatv by all parties interested ; the question is whether that 
 old line, though not altogether accurate but by reference to which 
 the couiilrv has become peopled with inhabitants, shall lie retraced, 
 or whether a new line shall now be run and established more near- 
 ly a|)proximaliiig lo accuracy? 
 
 Prior to the year 17(i3, the Canadas from the earliest settlement 
 of the country had belonged to the dominions of the King of 
 France ; and prior to the same period Nova Scotia had alternately 
 belonged to France and Great Britain. In that wilderness country 
 
•u 
 
 liowever ilic boumlaiies ol'tliese :iiiil the ailjoiriing British province 
 of Massiichiiselts Bay liafl not at tljat period hefiii prerisely and 
 distinctly defined and desorihed. While France had endf avored to 
 crowd the boundary of Canada over the St. Lawrence into the in- 
 terior of the country, Great Britain repelled the pretension and 
 maintained her claim to the southern bank of that river. In reijard 
 to Nova Scotia also althou^'b the original grant of ]G2.'(, which 
 gave it its name, bounded it on the west expressly by the river St. 
 Croix, each nation as it alternately by cession or conquest became 
 master of t!ie territory, endeavored in its turn to push that bounda- 
 ry as far west as the river Penobscot, while the party for a moment 
 no lotiijer the proprietor, abandoning its former attitude and argu- 
 ments, also in its turn resisted all attempt at encroachment. 'J'bis 
 contest was terminated on the part of France by the treaty of Par- 
 is of ]7(i3, by which she ceded to Great Britain all claim to that 
 whole region of country. 
 
 On the southern border of the river St. Lawrence, and at the av- 
 erage distance from it of less than thirty njiles, there is an elevated 
 range or continuation of broken highland extending from cape Ro- 
 sieres southwesterly to the soinx-es of Connecticut river^ormuig the 
 southern bonier of the basin of the St. Lawrence, and the ligne des ver- 
 sants of the rivers emptying iiito it. Tlie same highlands form also 
 the li«[ne dcs rersants of the river Ristigouche and its northerly 
 branches ejnptying into the buy des Chaleurs, the river St. John 
 with its northerly an(i westerly branches empiyiug into the bay of 
 Fundy, the river Penobscot with its northwesterly branches emp- 
 tying into the bay of Penobscot, the rivers Kennebec and Andro- 
 scoggin whose united waters absorlied in the river Sagadabock 
 empty through it into Sagadaliock hay and the river Connecticut 
 emptying into the bay usually called Long Island Sound. These 
 bays are all open arms of the Sea or Atlantic Ocean, are designated 
 by their names on iMitchell's Map, nnrl with the single exception of 
 Sagadabock are all equally well known and usually designated by 
 their appropriate names. The river St. John, several branches of 
 which take their rise in these highlands, fiom thirty to one hun- 
 dred and twenty English miles west of the line drawn due north 
 from the sotuce of the St. Croix, pursuing a southeasterly course 
 crosses said line, then suddenly turning runs nearly' parallel to it, 
 when resuufmg its former direction it winds its way through more 
 than three hundred miles from its source to the Ocean ; and in its 
 course, besides its own rapids and those of its tributaries, precipi- 
 tates itself over one fall of eighty feet Ijeight. The waters of the 
 St. Lawrence are tide waters, and of course on a level with those 
 at the mouth of the St. John. As therefore the highlands or point 
 de partage, where the tributaries of the St. John take their rise, ap- 
 proach the St. Lawrence within thirty English niile.s, it necessarily 
 results from the nature of things that the country on the Atlantic 
 side must continue to rise till it reaches the dividing ridge or high- 
 lands, and then suddenly fall off toward tho river St. Lawrence. 
 But we are not here left to inference. It is proved by actual ob- 
 servation and computation that the average absolute height of this 
 "tigne des versants'' approximates nearly to two thousand feet. 
 
 Such being tho general features of the Country when by the 
 
•25 
 
 Treaty of I'aiis the Kin^' of Grojit Britain hml olitaiiied the undis- 
 piiied soveiciijiity of the whole teniloiy in that region, in order to 
 remove all douhls ns to the true boundary of Canada on the south, as 
 well us for oilier important purposes, he issued his proclamation of 
 October the 7th, 17(j3, in which he defines and describes the southern 
 boundary of tiic province of Quebec (Canada) in these worda 
 "crossini; tlie river St. Lawrence and the Lake Champlain in forty- 
 "five ilegrees of north latitude passes along the higldands whii-h 
 "divide the rivers that empty themselves into the said river St. 
 "Lawrence liom those which fall into the sea, and also along the 
 "north coast of the bay des C'haleurs" — tlius throu-iiig the basin of 
 the St. Lawrence from the somces of Connecticut river to the bay 
 de,s ( "haleuis into the province of (luebec. The same year in another 
 pul)lic document, the commission to Sir James Murray as Governor 
 of the province, the same boundary is defined and described in the 
 same words ; and from that time in all the commissions of the 
 Governors of Quebec, for the twenty years preceding the Treaty of 
 178!, the same specification and description of that boundary from 
 the somces of Connecticut river to the bay des Chaleurs was given 
 in the same words, to wit: "along the highlands which divide the 
 "livers lliat empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from 
 "those wiiich fall into the sea." Nay, in 1774, the British Parliament 
 enacted a public statute, in which they described and confirmed the 
 same portimi of the boundary of the ])roviuce of Quebec in these 
 same identical words. Moreover, three years after the Treaty of 
 peace in the commission griinti>d to Gny Carleton as Governor of 
 the province, the southern bountlary is defined and described "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 Atlantic Ocean to the iiortliwesternmost head 
 "of Connecticut river." And to this moment the southern boundary 
 of Canada from the bay des Chaleurs to the sources of Connecticut 
 river is only made known by referring to that description. Thus for 
 twenty years prior to the Treaty of peace and for a series of years 
 afterwards in iiroclamations of the King, in acts of parliament, and 
 in llie public commissions to the Governors of the province, the 
 words and description "the highlanils which divide the rivers which 
 "empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those which 
 "fall into the sea" or Atlantic Ocean had become exrhisiveli/ appro- 
 priated anil were universally known as solely applicable to that divid- 
 ing ridge or "ligne des versants," whicli bounds the basin of the St. 
 Lawrence on the south side of that river. 
 
 As the King of Great Britain, in October, 17G3, determined to fix 
 and establish the theretofore unsettled boundary of Canada, by a 
 natural and well defined line ; so afterwards in November of the 
 same year he in like manner determined to settle all controversy as 
 to the western bouiidary of Nova Scotia. Accordingly he proceed- 
 ed by a solemn public act and document, to define and prescribe 
 that boundary in these words : "Bounded by a line drawn from 
 "Cape Sable (/cross 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." The same identical language i.s repeated from 
 4 
 
•26 
 
 time to time, and tlie same boundary specified and described in all 
 tlie public documents referrinft to lliat subject, that is, the commis- 
 sions of the Governors, for the twenty years ])recediiii,' tlie sii;na- 
 ture of the treaty of 1783, ami the same identical description "Iroui 
 "tiie mouth of the river St. Croix, by the said river to its source, 
 "and from thence to the Southern boundary of ivu- Province of 
 "tiuebec," is to this moment the precise and oidy description of 
 that boundary in the only public documents ivhere it is to be sought 
 for, the commissions of the Governors. Whatever personal mis- 
 apprehension there might have been in the first instance in the 
 niiuds of the American Coirjinissioiiers, therefore, in regard to the 
 ])recise western boundary of Nova Scotia,* arising from their being 
 precluded by the war from a personal inspection of British public 
 docninents, that misapprehension hail been entirely done away by 
 the ])reliriiinary discussions, prior to their agreeing to the ])relimi-. 
 nary articles of peace in ]78'2, and of comse there can be no pre- 
 terrec of their want of a full understanding of the subject, in Se])- 
 teinber, 1783. An<l it should be recollected there never was for a 
 single inoment the least misapprehension, or want of knowledge, 
 on their part, in reganl to the highlands, always known and desig- 
 nated as "the higidands which divide those rivers which empty 
 "themselves into the river St. Lawrence, from tliose which fall into 
 "the sea," or Atlantic Ocean. Hence, as Mr. Adams, one of tliem, 
 testifies, they agreed after much contestation to abide in that quarter 
 by the existing boundaries, or as he expresses it the charter of 
 Blassachnsetts Bay. 
 
 It appears therefore, from evidence in its nature conclusive, from 
 authentic public documents of the highest character and authority, 
 that for twenty years prior to tlie Treaty of 1763, the northern and 
 the western boundaries of Nova Scotia, had been prescribed and 
 defined in language the most clear and |irecise, and of course the 
 place of a northwest angle so accurately indicated, that a common 
 surveyor needed but to be shown the source of the St. Croix, in 
 order to be able to set U|) a monument at the point of intersection 
 of the northern and western boundaries; and thus mark on the 
 surface of the earth the precise position or locality on the highlands, 
 of "the northwest angle of Nova Scotia.'' Add to this, prior to the 
 revolution the two nations were constituent parts of the same greiit 
 empire and the language of King and Parliament, in their luihlic 
 documents, was the official language of the wdinle kingdom. When 
 therefore the two high contracting parlies at the Treaty of jieace, 
 availed tliemselves officially of that identical language and specifc 
 description of particular boundaries, which had been so long used 
 and exclusively appropriated, it must be presumed that they used them 
 
 ^Mt. Adams in his note to Governor Cushiilg dated -oth Oct. 1784, says '-We 
 had before us through the whole negocialion a variety of maps." Five difierenl 
 maps published at London, in the years ITiio, 1771, 1771, 177.5, place the norllnyesl 
 angle of Nova Scolia, on the "highlands" at the source of tliat branch of the river 
 Si. John now called the Madawasca. One of these live is specially quoted in the 
 report of the Committee of Congress 16th Aug. 1782. Hence probably the miscon- 
 ception in Ihe first instance on the part of the American Commissioners who in pro- 
 posing at the commencement of ifie negociation, the river St. John <iA the bounda- 
 ry assumed the position of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia as being on '"the 
 highlands" Sc-c. at the source of the river St. John. 
 
27 
 
 in the same meaning, and with the same applicability, and extent oj 
 signification, in which one of the parties had always used them, and 
 the other had always understood them. Tliat siicli was tlieir mutual 
 undeislainling would scoui to result from tlie peculiar expression 
 of tlie Treaty — "IVoin the nurtlnvest angle of Nova Scotia" — not 
 thai supposed nortliwest angle on tlie liigldands at the source of 
 the river St. John — not that northwest angle on the hank of the 
 St. Lawrence, formerly insisted u|ioii in the controversies between 
 France and Great Britain — not the indefinite northwest angle of 
 the original vague grai:t of the province, hut that northwest angle, 
 which had heen prescribed by the authority of King and Parliament, 
 and had been repeatedly recognized by tli;;t authority in the most 
 solemn manner, in all their public documents for the last twenty 
 years, "to wit: that angle formed by a line drawn due north from 
 the source of the river St, Croix to the higidands," etc. The high- 
 lands therefore, which the United States have insisted are the high- 
 lands of the Treaty, are those alone on which the point of departure 
 the actual legal "northwest angle of Nova Scotia," was established 
 and to be found. They are tlie highlands which had long been 
 described by the language of the Treaty and the only ones that 
 ever had been so designated or kuown at the time the Treaty was 
 made. 
 
 But it is contended by the Government of Great Britain that 
 there is a rival range of highlands, which in all its characteristics 
 better comports with the language and description of the Treaty. 
 It is the dividing ridge that bunnds the southern side of the basin 
 of the river St." John and ilivides tlie streams that flow into the 
 river St. John from those which flow into the Penobscot and St. 
 Croix. No river flows from this dividing ridge into the river St. 
 Lawrence. On the contrary nearly the wliole of the basins of the 
 rivers St. John a]id Ristigouche intervene. The source of the St. 
 Croix also is in this very "ligne des vcrsanis," and less than an 
 Enslish mile distant fruni the source of a tributary stream of the 
 St. John. This proximity reducing the due north line of the Treaty 
 as it were to a point compelled tlic provincial .Vgents of the British 
 GovernniHiit at the exjiense apparently of consistency, to extend 
 tin; due north line across lliis dividing ridge and to pass onward 
 into the basin of the St. John; and crossing continually as they 
 proceeded the tributary streams of that river tliey at length arrived 
 in the vicinity of an iiisolated hill called Mars Hill, standing near 
 the southwestern bank of the river St. John between two of its 
 ti-ilnitary streams, and distant about forty miles from the source of 
 the St. Ci-oix. Connecting that isolated hill by means of the divid- 
 ing ridge between said tnhiitary streams with the "ligne des ver- 
 saiils" as just described they claimed it as constituting the highlands 
 of the Treatv, "which divide the rivers that empty themselves into 
 the river St. Lawrence, from those that full into the Atlantic 
 Ocean." 
 
 In the absence of all and every kind of |Kihlic document to sus- 
 tain the line claimed by Great Britain, in opposition to the express 
 language of a series of public documents emanating from the Brit- 
 ish Government itself for a succession of more than sixty years, — 
 in opposition to all the ancient British and other Maps of the couii- 
 
5S 
 
 try fioin the couquesl of Canada in 17G"2, to ilie spiipiiriiiu (i|) of 
 new ditiicnities bulwi en tlje United States and Great Bntain after 
 the Frencli Kevuintion — in oiiposilion to all the dehates in I'arlia- 
 nient on the treaty of l/SJ and tlie map jiulilished at that time to 
 illustrate those debates— in opposition to all the features, tojjogra- 
 phy and tradliioiis of the country, and in opposition to the fact that 
 the northwest ani;le of Nova Scolia, ihe point of departure of tin; 
 treaty never was at Mars Hill nor within one hundred Eiifjlisli 
 miles duo north of it, his Majesty the King of the Netherlands lioni 
 considerations princip;illy arising out of a position assumed that 
 the river St. John empties itself into the hay of Fundy and not 
 into the Atlantic ocean, and that the river Ristigouche ejnpties itself 
 into the hay des Chaleurs and not into the Atlantic ocean, and iliat 
 it equally accords with the reipiisitions of the treaty of ]7t;3 wlieth- 
 er the Itighlands that divide the rivers that empty themselves into' 
 the river St. Lawrence from those that fall into the Atlantic ocean, 
 divide said rivers '■mediately" or "immediately," expresses the 
 opinion that the line as claimed by Great Uritain comports etpially 
 well ill all respects with the language of the treaty as that claimed 
 by the United States. Having thus discovered that the language of 
 the treaty is amhiguous and inexplicable he proceeils to set aside 
 the boundary of the treaty and to propose a new and different line 
 of demarcation which he thinks would be a suitable one, viz : that 
 the line drawn <rnect!y north from the source o( St. Croix river 
 should extend to the centre of the river St John only, thence the 
 boundary line should pass up that river to the mouth of the river 
 St. Francis, theinre up the river St. Francis to the source of its 
 southvvesteriMiost branch, thence due west from said source until 
 it intersects the line of the highlands as claimed by the U!ii!c<l 
 States, and only from thence to pass "along the said highlands 
 "vvhich divide the rivers that empty themselves ii:to the liver St. 
 "Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic ocean, to the 
 "northwesternmost head of Connecticut river." 
 
 Upon this briiiich of the subject and in reference to this proceed- 
 ing on the part of His iMajesty I confine myself to one remark that 
 this is the making of a new treaty and prescribing new limits in- 
 stead of executing the old one by "ascertnining," ''surveying" and 
 "marking'" its boundaries. It is giving the bu(l of a river for a 
 boundary instead of highlands dividing rivers a -ligne des vcrsants." 
 1 should not advert to the decision of His iMajesty on the second 
 question were it not for tin! purpose of savin:.' that it had appeared 
 to the Government of the United States, judging from inspection of 
 an accurate map of the country, that the soioce or head, which the 
 Arbiter has decided in conformity with the Hritish claim to be "the 
 uorthwesterninost head of Connecticut river," was in fact the 
 northeastern head ; yet that being the point submitted, the United 
 States will without doubt fultil whatever they have stipulated. 
 
 In regard to the third question submitted the Arbiter after ex- 
 pressing an opinion that the 45th parallel boundary should be run 
 and marked without rclerence to the line as formerly run and es- 
 tablished, proceeds to declare that it would be suitable that at the 
 place called i;ouse'.s point, the territory of the United .States of 
 America should uevertliclcss extend so us to comprehend a "fort" 
 
21) 
 
 iIkmc (fstalilislioil Hiiil ils "rayon kiluiiielriiiue." Jl is Iiik; that 
 lliere are the ruins of an abandoned torliticalion formerly hiiilt hy 
 the United !:3tate.s on a sunken point or |>iece of gron{id called 
 •■Kouse's |)oint" on the borders of Lake Uhainplain and that this 
 point is within the limits of the United istates according to the old 
 established line, hut will probably fall without by accurate admeas- 
 urement. JJut it is equally true that these fads had not even been al- 
 liuled to in the statements, documentsaiid evidence sidjmilted on the 
 )iart of the United States, and that no cotmnujiication or intimation 
 of the s!i;,'htest character in lelatiou to these facts has ever been 
 made to the Arbiter in behalf of the United States. As the ques- 
 tions submitted related solely to the true limits defined and prescri- 
 bed by the treaty of 176S, any allusion to House's point was deem- 
 eil irrelevant. The Government of the United States asked for 
 nothing but a rigid adherence to the faith of treaties and a ready 
 e.vecution of their stipulations in an elevated sentimeiit of natioiial 
 good faith. But for sometime past His iMajesty the King of the 
 Netherlands has hail his attention strongly e.veited to the subject of 
 convenient boundaries. There is, says the Court Journal ul' the 
 Hague of the llth instant, "nn rapprochinent bizarre" between the 
 position which the Kimr occni)ied as -Arbiter in regard to the boun- 
 daries between Great Britain and the Urjited States and that which 
 Great Britain occupies in regard to the bonndaiies between Holland 
 and Belgiuiu. When, therelbre, the Gnvej-nment of Gicat Britain 
 urged a claim to a portion of the ancient territory of the United 
 States, on the ground that it was convenient and necessary to her, 
 and His Majesty felt the power and yielded to the iidiuence of the 
 argument, it was natiu'al that lie should look around lor something 
 which might, in order to save appearances, afford an ostensible 
 ap|ilicatiori of the same principle in favor of the United States. — 
 And tliis mode of saving appearances conlrl not be unacceptable to 
 (ijeat Britain inasmuch as it origijiated liom the suggestion of her 
 own Agents. 
 
 With sentiments of respectful consideration, 
 
 1 have the honor lo be, Dear Sir, your 
 
 very obedient servant, 
 
 U'M. J'. I'liElM.i:. 
 
 His Excellency, Louis .McLaxe, 
 Envoi/ Ertmordiuarij and Minister Plcnij/olcntianj of Ihc U. S. .1. 
 
 LiOndun. 
 
 No. 2. 
 Eitract from the Rtport of John G. Deaiic, Esijuire, Agent, 
 8fC. to the Governor of Maine, dated New. )>d, 183L 
 
 "In 1782, I'ierre Lizotte, then a boy of fuinteen years of age, 
 strayed from his home in Canada and foujid his way to the Indian 
 selth-meut at the mouth of ^Iada^^ asca river, where he continued 
 iluring the following winter. On his return to his friends, his rep- 
 lesuntdlioiis were such as induced liis half brother, Pierre Duperre, 
 
.•30 
 
 to accuiapiini) him lo llic same place, for Ike purpose of trade with the 
 Indians, the year following. They coiimieiicefl their business on 
 the .soiitli siile of tlie St. Jolin, (Voiii twu lo three iiiiies helow the 
 mouth of iVlaila\y;isc-a river. They were the first persons who com- 
 menced their residence at Madawaaca. 
 
 Two or three years afterwards, say in 178G, the .licadian or neutral 
 Frencli, wliose ancestors had been settled at the liead of tliu Bay of 
 Fundy, or in llie country which is now called Nova Scotia, and 
 had been driven from thence and liad established themselves at St. 
 Jlnns, (now Fredeiicton) and in that neif^hborhood. being disturbed 
 by the introduction of the refugees and the acts of the (government 
 of New Brunswick, loldch dispossessed them of their farms, fed up 
 the St. John in searcli of places oj rLsidence ovt oj the reach cj British 
 laws and oppression. 'I'wenty or more families moved and settled 
 themselves on the St. John, helow the trailing establishment which 
 Pierre Duperre had made a few years previous. Here they con- 
 tinued in the unmolested enjoyment of their property fur some 
 years. 
 
 Pierre Duperrc being a man of some learning, had great influence 
 with his nei.i|;hlKirs, and the British authorities of the province of JVeio 
 Brunswick, seeing his consequence in the settlement, ifg-rm early to 
 caress and flatter him, and sometime in the year 17!)0 induced him 
 to receive from them a grant of the land he occupied, influenced 
 as well by Pierre Duperre as with the liope of not again being disturb- 
 ed and driven from their possessions, ns they and their ancestors 
 more than once bad been by the British, this large body of French- 
 men were also induced to receive grants from A'ew Brunswick of the 
 land they possessed, for which some were required to pay ten shil- 
 lings and others nothing. 
 
 About this ()erioil, 1790, another body of the descendants ofthe 
 Acadian or neutral French, who bad souL;ht a refu;;e on the Ken- 
 liebeckasis, were there disturbed in their possessions b) the refu- 
 gees and the acts ofthe govermnent of New Brunswick; they also 
 quit their possessions and sought iii like maimer a r<d'uge from op- 
 pression with their countrymen at Bladawasca. After having re- 
 .sided at iMadawasca some years, they were induced as their coun- 
 trymen had been, to receive grants of the land w Inch they bad 
 taken into possession from the government of New Brurjswick. 
 
 Single families aflerwarils ailded tliemselves to the settltinent. 
 A few famirK\s established themselves in 1807, a few miles above 
 the mouth of ."Madawasca river. Tliry all lived in mutuidgoodfel- 
 lon^ship, recognising and practising the duties of morality and reli- 
 gion and governed S(dcly by the laws of honor and common sense. 
 They continued lo live in this manner to as late a period as 1818. The 
 British had rjiade no grant higher up the St. John than Pierre Du- 
 perre's, and had exercised no other acts of jurisdiction than those 
 already mentioned, nidess the trans|>ortation of the mail through 
 to (yanada ami the granting a Commission to Pierre Duperre in 
 J7'J8 as a Captain of Militia, there being no militia or military 
 organization there until 28 years afterwards, may be called acts of 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 [n 17il8, the river St. Croiv was determined and its source ascer- 
 tained under the treaty called Jay's treaty. At this period terminale 
 
31 
 
 (ill ads and pretence of ads of jurisdiction in the Miulawasca sctllc- 
 mtni by the British— and for a period if twenty years, and until it 
 icas discovered Ijy them that Mars hill ivas the northwest angle of 
 JVova Scotia, there is not even an attempt to exercise jurisdiction. 'I'lje 
 course of ciiciiiiistaiices now becaiiie such as again to excite llm 
 spirit oCencioacliniPMt, and tliey issued two processes against citi- 
 zens of tlie United States who liad settled in the wiklerness, many 
 miles beyon^l where the Jiritisli had ever exercised any jurisdiction 
 before, hut these were not prosecuted. 
 
 In 1824,* Sir Howard Donalas arrived and look upon himself the 
 government of the province of .Yew Brunswick as its Lieutenant Gov- 
 ernor. In Deceudier of tliat year, lie appointed (inn- militia Cap- 
 tains and a competent numher of snhalterns at Madawasca — hut 
 the persons ap|)ointed did not accept their commissions until .luly 
 }S'M — and subsequent to that time the militia were fidiy orij.-inized. 
 Licenses to cut timber were also irranted by New Brunswick. 
 
 In May IS'25, Lt. Gov. Douglas grunted a tract of land to Simon 
 llehert, at the mouth of l\Lnlawasca river. In May 1825 he made 
 another grant to Francis Violette of a tract at the mouth of Grand 
 river. He also n|)[iointeil and commissioned many other military 
 otlicers. Li 1827, seveial processes were issued against citizens of 
 the United Stales, oidy one of which, that against Jolin Baker, was 
 ever prosecuted, but many of our citizens were driven away by 
 them. 
 
 In 1829 or 18.30, for the first time, a civil magistrate was ajipoint- 
 ed in the Madawasca settlement and commenced acting as such. 
 Li a word, from the period Lt. Guv. Dnvglas entered upon the duties 
 of his office, they have been constantly multiplying and extending their 
 acts (f jurisdiction. 
 
 The French inhabitants of Madawasca say tliey are satisfied their 
 settlement is within the limits of the United States and that they 
 slioidd like to live under their laws, but the Biilish come and en- 
 force their laws upon them and they have been obliged to submit 
 to their jurisdiction. 
 
 In 1820 or IS'i I, three or Jour persons u'cnt np and established 
 themselves on the banks of the Arostook. Several from the Province 
 of New Itrunswick and the Slate of Maine, the following year 
 joined them. Jlfter the commencement of Sir Howard Douglas's ad- 
 ministration, licenses were granted to cut timber in this region also, 
 and civil processes were served upon the inhabitants. On this river 
 tliey had not, prior to his administration, exercised any act of juris- 
 diction whatever, that region adjoining the line having in fact been 
 surveyed and granted hy .Massachusetts seventeen years before to the 
 town of Plymouth and Gen. Eaton. 
 
 Ill 1792, the government of ftlassachusetts contracted to sell the 
 tract of land between the waters of the Schoodiac. and Penobscot, 
 extending back to the highland of the treaty. This tract was sur- 
 veyed under the orders of the Government. The surveyor running 
 and marking his lines to highlands north of the river St. John, 
 supposed at the time to be those described in the treaty of 178.'?. 
 
 In 1801 she granted the township of Mars Hill to the soldiers of 
 
 *28lh of .August. 
 
llip revolution. Ill 1800 she grunted the towiishi|> ndjuinui!; JSlars 
 Hill oil the West to Deerfiehl and Westfielil Acadeiiiies. In 1S07 
 she granted a tovviishi|) of hiiiil to the town ol' Hlynioiith, lyinsr on 
 hoth sides of llie Arostook and hoiiniled east hy the line due north 
 from the source of the river St. Croix to the iiighlands. In J808 
 she conveye<l ten thousand aeri's to Gen. Eaton, hounded east by 
 the last aforesaid grant. All the al'oresuid grants were made |>ur- 
 siiant to actual surveys, whieh had been previously made under her 
 authority. In 1808, or before, the line iVom the source of the St. 
 Croix due north wa.s run under the authority of Massachusetts as 
 far as the river St. John. 
 
 In 1820 an examination and ri^connoisanre was made, under the 
 authority of Maine, of the whole country on llie Alligash river and 
 on tlie St. John, from tlie mouth of the Alligash to the place where 
 the line due north from the source of the St. Croix intersects it.. 
 The same year, the census was taken in Madawasca, under the 
 laws and the authority of the United Slates. 
 
 In 1S'2J, the Land Ag^nt ol Maine seized the timlior which hail 
 been cut hy trcspas-sers on the .Aro.-tooU. In 182.'), tlie Land Ajrents 
 of Maine and Massachusetts conveyed two lots, one to John Baker, 
 and the other to James liacon, lying on the St. Jcdjii, about twelve 
 miles aliove the Madawasca. 
 
 In 1825, the Surveyors of flTaine and Massachusetts completed 
 the survey of two ranges of townships, extending north from the 
 Monument, at the somce of the river St. Croix, to within less than 
 half a mile of the river St. John, and the States divided between 
 them, according to the act of Separation of Maine from Massachu- 
 setts, the townships in those ranges which hail not been previously 
 granted. 
 
 In I82G, Maine and Massachusetts surveyed and divided five 
 additional ranges of townshi[)s, lying west of the two ranges afore- 
 said, and extending nearly to the river St. John. .-Vnd there never 
 has been a moment during which Massachusetts prior to 1820 and 
 Maine since that |ieriod, have ceased to assert their jurisdiction over 
 the whole territory." 
 
 Ettrnct of a letter from the Hon. Mr. Kavanagh, Member of 
 
 Congress, to Wm. P^Preble, dated Nov. 19, 1831. 
 
 "I deem it material in treating of the history of the Acailianp, or 
 Neutral French, to present in prominent relief the fuels tillending llicir 
 several mis;rations which s:o must conclusively to shoiv that in all their 
 movements, since Ikeir exile from J^ova Scolia, tlie;/ have endeavored to 
 place themselves bei/ond the reach of British jurisdiction. When their 
 settlement was broken up in Nova Scotia, a few families escaped 
 from the troops and settled themselves on the Kenabeckasis and 
 others near the Baye des Chaleur.s* ; but the young men who were 
 not encumbered hy wives and children fled to Quebec, then under 
 frenc/i rule ; there they remained until the cession of Canada to 
 
 »For a liistory of the ovilrago here rel'erretl to, sec Hallilmrlrars History of .Nova 
 Seolia, or the North American Review for January KM. 
 
33 
 
 Kiii;Ian(l in 17('>3. 'I'liis evriit caused iIkmii to quit C:nmtla and tlipy 
 leiiiovc'il to a place which they alUiiwanls cHlleil St. Anne, where 
 the town of I'redeiicton has hsen since hnilt. It was at that time 
 a wilderness. There they hoped to remain uiil<novvn. They 
 ^fathered on that sjiot some of the remnant of their race, and com- 
 menced cnltivatin}; the soil, acknowledging no allegiance to any 
 power on earth, and most certainly disinclined to court the attention 
 of Uritish barharity. In 1784 they were discovered and their lands 
 were granted to a disbanded regiment of Kcfngees, commanded l>y 
 one Colonel Lee, (of Massachusetts it is said.) The first notice 
 which those simple people had of the fact was the ap])earance of 
 British surveyors in their peacelid region ; they remonstrated, and 
 as a matter of special favor they were tolil that each one might re- 
 tain his dwelling house and two hundred feet of land aroimd it. 
 They soon learned the description of the boundary assigned to ihe 
 United States in that quarter by the Treaty of 178:1, and their un- 
 sophisticated minds jjointed out to them, at once, the highlands 
 north of the St. John, as the highlands named in the treaty. It 
 followed of course in their process of reasoning that the line run- 
 ning due north from the St. Croix, must necessarily cross the river 
 St. John, and they retreated to a point more than thirty miles west 
 from the spot where the eastern boundary of the State, as estab- 
 lished in 1798, intersects that river, and in that i)lace, iMnr the 
 moiuh of the Madawasca, they seated themselves with the iirtn 
 belief that the boundary of the United States interpo.sed a barrier 
 behind which they would ever be secure from the Tyranny of a 
 power which had for so many years oppres.scd their ancestors and 
 themselves. 
 
 Mr. Deane has explained in his communications the manner in 
 which they were induced, in 1790 and 1794, to receive grants from 
 the Provincial authorities of New Brunswick of the farms which 
 they occupied. 
 
 In recrard to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction exercised by the Catho- 
 lic Bisho|) of Boston in the Madawasca settlement, I learn that the 
 present Bishop, when he took charge of his diocese in 18^5, received 
 from the present Bishop of Quebec an ofler to interchange faculties 
 on the line dividing the limits of their Seas, and it was done." 
 
 Note. See the depositions of several of Ihc MaJawasca settlers, (aken Nov'r. 
 1828, primed in the Appendix to the American Stalemcnts, page 3,'!9 to Jt6. The 
 disposition to soothe these settlers and llicir repupiancy to New Brunswick is very 
 clearly, though incidenlally, alluded to in the lellcr of Lord Dorchester of 9lh July 
 17fi7."to .Tohn Holland, and his reply, dated '2(ith of llie same month, printed in IJie 
 same Appendi.-c, pages ■!-!-, -l't;5. Iilis Lordship says, "you will neglect no opportu- 
 nity of assuring all persons, * ** *^ ^ particularly The Accadians in thai vicinity, of 
 the good dispositions of Government in their lavor as expressed in the enclosed Min- 
 utes of Council, which you will communicate to them leaving copies thereof with 
 some of the people for their satisfaction.'*— The minutes of (.'ouncil here referred to, 
 state **his Lordship proposed and the Council concurred in authorizing IVIr. Holland 
 to give assurances to all persons to settle there, and especially Ih^ Accadians in that 
 vicinity, of the fa\'oral>le intentions of this Governnient to issue gfranls in their favor 
 for three hundred acres to the head of everv laniilv." tike. 
 
.54 
 
 i\o. :?. 
 
 Extract from l/u- ArguiiiciUs of the British Agent under the 
 
 " Treatif of 1794. 
 
 If it can bo sliown that the river Scoudiac, so called hy the 
 Indians, is the river St. Croix, and that a line along the middle of it 
 to its source, together with a line dun north from its source, formed ii 
 part of the lecslern boundaries of the province of M'ova Scotia, and that 
 tlie higldands funned the northern boundari/ line of this province at 
 the time the trcatjj of peace was made, so as to form llie northwest angle 
 of J^ova Scotia by these western and northern boundaries, the intention 
 of the treaty of peace is at once ascertained in the great point in con- 
 trovers,/. ■'****»**■ 
 
 All the French possessions upon the continent of North America 
 being by that treaty (17G3) ceded to Great Britain, the province of 
 Quel)ec was created and established by the Royal Proclamation of 
 the 7th October in that year, and bounded on the south by the high- 
 lands which divide the rivers that empty tliemselves into the river 
 St. Lawrence from those which fall into the sea or Atlantic ocean ; 
 thereby altering the north boundary of the i)rovince of Nova Scotia 
 from the southern shore of the river St. Lawrence to those high- 
 lands. ******* 
 
 It is sufficient here to observe, that at the time the treaty of peace 
 was made in 1783, the provinces of Quebec ami Nova Scotia belonged 
 to and were in possession of the crown of (jreat Hritain, and that 
 his Britannic Majesty at that time had an undoubted right to cede 
 to the United Slatesof Aujciica such part of these territories as he 
 might think fit, and that in making the cession of the territory com- 
 prised within the boumlaries of the United States, as described in 
 the second article of the treaty of peace, his Majesty must be sup- 
 posed to have used the terms describing these boundaries in the 
 sense in which they had been uniformly umlerstood in the British 
 nation and recognized in pidjlic documents and acts of government. 
 In this sense and in no other could tliey have been then understood, 
 or can they now be claimed or insisted upon by the United States. 
 In this sense and in no other is his Majesty bound to give the pos- 
 session. * * * * * * * ^ , 
 
 As then at the treaty of peace in 1783 the northern limit of the 
 province of Nova Scolia was a line along the highlands U'tiich divide 
 the rivers that empty themselves into the river SI. Lawrence from those 
 wliich Jail into the sea, it nnriuestionably follows, that the northwest 
 angle of .Vova Seoliu at the lime of the treahj of peace in 1783 was 
 that angle ivhich teas formed by a line drawn due north from the source 
 of the river St. Croi.v to those higldands. 
 
 ******** 
 Can it be believed or for a moment imagined that in the course 
 of human events so exact a cohicidence could have happened be- 
 tween the actual, real boundaries of the province of Nova Scotia 
 and the boundaries of it described in this treaty, (I7S3) if the latter 
 had not been dictated and regulated by the former. 
 
 * * ? * " * 
 
35 
 
 "A line due nortli (Votii a source of the western or main brancli 
 of the Scoudiac or St. Croix will fully secure this eft'ect to the United 
 States in every instance and also to Great Britain in all instances 
 except the river St. Joliii wherein it becomes impossible by reason 
 that the source of this river is to the westward not only of the 
 western boundary line of Nova Scotia, but of the sources of the 
 Penobscot and even of the Kennebec, so that this north line must 
 of necessity cross the river St. John. But if a north line is traced 
 from the source of the Cheputnatecook, it will not oidy cross the 
 river St. John within about fifty miles from Fredericton, the me- 
 tropolis 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 into the gulph of St. Law- 
 rence." 
 
 Letter 0/ Robert Liston, Esquire, Minister rienipotentiary 
 
 of Great Britain, at Washington, to the British Agent 
 
 under the Treaty of 1794. 
 
 Providence, 23d Oct. 1798. 
 
 Private. 
 
 Sir — I have considered with attention your letter of this day, 
 and it api)ears to me evident that the adoption of the river ChepiUna- 
 tecook as a part of the Boundary between his Majesty's American 
 dominions and those of the United Slates, in preference to a line 
 drawn from the easternmost ))oint of tlie Scodiac Lakes would 
 be attended with considerable advantage. It mould give an addition 
 of territory to tlie Province of Mw Brunswick together with a greater 
 extent of navigation on St. John's river: and above all a larger stretch 
 of natural frontier, calculated to prevent future difficulties and dis- 
 cussions between the two countries. If therefore by assenting to 
 the proposal of the American Agent you can bring about the unan- 
 imous concurrence of the Commissioners in this measure, I am of 
 opinion that you ivill promote His Majesty's real interests : and I will 
 take the earliest opportunity with a view to your justification, of 
 expressing these my sentiments on the subject to His Alajesty's 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 1 have the honor to be with great truth and regard, Sir, yoiir 
 most obedient humble servant, ROB. LISTON. 
 
 Ward Chipman, Esq. 
 
 [Note. The rirer ChepiilmUecook was selected and established, as recommend- 
 ed in the above letter, to be the river St. Cioit. For further extracts from the Ar- 
 gument of the Britlsli .\geiit. see Appendix to American Statements, pages 270 to 
 271] 
 
LIBRflRy OF CONGRF<:c: 
 
 lilt 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 895 713 1 
 
 % 
 
 pH8J 
 
 \