E 398 
 .C54 
 Copy 1 
 
 LAtn^e^iijAn^ /V^*^ '^' 
 
 7 
 
REMARKS 
 
 p m 1^, 
 
 UPON THE 
 
 DISPUTED POINTS OP BOUNDARY 
 
 UNDER THE 
 
 FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE TREATY OF GHENT, 
 
 PRINCIPALLY COMPILED FROM 
 
 THE STATEMENTS LAID BY 
 
 THE GOVERNMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN 
 
 BEFORE 
 
 THE KING OF THE NETHERLANDS, 
 
 AS ARBITER, 
 
 SAINT JOHN, NEW-BBUNSvncK: 
 
 PRINTED BY U, a, CAMERON, AT THE OBSERVER OEFICE. 
 
 1838. 
 
O r-4- 
 
 ?i^r(^ 
 
FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE TREATY OF GHENT, 
 Deccmljci- 24tli, ISl*. 
 
 Whereas neither that point of the Higiilands lying due north from the 
 source of the River St. Croix, designated in the former Treaty of Peace 
 between the Two Powers as the north-ivest angle of Nova Scotia, nor 
 the north-westernmost head of Connecticut River have yet been ascer- 
 tained; and whereas that part of the Boundary Line between the do- 
 minions of the Tsvo Powers, which extends from the source of the Ri- 
 ver St. Croix, directly north to the above-mentioned north-west angle 
 of Nova Scotia, thence along the said Highlands which divide those 
 rivers, that empty themselves into the River of 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 
 45th degree ol north latitude, thence by a line due west on said latitude 
 \intil it strikes the river Iroquois or Cataraguy, has not yet been sur- 
 veyed ; it is agreed thai for these several purposes, two Commissioners 
 shall be appointed, sworn and authorized, to act exactly in the manner 
 directed with respect to those mentioned in the next preceding Article, 
 unless otherwise specified in the present Article, The said Commis- 
 sioners shall meet at St. Andrews, in the Province of New Brunswick, 
 and shall have power to adjourn to such other place or places as they 
 shall think fit. The said Commissioners shall have power to ascertain 
 and determine the jioints above-mentioned, in conformity ivith the Pro- 
 visions of the said Treaty of Peace of 1783 ; and shall cause the Boun- 
 dary aforesaid, from the source of the River St. Croix, to the River 
 Iroquois or Cataraguy to be surveyed and marked according to the 
 said provisions : the said Commissioners shall make a map of the said 
 Boundary, and annex to it a declaration under their hands and seals, 
 certifying it to be the true map of the said Boundary, and particularizing 
 the latitude and longitude of the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, of 
 the north-westernmost head of Connecticut River, and of such other 
 points of the said Boundary ns they may deem proper. And both par- 
 lies agree to consider such Map and Declaration as finally and conclu- 
 sively fixing the said Boundary. And in the event of the said two 
 Commissioners dilfcring, or both, or either of them, refusing, declining, 
 or wilfully omitting to act, such reports, declarations, or statements, 
 shall be made by them, or either ol'them, and such reference to a friendly 
 Sovereign or State shall be made in all lespecls, as in the latter part 
 of the Fourth Article is contained, and in as full a manner as if the same 
 w^s herein repeated. 
 
NoBTH Eastern Boisdarv, Pngo 3 
 
 North- WrsTERNMosT Head 01 Connecticut RivEB, ... 74 
 
 BOCNOARY ALONG Tilt PARALLEL OF 45« NoRTU LaTITLDE, - 7G 
 
 Award or the ARciTra Appendix, Pngo i. 
 
 Trial or John Baker, vii. 
 
 Trial or Barnabas Hannawell and others xii. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 Page 23, line 4, for most, read "muit." 
 
 " 39, last lioe, for courses, read " sourcei." 
 
 " 59, lint 29, for their twofold, read " tlat Iwofuld." 
 
"Nortfj IBuuUvn Mounnavi^. 
 
 The words of the Treaty of 1783, in. its first and secoud 
 Articles, ai-e as follows : — 
 
 '•' Article I. His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said 
 United States, viz. New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, 
 Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New 
 York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Vir- 
 ginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be 
 Free, Sovereign, and Independent States; that He treats 
 with them as such ; and for Himself, His Heirs and Succes- 
 sors, relinquishes all Claims to the Government, Propriety 
 and Territorial Rights of the same, and every part thereof. 
 
 " Article II. And that all disputes which might arise in 
 future on the subject of the Boundaries of the said United 
 States iliay be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared 
 that the follovvring are and shall be their Boundaries ; viz. : 
 from the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that angle 
 which is formed by a line drawn due north from the source 
 of Sai?if Croix River to the Highlands, along the said 
 Highlands ivhich divide those rivers that empty themselves 
 into the River Saint Lawrence, from those which fall into 
 the Atlantic Ocean, to the north-westernmost head of Con- 
 necticut 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 latitude until it strikes the River Iro- 
 quois or Cataraquy ; thence along the middle of said river 
 into Lake Ontario ; through the middle of said lake, until it 
 strikes the communication by water between that lake and 
 Lake Erie ; thence along the middle of said communication 
 into Lake Erie ; through the middle of said lake, until it ar- 
 rives at the water-communication between that lake and 
 Lake Huron ; thence along the middle of said water-com- 
 munication into the Lake Huron ] thence througli the mid- 
 dle of said lake to the water-co( nmunication between that 
 lake and Lake Superior ; thenq through Lake Superior, 
 northward of the Isles Royal and Phelipeaux, to the Long 
 Lake ; thence through tlie middle of said Long Lake, and 
 the water-communication between it and the Lake of liie 
 Woods, to the said Lake of the Woods ; thence through the 
 
naid lake to tlio most north-\vesiern point thereof, and from 
 thence on a due west course to the River Mississippi ; thence 
 by a hne to be drawn along the middle of the said River 
 I^iississippi, until it shall intersect the northernmost part of 
 the thirty-first degree of north latitude : — South, by a line 
 10 be drawn duo cast from the determination of the line last 
 mentioned, m the latiiiide of thirty-one decrees north of the 
 equator, to the middle of the River Apalachicola or Cata- 
 houche ; thence along the middle thereof to its junction with 
 the Flint River: thence straight to the head of Saint ^Mary's 
 River ; and thence down along the middle of <S7. Man/s 
 River to the Atlantic Ocean: — FiAST, by n Une to be 
 drawn along the middle of the River St. Croix, from its 
 mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source ; and from its 
 source directly north to the aforesaid Highland?*, which di- 
 vide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those 
 which fail into the Uivcr St. Laicrcncc ; comprehending all 
 Islands within twenty Icai^nes of any part of the shores of 
 the United States, and lying between lines to be drawn due 
 east from the jK>int5 where the aforesaid Boundaries between 
 Nova Scotia on the one jiart, and IJnst Florida on the other, 
 shall respectively touch the Bay or Fundy and the Atlan- 
 tic Ocean ; excepting .such Islands as now are, or hei-ctoforo 
 have been, within the limit* of the said Province of Nova 
 Scotia." 
 
 Althouch tiie British and American fiovcrnments dificr as 
 to where the point of departure for the Northern Boundary of 
 The United Slates, designated by the name of the north- 
 west Angle of Nova Scotia, is to be placed according to tho 
 intention of the Treaty ; and althoush the conflicting claims 
 involve a differcnrc of 105 miles distance on the due north 
 Line, and of 10,705 square miles in total extent, both Par- 
 ties agree in stating, that in order to determine the true si- 
 tuation of the above-mentioned point of defjarture, the hi^rh- 
 lands intended by the Treaty must first be determined. "^I'he 
 correctness of this opinion admits of no doul)t. The Tre.ity 
 stipulates that the eastern Boundary line shall be drawn di- 
 rectly north to the highlands ; and that the northern Boun- 
 dary shall extend along the highlands from the jK)int where 
 the said north Line strikes them. Notwithstanding a cer- 
 tain awkwardness in the construction, it may, on the whole, 
 be presumed that the Treaty contemplates the same high- 
 lands in the several clauses of the Article wherein that term 
 is used. The real cpicstion, therefore, is this : Along what 
 highlands, tovrhed by a Itnedrairn due north from the source 
 
<ff ilie St. Croix, is the Northern Boundary of The United 
 States to be carried, loestvaard, to the north-westernmost head 
 of the Connecticut River ? 
 
 However simple the form in which this question is stated, 
 there would be no great candour in representing it as one of 
 easy sokition. The circumstances under which the treaty 
 of 17S3 was concluded, were such as to make it extremely 
 probable that serious difficulties would arise in the com-se of 
 its execution. The first object of the negociation, ccmmon 
 to both parties, was peace ; the second was the establish- 
 ment of peace on solid and durable foundations. It was es- 
 sential to the latter purpose that the Boundaries of The 
 United States should be explicitly and conclusively defined 
 by mutual consent. By waiting for all the topographical 
 information necessary to give a detailed description of the 
 Boundaries, the negotiators would have exposed the whole 
 work of pacification to the most imminent risk. This can- 
 not fail of striking every one who bears in mind the immense 
 extent of inland boundary claimed by The United States, 
 as well on the side of the 13ritish Provinces as on that of the 
 western wilderness. A considerable portion of the frontier 
 territory was, at that time, altogether unknown, or, at best, 
 very imperfectly explored. The framers of the Treaty were 
 therefore reduced to the alternative either of confining them- 
 selves to a general definition of the Boundary according to 
 such notions as they already possessed of the p>rincipal fea- 
 tures of the country, or of abandoning every uncertain and 
 disputed part of it to subsequent negotiation. That the for- 
 mer course of proceeding was ultimately preferred, notwith- 
 standing the inconveniences attached to it, on distinct and 
 deliberate consideration, is evident from the recorded fact of 
 the British Plenipotentiary having rejected, after reference 
 to his Government, the proposal of the American Negotiators 
 to apply the principle of an indefinite postponement to a part 
 of the frontier involving that which is immediately in cpes- 
 tion. The nearest practicable approach to settlement, pre- 
 ceded by a statement, as well in the Treaty itself as in its 
 preamble, of the wise and conciliatory foresight which in- 
 fluenced the Contracting Parties, was naturally deemed more 
 likely to promote a permanent good understanding between 
 them, than a mere agreement, tacit or expressed, to complete 
 the definition of the Boundaries at some later eventual period. 
 The Treaty of Ghent appears to have been concluded un- 
 der a like anxiety to prevent or settle disputes arising out of 
 the uncertain state of the Boundaries, Hew indeed could ic 
 
be otherwise wiih Ihe experience which had been acquired 
 after the Peace of 1783. and convincing evidence of which 
 exists in the -Ith and oth Articles of the Commercial Treaty 
 concluded in 1794? In the former of tlicsc Treaties it was 
 presumed that tlie River Mississipjn would be intersected by 
 a due west liue drawn from the north-westernmost point of 
 the Lake of the Woods. The 4th Article of the latter is 
 applied to the correction of that error. In t!ie same manner 
 it was found necessary to apyioint a Commission for the pur- 
 pose of determining which river was meant to bo the St. 
 Croix designated in the Treaty of 1793, as forming part of 
 the Eastern Boundary of The United States. Other instan- 
 ces of the perplexity and ■ nee which evidently ]-»revail- 
 ed to a very late period r« .-^ • ■ ii.ig many ] arts of the frontier 
 territory, mi^ht be easily adduced. IJiit let it suflico for tho 
 present to observe, tliat if little was ascertained concerning 
 the screes and directions of Rivers, which generally afford 
 t' •? curliest means of comnnuiication. and the most conve- 
 nient places for settlomcnt in newly occupied countries, how 
 very much less was probably known of a hilly or mountain- 
 ous tract, situated at a distance from the sea, overgrown with 
 forests, and intermingled with extensive morasses. The 5th 
 Article of the Treaty of Ghent, after all the discussions be- 
 tween the negotiators of it which have of late been so in- 
 dustriotisly quoted in the American Congress, expressly de- 
 clares that "neither that point of the Highlands lying due 
 " north from the source of the River St. Croix dosieiiated 
 " in the former Treaty of Peace between the two Powers as 
 " the north-west an^lc of Nova Scotia, nor the north-wcst- 
 " ernmost head of (he Connecticut River, have yet been as- 
 " certaincd.''' The article goes on to provide for the ap- 
 pointment of Commissioners who are empowered among 
 other things *• to ascertain and determine the points above 
 " mentioned in conformity with the provisions of the said 
 " Treaty of Peace of 1783." 
 
 A moment's reflection on what precedes cannot fail of 
 shewing how extremely dilficult, or rather how utterly im- 
 practicable it must have been for the Negotiators of 1783 to 
 describe the Boundary throughout it.'; whole extent in such 
 terms as to leave no room for hesitation or dispute in fixing 
 its actual delimitation. It would surely be more reasonable 
 to wonder at the degree of success which has attended the 
 labours of the Commissioners employed in that operation, 
 than to be unprepared for some occasional inconsistency be- 
 
iween the expressions of the Treaty and the localities of the 
 country when ascertained by regular surveys. 
 
 In no inquiry of this description can the ends of justice 
 be attained, except by looking steadily to the intentions of 
 the Treaty, or, in other words, of those who framed it. Few 
 Treaties would alford occasions for dispute, if the terms, in 
 which they are expressed, could always be applied with 
 clearness and certainty to the cases for which they were 
 meant to provide. It is precisely the obscurity, or contradic- 
 tion of the terms, or a want of evident conformity between 
 them and the thing to be done, Vv^hich is the frequent cause 
 of difficulty in carrying Treaties into execution. This de- 
 fect attaches more or less to all human agreements. In those 
 which subsist betAveen Governments and Nations, separated 
 from each other by distance, and still more so by the differ- 
 ence of their views, circumstances and interests, there must 
 necessarily be greater room for its operation. From what 
 special causes the Treaty of 17S3 was peculiarly liable to 
 this evil, in so far as respects the Boundaries of The United 
 States, it would be superfluous to repeat. The cogent evi- 
 dence, however, which comes in aid of the letter of the 
 Treaty to indicate the real intention of the Parties, would 
 leave as little reason to regret any want of preciseness that 
 might be found in its terms, as any such inaccuracy would 
 itself be calculated to create surprise under the known cir- 
 cumstances of the case. 
 
 But if it can be shev/nthat the terms of the Treaty, right- 
 ly understood, are not in contradiction, either with the prin- 
 cipal features of the country, as now ascertained, or w4th the 
 presumed intentions of the Parties, and, on the contrary, 
 that they correspond, to all declared intents and purposes, 
 with the Boundary Line indicated by the present British 
 claim, such a concurrence, which could hardly have been 
 reckoned upon with entire confidence when the Treaty was 
 signed, must surely be entitled to its full weight. The 
 conclusion to which it leads would be the more inevitable, 
 when taken in connection with the circumstance that the 
 wording of the Treaty, in one decisive particular,* was 
 clearly and cautiously selected, with a view to that very li- 
 mitation for which Great Britain contends in support of her 
 claim. Evidence of liiis description leaves little or nothing 
 to be desired. But, after all, the main object is to ascertain 
 the real intention of the Parties to the Treaty, and provided 
 
 ♦This refers to the term "Atlantic Ocean," used in the second Article of 
 the Treaty of 178y, and further explained in the course of ihe ensuing remark*. 
 
lliat object be aiiained according to the best available means 
 of information, it is of small comparative importance whe- 
 ther the spirit or the letter of the Treaty be found most con- 
 ducive to its accomplishment. One thing is crrtain : the 
 iettcr is only of value in proportion as it lends to the disco- 
 very or maintenance of the truth. Now, truth is by no 
 means of a narrow or partial character. It cannot, indeed, 
 bo entirely severed from the letter, but it is dilVu.'^ed through 
 the context, and lives in the spirit of a Treaty. Vattol ex- 
 presses himself as follows, in the ITth chapter of his second 
 Book : '' If It happens that the Contracting Parties have not 
 " made known their will with sufficient cletirness, and with 
 ** all the necessary precision, it is certainly more conformable 
 " to equity, to seek for that will in the sense most favoura- 
 " ble to equality and the common advantage, tliaii to sup- 
 *' pose it in the contrary sense." Thus it is, that the autho- 
 rity of the most approved writers on the Law of Nations is 
 found in strict accord with the maxims of common sense 
 and good faith. 
 
 The United States have, indeed, spared no effort to make 
 out that the terms of the Treaty, taken in their obvious and 
 literal sense, establi.sh incontestably the line of Boundary 
 claimed by them to the exclusion of every other. The 
 truth of this assertion is positively denied on the part of 
 Great Britain. The words of the Treaty Articlo, taken by 
 themselves, lead to no such conclusion ; taken with reference 
 to the Treaty at large, they lead to a very different conclu- 
 sion ; and taken with reference not only to the Treaty, but 
 ■also to the intentions of those who framed it, as further ma- 
 nifested by various corroborating circumstances, they estab- 
 lish clearly and satisfactorily the justice of the British 
 claim. 
 
 Looking, first, to the Treaty itself, nothing can be clearer 
 than the great governing principle upon which its provisions 
 were founded. This principle is distinctly laid down in the 
 preamble of the Definitive Treaty concluded in 1783, and 
 also in that of the Preliminary Articles signed in the prece- 
 <ling year. " It is a^rcciJ,"' says the latter, " to form the 
 " Articles of the proposed Treaty on such principUs of lib c- 
 " ral cquitrj and reciproritj/, as that partial advantages 
 " (those seeds of discord) being excluded, such a beneficial 
 " and satisfactory intercourse between the two Countries 
 " may be established, as to promise and secure to both per^ 
 " pet ua I peace and harmony.''' In the Definitive Treaty it 
 IS declared to be the intention of the Parties to establish 
 
their relations with each other *' itjyon the ground of recip- 
 " rocal advantages and mutual convenience,''^ in such man- 
 ner as to promote and secure the same great object of per- 
 petual harmony between both. In addition to these general 
 but forcible expressions, the Article immediately relating to 
 Boundaries is prefaced by a specific statement of the motive 
 which induced the Parties to declare them by mutual agree- 
 ment, namely, " that all disputes lohich might arise in fu- 
 '^ ture on the subject of the Boimdaries of the said United 
 " States may be prevented.^'' No words could express more 
 distinctly than these passages the desire of both Parties, not 
 only to preclude the possibility of future dispute by defining 
 the Boundaries as positively as it was then practicable to de- 
 fine them, but also to settle them in such a manner as would 
 best consult the convenience of each Party, and thereby con- 
 ciliate the acknowledged rights and true interests of both. 
 
 It further results from an examination of the Treaty, that 
 although the agreement to define the Boundaries originated 
 in the above-mentioned motives, the act of definition itself 
 was peremptory, and purposely rendered independent of every 
 principle or motive, but the declared consent of the Parties. 
 The first Article contains a recognition of the Independence 
 of the Thirteen United States and of their territory. The 
 second Article declares, by mutual agreement, what the ex- 
 tent of territory so recognized was meant to be. The re- 
 cognition and the declaration are two separate things. The 
 Treaty being silent, it cannot be presumed that they were 
 intended to be strictly co-extensive, in the teeth of that un- 
 certainty which was known to hang over the conflicting 
 claims of the two Countries with respect to a considerable 
 portion of the common frontier. 
 
 This peremptory definition of the Boundaries, it is also to 
 be rememberedjWas applied exclusively to The United States. 
 There is no question of the Boundary of the British Colonies, 
 except as a consequence of the settlement of The United 
 States' Boundary. Wherever the States border on those 
 Colonies, the same Boundary Line which limits the one 
 must necessarily limit the other also. The two Countries 
 did not stand in corresponding situations towards each other 
 when the Treaty of 1783 was negotiated. Whatever ad- 
 vantage might accrue to the United States from having their 
 sovereignty recognized by Great Britain, the validity of the 
 British title to the remaining British Possessions could derive 
 no additional strength from being acknowledged by them. 
 
10 
 
 On the whole, then, it may be aflirmed with confidence^ 
 that the intention of the Treaty was. 
 
 1*^ To define exclusively the limits of the United States ; 
 2^ To define them peremptorily ; 
 
 3° To define them with the view of preventing future 
 disputes ; and, 
 
 A° To define them in such a manner as to promote the 
 ** reciprocal advantage and mutual convenience" of both 
 Countries. 
 
 The next field of inquiry is the negotiation which prece- 
 ded the conclusion of the Treaty. But in making any in- 
 quiry into the imperfect records of that event, care must be 
 taken to guard eipially against jartiality, and needless dis- 
 cussion. The last of these dangers may be avoided by ap- 
 pealing only to such documents, relative to the Treaty, as 
 proceeded either from the negotiators themselves, or from 
 the authorities, under whose instructions they acted. The 
 former is little to be a)>prchendcd on the side of Great Bri- 
 tain, if the documents referred to, instead of beini:; British, 
 or even common to both parties, are entirely and exclusively 
 American. Sufficient materials, even on this limited plan, 
 axe in existence. 
 
 In '• The Secret Journals of the Arts and Prorerdings of 
 Congress." published in the United States in 1821, under 
 the authority of Congress, a full account is given of the pro- 
 ceedings of the American Congress relative to the negotia- 
 tions which preceded and introduced the preliminary articles 
 of 1782, subsequently embodied in the definitive Treaty 
 of 1783. 
 
 Among these documents arc the original instructions given 
 by Congress to their Commissioner ajtpointed to conduct the 
 negotiations, which instructions include the first draft of the 
 article respecting Boundaries, as adojited in Congress after 
 long and anxious deliberation. 
 
 The following are extracts from those instructions, vol. 
 ii, p, 224 : 
 
 •' August 14, 1779. — Congress proceeded in the consider- 
 " ation of the instmctions to the Minister to ])e npf)ointed 
 •' for negotiating a Peace, and unanimously a2reed to the 
 " following draft of instructions to the Commissioner to be 
 " appointed to negotiate a Treaty of Peace with Great 
 " Britain. 
 
 " Sir, — You will herewith receive a commission, giving 
 " you full power to negotiate a Treaty of Peace with Great 
 
11 
 
 " Britain, in doing which you v/ill conform to the follow- 
 " ing information and instructions : 
 
 " 1. The United States are sincerely desirous of peace, 
 " and wish by every means, convsistent with their dignity 
 "and safety, to spare the further effusion of blood. They 
 " have, therefore, by your commission and these instructions, 
 '• laboured to remove the obstacles to that event, before the 
 " enemy have evidenced their disposition for it. Bur as the 
 " great object of the present defensive war on the part of the 
 " Allies is to establish the Independence of the United States, 
 " and as any Treaty whereby this end cannot be obtained 
 " must be only ostensible and illusory, you are, therefore, to 
 " make it a preliminary article to any negotiation, that Great 
 '' Britain shall agree to treat with the United Slates as sove- 
 '' reign, free, and independent. 
 
 " 2. You shall take especial care also, that the indepen- 
 " dence of the said States be effectually assured and con- 
 '* firmed b^^ the Treaty or Treaties of Peace, according to 
 " the form and effect of tlie Treaty of Alliance with His 
 '"■ Most Christian Majesty. And you shall not agree to such 
 " Treaty or Treaties, unless the same be thereby so assured 
 '• and confirmed. 
 
 '' 3. The Boundaries of these States are as follows, viz. : 
 " these States are bounded North, by a line to be drawn /ro??r 
 " the 7iorth-west angle of Nora Scotia along the highlands 
 " which divide those rivers which empty themselves into the 
 '' River St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the Atlan- 
 ^' tic 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 ; thence due west in the 
 " latitude forty-five degrees north from the equator to the 
 " north- westernmost side of the River St. Lawrence or Ca- 
 '' daraqui ; thence straight to the south end of Nepissing ; 
 *' and thence straight to the source of the River Mississippi : 
 " West, by a line to be drawn along the middle of the River 
 " Mississippi from its source to where the said line shall in- 
 " tersect the thirty-first degree of north latitude : South, by 
 " a line to be drawn due east from the termination of the 
 " line last mentioned in the latitude of thirty-one degrees 
 " north from the equator to the middle of the River Apala- 
 " ciiicob, or Catahouchi ; thence along the middle thereof 
 " to its iunction with the Flint Rix'er ; thence straight to 
 " the head oi St. Mary's River : and thence down along the 
 '-middle of St. Mary's River to the Atlantic Ocean: anci 
 " East, by a line to be draun along" the middle of St. John^s 
 
12 
 
 *' liivcr from its soiirrr to its mouth in the Bay of Fnndj/, 
 ■■ coiiiprehcndiiig all Islainls within twenty I'-ayucs ol' any 
 '• part of the shores of the United States, and lying between 
 •• lines to be drawn due eaist from the points where the ufore- 
 *• said nouiidarios between Ndva Scotia on the one j»art. and 
 " Kiust I'lorida on the other |)art. shall rcsptrtivcly touch the 
 **' Bay of Fund y and Atlantic Ocean. Yon are, therefore, 
 "strongly to contend that the wliolc of the said coiuitries 
 ** and islands lying within the lJt)undaries aJoresaid. and 
 "every citadel, fort. post. ]>lace. liarbonr and road to thon> 
 **l)eIonging. be abscilutely evacuated by the land imd sea 
 " forces of His Britainiic Majesty, and yielded to the Powers 
 ** of the States to which they rt^pectively belong, in such 
 " situation as they may be at the termination of the war. 
 ** But, notwithstanding the clear right of these States, and 
 '* the importance of the object, yet they are so much in- 
 ** fluenced by the dictates of religion and hmnanity, and so 
 •* desirous of complying with the ('arnest request of their Al- 
 •' lies, that if the line to be drawn from the mouth of the 
 " Lake Nepissing to the head of the ]Mississipj)i cannot be ob- 
 " tained without continuing the war for that jmrpose, you 
 " are hereby emjxiwered to agree to some other line between 
 "that point and the Uiver Missi.«5sip})i ; jirovidcd the same 
 " shall in no part thereof be to the southward of latitude 
 " forty-t>ve dciirees nor^h. And in like inaiiiKT. if the East- 
 *^ cm Boundary above dcsa'ibcd cannot be obtained, you arc 
 " hereby empowered to ascrcc that the same shall be aftcr- 
 " wards adjusted, by Commissioners to be duly appointed 
 ^^for that purpose, according t^ such line as shall be by them 
 '• settled and ai^reed on, as the JJoundary bctu^ccn that jiart 
 ^^ of the. State of Massachusttls Bay, formerly railed the 
 " Province of Maine, and the Colony of Nova Scotia, agree- 
 " ably to their respective ri<rhts. And you may also consent, 
 " thut the enemy shall destroy such fortifications as they 
 " may have erected." 
 
 Subsequently, in thfi year 17S2, after the negotiations had 
 been actually ojx^ned. the American Congress took these 
 matters into consideration, and concurred in a re[)ort made 
 to them by a Connniltee of their House, apiMiin^ed to inves- 
 tigate the subject of IJoiuidaries with reference to the above- 
 eited instructions. 
 
 Uf that report, which may be seen at length in the above- 
 inenlioned '• Secret Journals of the Old Congress," Vol. iii. 
 ^- 169. the following are extracts. 
 
13 
 
 The Committee reported " tliat they had collected facts 
 ^' and observations, which they recommend to be referred 
 " to the Secretary for Foreign Aflairs, to be by him digested, 
 ■' completed and transmitted to the Ministers Plenipotentiary 
 ■"for negotiating a Peace, for their information and use. * * 
 
 " With respect to the Boundaries of the States, * * * 
 
 ^'Massachusetts claims under the charter granted by Wil- 
 
 ■*^ Ham and Mary on the I7th October, 1601. 
 
 ******* 
 
 " It is incumbent on us to show that the territorial rights 
 of the thirteen United States, v.iiile in the character of 
 British Colonies, were the same with those defined in the 
 instructions given to Mr. J. Adanis on the — day of Au- 
 gust, 1779, ****** 
 So fair are our preten-sions rendered by the united opera- 
 tion of the grants, charters. Royal commissions, and 
 Indian cessions, * * * that w<? 
 
 shall content ourselves with reviewing the objections which 
 will most probably be urged against them, without enter- 
 ing into the direct proofs of our titles. 
 ■" First objection. Even upon the supposition that the 
 charter of Massachusetts is valid so as to cover the vacant 
 lands, still it does not follow that St. John's River is part 
 of its Eastern Boundary ; for that river is contended to be 
 in Nova Scotia under the expression of the New Charter 
 of Massachusetts in 1691, which conveys the country 
 between the Province of Maine and Nova Scotia. The 
 south-west boundary of Nova Scotia, therefore, will regu- 
 late this claim. But it is well known that in the alterca- 
 tion between France and Great Britain upon tFiis very 
 subject in 1751, Acadia or Nova Scotia was asserted by 
 the latter to be bounded by Pentagoet or Penobscot River. 
 " Ansv:er. '• It is to be observed, that when the boun- 
 daries of the United States were declared to be an ultima- 
 tum, it was not thought advisable to continue the war 
 mereltj to obtain territory as far as St John^s River ; but 
 that the dividing line of Massachnsetfs and Nova Scotia 
 was to be consigned to future settlement. It must be con- 
 fessed, also, that this country, which is said in the New 
 Charier to border on Nova Scotia and the Province of 
 Maine, on opposite sides, and which goes under the name 
 of Saga hock, cannot be proved to extend to the River St. 
 John as clearly as that of St. Croix. But there is some 
 • reason notiinthstandinc: to believe, that Nova, Scotia wa9 
 'never supposed by the British King in any grnnt to /j7> 
 
14 
 
 " subjects to rome to the south of St. John's liiifr. alfhoiiph 
 '* he might have exacffd from Fmncc a rehiKiuishment ol" 
 " the lands to the Kiver IVnobscot. or even Kennebec, as a 
 •' jwirl of Mova Scotia.*' 
 
 Tlie Committee, after furtlierrensoninirupon thes»^;iosrrf 
 Boundaries hiid down in various old charters afFecting that 
 country, conchide this jKirt of their report by sayinsr : 
 
 '* AN o are olili-jed to ur^e probMbihties. h/miisr in thr carltf 
 ''possession of a ruit<^k urircrluimcd rountry. nrmrnnj of 
 ''lines cannot he murh attcnderl to. But we wish that tho 
 '• north eastern Bcunihiry of Massaclnisetts may be left to 
 " future (liscussi(^n, whm other evidences may l^e obtained. 
 • which the war has n-moved from u.<5.'' 
 
 in a work entitled the " Privntr Concspondcncc of Dr. 
 Franllin,^^ we find (he iollowing authentic account of wliat 
 occurred during this imjxirtant period of the neffociations in 
 1782. 
 
 1. Extract of a letter from Dr. I'rankli?! to the Honblc. 
 Robert Livingston, dated I'a.ssy, 14th (Vtober, 1782. 
 
 '• We have now made several preliminary jiropositions. 
 " whicli the Kngli.sh ^linistcr. IMr. Oswald, has approved 
 "and .*;ent to liis Court. He tliiidcs tlicy will be ajiproved 
 " there, but I han sotnc doubts. In a few days, however, 
 " the answer expected will detmnine. By the first of these 
 ''articles the Kincr of Great Britain renounces for himself 
 '' and siiccessors all claim and pretension to dominion or ter- 
 " ritory within the thirteen United States : and thr Bovn- 
 " darics arc described OS in our instructions, e.rrtpt that thn 
 " line betireen Nova Scotia and Nnc England is to be sei- 
 " tied by C'ornniissioners after the Peace.''' 
 
 2. Extract of a letter from Dr. l-^rnnklin to the Hon. R. 
 " Livingston, dated Pa.csy, December />, 1782. 
 
 " You desire to be very particularly acqtiainted with every 
 " step which tends to a negociation. I am therefore en- 
 '* couraged to send you the first part of the journnl. which 
 "accidents and a long severe illness interrupted. btU which 
 '' from notes I have by me may be continued, if I thought 
 " proper. In its present state it is hardly fit for (he insj rr- 
 " tion of Congress, certainly not for public view ; I confide 
 '' it therefore to your prudence. 
 
 '* Tlip arrival of Mr. .fay. Mr. Adams, and ^Ir. Laurens, 
 '• relieved ine from much anxiety, which must have con- 
 " tinued, if I had been left to finish the Treaty alone ; and 
 " It has given mn the more satisfaction, as I am sure th«> 
 " business lias profited by (heir assi.stance. 
 
15 
 
 -' Much of the summer had been taken up ni objecting 
 '■' against the Powers given by Great Britain ; and in remov- 
 " ing those objections, the using any expressions that might 
 " imply an acknowledgement of our independence, seemed 
 " at first industriously to be avowed. {Q.. avoided?) But 
 " our refusing otherwise to treat, at length induced them 
 " to get over that difficulty : and then we cayne to the point 
 "■ of making p7'opositions. Those made by Mr. Jay and 
 '' me, before the cirrival of the other gentlemen, you will 
 " find in the enclosed paper, No. 1, which was sent by the 
 '•' British Plenipotentiaries to London for the King's consi- 
 " deration. After some weeks an Under Secretary, Mr. 
 " Strachey, arrived, with whom we had much contestation 
 " about the Boundaries, and other articles which he propo- 
 " sed ; vve settled some, which he carried to London, and 
 " returned with the propositions, some adopted, others omit- 
 " ted or altered, and new ones added, which you will see, 
 '' Paper No. 2.* We spent many days in disputing, and 
 '* at length agreed on and signed the preliminaries, which 
 '' you Y/ill receive by this conveyance." 
 
 Paper No. 1, above referred to. 
 
 " Articles agreed upon by and between Richard Oswald, 
 " Esq., the Commissioner of His Britannic Majesty for 
 " treating of Peace v.dtJi the Commissioners of the United 
 " States of America, on behalf of His said Majesty, on the 
 " one part, and Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay, two of 
 " the Commissioners of the said States for treating of Peace 
 '< with the Commissioners of His said Majesty, on their be- 
 " half, on the other part. 
 
 " Whereas reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience 
 " are found by experience to form the only permanent foun- 
 "■ dation of peace and friendship between States, it is agreed 
 " to frame the articles of the proposed Treaty on such prin- 
 " ciplcs of liberal equity and reciprocity, as that partial ad- 
 ^'vantages (those seeds of discord) being excluded, such a 
 " beneficial and satisfactory intercourse between the two 
 '' countries may be established, as to promise and secure to 
 " both the blessings of perpetual peace and harmony. 
 
 1st. *• His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United 
 '' States, viz., Nev/ Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode 
 " Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New 
 '• York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, 
 •'• Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be 
 
 * Thii Pa-er No. 2 is not cnntiiined in ilie work from which these exlracl» 
 RiT tftkcn. 
 
1« 
 
 " free, sovereign, and indc)>endcm Slater : thatht' treats witti 
 " them as such ; and for Himself, his Heirs and Successors, 
 " reUn(juishes all claims to the govornmonl, propriety and 
 " territorial rights of the same, and every |>art thereof; and 
 " that all disputes which might arise in future on the subject 
 "of the Ik)undarie8 of the -sjiid United States, may be prc- 
 " vented, it is horfhy agreed and declared that the follow- 
 •*' ing are, andsh.dl remain to ho. their Roundarios. viz : 
 
 " The said States are bounded JS'vrtfi by a iinr to he drawn 
 "from the I\'orth-irest an^le of Nova Sootiaaloni( the hii,'-h- 
 " lands whi'h divide those rivers that vtiipftj thrnisclves int« 
 " the River St. Lnxrnnre from those nhirh fall into ths 
 " Atlantic, to the Aorth'-irfstrrritncst hrad nf Connertinit 
 " River ; thence down along the middle of that river to the 
 " 'lath degree of north latitude, and thence due west in the 
 " latitude forty-five degrees north from tho Ecpiator, to the 
 " north-westernmost .Md<> of the River St. I,awrence, or Ca- 
 " taraguy ; thence straight to the liake Ne})issiihg, and thence 
 " straight to the source of the River Missi.'v«;ii)pi : nest, by a 
 " line to be drawn along the middle of the River Mississippi, 
 ''to where the said line shall intersect the 31st degree of 
 " north latitude ; south, by a line to be drawn diiceaf:t froin 
 ''the termination of the lino la.st mentioned, in the latitude 
 " of 31 degrees north of tlv Iviuator to tlie middle of the Ri- 
 " ver Apalachicola, or Catahouchi : thoncp along the middle 
 '* thereof to its junction witli tlie Flint River: thence straight 
 " to the head of St. Mary's River; thence doirv nlnns: the 
 " middle of St. Man/s River to the Atlnvtir Ocean : and 
 *' east, by a line to he drawn alonic the inid</le of the St. 
 *' Johns River from its source to its mouth in the Bay of 
 ^' Fundy ; comprehending all islands within twenty leagues 
 ''of any part of the shores of the United St.-ites. and lying 
 *' between lines to be drawn due eai^ from the points where 
 ■" the aforesaid Boundaries, between Nova Scotia on the one 
 " part, and East Florida on the other, shall respectively touch 
 •" the Bay of Fund y AND the Athmtic Ocmn.- 
 
 '' Part*;, Sth October, 1782. 
 " A true copy of which lias been agreed on between tho 
 ■"American Commissioners and me, to be submitted to His 
 ■" Majesty's consideration. (Signed) ''R.Oswald." 
 
 " Alteration to be made in the Treaty, respecting the Boun- 
 " daries o( Nova Scotia, viz : 
 
 " East, the true linn between which and the United States 
 " shall he settled hy Commissioners, as soon as conveniently 
 " may be after the war.'' 
 
ir 
 
 5. Extract of a letter from Dr. Franklin to the Hon. R. 
 Livingston. Secretary for Foreign Aflairs, dated Passy, 14tb 
 December,' 1782 : 
 
 " Sir, — We have the honour to congratulate Congress oil 
 " the signature of the Preliminaries of a Peace between the 
 "Court of Great Britain and the United States of America,. 
 " to be inserted in a J3efinitive Treaty so soon as the terms 
 " between the Crowns of France and Great Britain 3ha.ll be 
 *' agreed on. A copy of the articles is here enclosed." — ■■ 
 (N. B. The second article is there described such as it now 
 stands in the Treaty of 1783.) 
 
 " Remarks on Article II. relative to the Boundaries : 
 
 " The Court of Great Britain insisted on retaining all the 
 " territories comprehended within the Province of Quebec^ 
 *' by the Act of Parliament respecting it. They contended 
 " that Nova Scotia should extend to the River Kennebec.^^ 
 
 The evidence of Mr. Adams and Mr. Jay (co-plenipotenti-- 
 aries with Dr. Franklin in negotiating the Treaty of 1782-3) 
 Felative to the same matters, subsequently taken on oath be- 
 fore the Commissioners appointed under the Treaty of 1794^ 
 for ascertaining the true St. Croix, corroborates in every point 
 the information given by Dr. Franklin. 
 
 '•' The British Commissioners," says Mr. Adams, " firsfc 
 *• claimed to Piscataqua River, then to Kennebec, then tcJ 
 "' Penobscot, and at length to St. Croix, as marked on Mit- 
 " chell's map." 
 
 That map, Mr. Adams had declared, Atras the only map or' 
 plan which was used by the Commissioners at their public 
 conferences. 
 
 Mr. Adams proceeds to say, " one of the American Com- 
 " missioners at first proposed the River St. John as marked 
 " on Mitchell's map ; but his colleagues observing, that as 
 '• tbx St. Croix was the River mentioned in the charter of 
 " Massachusetts Bay, they could not justify insisting on th€ 
 " St. John as an ultimatmn, he agreed with them to adhere 
 " to the charter of Massachusetts Bay.^^ 
 
 '' The ultimate agreement," repeats Mr. Adams, in reply to 
 another interrogatory, " was to adhere to the Charter of Mas- 
 " sachusetts Bay, and to the St. Croix River mentioned in it, 
 " which was supposed to be delineated in Mitchell's map." 
 
 Mr. Jay declared on oath, in the same manner, that " in the 
 " course of the nogociations, difficulties arose respecting the 
 " eastern extent of the United States. That Mitchell's map 
 " was before them, and was frequently consulted for geogra- 
 " phical information." 
 
18 
 
 Further, Mr. Jay declared, "thai he doubted there having 
 " then been very clear conceptions rdatice tu the just and pri.- 
 •' cisc eastern extent of Massachusetts, lor he had reaiion to 
 " believe, that res|x?ctahje opinions in America at that time 
 " ( 1782) considered the River St. John as the proper eastern 
 " limit ol' the United States,'' 
 
 The foregoing documents will now form the subject of 
 some remarks in the order in which they have been quoted. 
 
 The instructions framed in 1779 by the Congress of The 
 United States, prejwraiory to a negotiation for f)oacc, contain 
 the same Article res[)ecting Boundaries which, with some 
 important modifications, was afterwards transferred to the 
 Treaty. The changes introduced into the Article relate to 
 two |)ortion.s of the Boundary : 1°. That jxirt of the North- 
 ern Boundary which extends from where the parallel of 45*^ 
 North Latitude intersects the River St. Lawrence to the Mis- 
 8issip|)i : 2*^. The Eastern and adjoining' j art of the North- 
 ern Boundary of the United States.* 
 
 The first of these amendments had the elfoct of substitn- 
 ting for the Line proj)osed by The United States from Lake 
 Ne|)issing to the .Mi^.si.s.<i|)pi anotlicr line ] asking very consi- 
 derably to the South, through the great chain of North Ame- 
 rican Lakes. In virtue of the second, the River St. Croix is 
 made to constitute the Kastcrn boundnry of the United States, 
 instead of the River St. John, whicli had been j^rojwsed by 
 the American Congress ; and certain highlands are substitu- 
 ted for that jiart of the River St. John, which would have 
 formed a bonndary on the north ; a definition of what was to 
 be understood by "the North West Angle of Nova Scotia," 
 having been at the same time inserted in the same Article of 
 the Treaty. It is further to be observed, that such latitude 
 as had been given by the instmction itself to the American 
 Commissioners was subjected to certain specific restrictions, 
 and that in both the cases above-mentioned, these restrictions, 
 as well as the original pro]x)sals, were set aside in the course 
 of the negotiation. With respect to the latter, the American 
 Negotiators, in case of not being able to obtain the River St. 
 John for an Eastern bonndary, were " empowered to agree 
 " that (he same should be afterwards adjusted by Commis- 
 
 • Although, in the insiructiori addressed by the American Conprees to their 
 Commissioner', the propo<(al of the llivcr St. John i* cxprefRtd only with re- 
 ference to the ir.<.f boundary, it is, nevertheles-i, niHnifest ihat, owinp to llie 
 bend of that river to ilie westward, it would, in point of fact, constitute a con- 
 •iJerab'.e part of the iiorthein boundary alio. 
 
19 
 
 -• oners to he duly appointed for that purposed It is needless 
 to repeat the words of the Treaty ah-eady cited to prove that 
 neither of these two proposals, the original or the substitu- 
 ted, Avas accepted; but on the contrary, that a more westerly 
 river than the St. John, and one which had consequently 
 the effect of contracting the territory to be defined on that 
 side, was ultimately agreed upon, and so consigned to the 
 Treaty, 
 
 The mere exposition of these facts is sufficient to esta- 
 blish that whatever may have been the principle upon 
 which the United States thought fit to ground their 
 pretensions, the proposals emanating from it were evi- 
 dently not satisfactory to the British Government, and that 
 the principle itself was so little capable of bearing them 
 out, that it became indispensable to admit a new arrange- 
 ment of the Boundaries, which could not possibly repose on 
 the same principle. 
 
 It is observable, indeed, that the American Instructions 
 declare no principle of Settlement Avith respect to the Boun- 
 daries. To say that " the Boundaries of these States are as 
 ^^ follows ^^ is the assertion of a fact, not the declaration of a 
 principle. Supposing the proposition contained in these 
 words of the instruction to be true, it may have been true 
 on the principle of possession, or on that of right derived 
 from any one of several distinct sources, or from all. It may 
 have been a right of The United States, taken severally, or 
 of the same States constituting one political Body. The 
 only part of the instruction relating to Boundaries, which 
 even hints at a principle, is that incidental clause wherein 
 a substitution for the proposed eastern boundary is placed 
 eventually at the discretion of the American Minister. 
 Speaking of the appointment of Commissioners as condition- 
 ally suggested, the clause in question runs thus : " Accord- 
 " ingto such Line as shall be by them settled and agreed on 
 " as the Boundary hetioeen that part of the State of Massa- 
 " chusctts Bay, formerly called the Province of Maine ^ and 
 " the Colony of Nova Scotia, agreeably to their respective 
 " rights.'''' But this proposal having been rejected by the 
 British Government, and a new arrangement substituted au- 
 thoritatively in the Treaty for the original proposal which 
 preceded it, there is no ground whatever for concluding that 
 the Treaty stipulation, as it now stands, was, in any degree, 
 connected witli that principle. The presumption is, indeed, 
 entirely the other way. In giving a discretionary power to 
 their Minister on the two points before mentioned. The 
 
20 
 
 Lmleii Slates express thenis<'lvea as follows; '' Notivith- 
 " startJimj' the cleaa right of these States,'" (viz. to the set 
 of boundaries first proposed i " a/iJ the importance of the ob- 
 *^ject, yet they are so much influenced by the dictates of re- 
 " Licio.v AND ULMANiTT, <!)'c. that i/oti are hereby empowered 
 ''to a^reo to some othrr Line, <l\v." That is to say, the 
 "clear rieht'' of The United ^lat-t^s was eventually to be 
 ■given up from t;enend motives ^f '• humanity*' to the ob- 
 jections, as such, of their adversary ; not, observe, to any 
 convincing proofs which that adversary might furnish of his 
 Buperior title to parts of the frontier territory, but to his de- 
 termination rather to carry on the war, than to sign a ixjaco 
 in strict conformity with the pretensions of The United 
 States. Such forbearance is worthy of the highest praise on 
 grounds of '* religion and humanity ;*' but it is any tiling ra- 
 ther than evidence tliat the boundaries, as ullimattly agreed 
 upon, were regulated by a fixed acknowledged princirle of 
 right. 
 
 An attentive perusal of the foregoing extracts from tho 
 Report of the Committee of the American Congress can 
 hardly fail to s-'^" > the following conclusions: — 1*-\ Tiiat 
 although The i 1 States may nbt have thought it pru- 
 
 dent to ground their territorial claiins upon any distinct prin- 
 ciple in the instruction prepared for their Plenipotentiary, 
 they well knew that their only plausible title m'.ts that 
 derived under their charters a:-; British Colonies, modiliedby 
 subsequent Acts of the Government. 2^. That, although 
 they deemed the justice of their claims too manifest to re- 
 quire the exhibition of any direct proofs, they, nevertheless, 
 anticipated ojiposition from Great Britain to their proposal 
 respecting the north-eastern Boundary, and iwrhajis even 
 the assertion of a counter claim, as far west as the River 
 Penobscot or the Konnebec. 3*^. That with reference to 
 this north-ca.stern Boundary, they felt the necessity ofur^-irig- 
 probabilities, " because in the early pmsrssion of a roiigk 
 '* nnrecltiimcd country, accuracy of Linc9 nivnot be vnich 
 '• attended io.^' 4'-\ That is was their 'to have the 
 
 " north-eastern Boundary of Massachusetts left to future 
 '' discussion^ 
 
 There is no necessity for going into any length of rea«'on- 
 in"' on these conclusions. It is sulficicnt to consign them 
 here for eventual reference in future stages of these remarks. 
 To one point, however, it mny be well to direct immediate 
 attention, namely, tlie " icisti'' expressed by the American 
 Congress that tlie north-eastern Boundary of Massachusetts 
 
21 
 
 should be reserved for future discussion. Some of the circum- 
 stances under which that v/ish was entertained may be easily- 
 collected from the documents already referred to. 
 
 It appears, in the first place, that The United States were 
 then actually in possession of "Grants, Charters, Royal 
 Commissions and Indian Cessions," sufficient in their opinion 
 to prove the '' clearness" of their " right." It also appears that 
 the chajinel of the River St. John, such as rt w^as afterwards 
 proposed in negotiation as their north-eastern Boundary, 
 was comprehended in that right ; that tlie independent sove- 
 reignty of The United States, so closely connected with their 
 territorial right, remained to be established ; and that its es- 
 tablishment in virtue of the formal recognition of Great Bri- 
 tain was the main object, to Avhich they were looking with 
 eagerness as the crown and consummation of their struggle. 
 
 The approximation of these circumstances is by no means 
 unimportant. It was natural to inquire why tliere should 
 have been any ipislt on the part of The United States, to 
 leave their north-eastern Boundary unsettled in the Treaty 
 of Peace, which was to settle all other parts of the Boun- 
 dary, Vv^hen they were already possessed of such convincing 
 proofs of the "clearness" of their "right?" The answer is 
 now obvious. The American Congress, besides wishing ear- 
 nestly for Peace, did not overlook the advantage with wliich 
 they might hope to maintain their pretension hi its utmost 
 extent after the recognition of their independence should 
 have been placed by an act of solemn ratification beyond 
 the reach of Great Britain. It might be difficult to j)rove 
 that the same reason was among the motives which induced 
 the British Government to insist upon defining the whole 
 Boundary Line in one and the same Treaty ; but it is at 
 least evident, iti point of fact, that Great Britain could 
 not have acted more strictly in accordance with that sup- 
 position tiian she did; and that the agreement ultimately 
 consigned to the Treaty, bore ever j^ appearance of proving 
 an effectual safeguaj'd against future dispute or encroach- 
 ment. 
 
 The correspondence of the American Plenipotentiaries, 
 and the evidence which they subsequently gave on oath be- 
 fore the Commissioners appointed under the Treaty of 17'D4 
 to ascertain the true river St. Croix, also present and con- 
 firm facts which it is material to bear in mind. The letters 
 and evidence in question furnish the data which follow. 
 
 1°. The proposals made to the British Plenipotentiary, 
 in th^ Negotiations of 1783, were- in substance precisely the- 
 
22 
 
 same as those which appear in the instructions drawn up by 
 the American Congress in 1779, and to which the approved 
 Report of their Committee, in 17S2, refers. 
 
 2*^. These propo&ils, on their l)eing sent to London by Mr. 
 Oswald, were rejected by the British Government. 
 
 3°. The American Negotiators, after some dilTerence of 
 opinion, agreed amomrst Ihrmsrlvcs to regulate their demand 
 by the Charter of Massnrlnisetts Buy. 
 
 4*^. Between the rejection of the fust American proj)osals, 
 and the adoj)tion of the Article, which now stands in the 
 Treaty, much strenuous contestation took place respecting 
 the Boundaries, the British Negotiators demanding succes- 
 sively to the Kennebec, to the Penobscot, and to the St. 
 Croix. 
 
 6®. No mention is made of any princi[)le a£^rccd upon by 
 both Parties as the basis on which the conflicting territorial 
 claims were to be adjusted. 
 
 Enough has been stated to establish that what was laid 
 down in the outset of tliis iufjuiry as the general inten- 
 tion of the Treaty of 17S3, resulting from an examination of 
 the preliminary expressions employed therein, is fully borne 
 out by such additional information of an authentic kind, as 
 can now be obtained resjiccting the ncirotiations, cither 
 during their progress or immediately prior to their com- 
 mencement. 'I'he instructions and correspondence of the 
 American Negotiators coincide with the Treaty it.self, in 
 showing that notwithstanding the conviction i)rofe.ssed by 
 The United States of the '• clearness'' of their '-right,"' a great 
 degree of uncertainty prevailed on both sides respecting the 
 claims of either Party to the Territory in dispute, and that 
 it was ultimately found best to cut the knot by a peremptory 
 decision, resting on no principle but that <»f mutual consent 
 and the obvious utility of removing any immediate cause of 
 disagreement and collision from the intercourse of the two 
 Countries. 
 
 Having thus endeavoured to form, on grounds already ex- 
 plained, a distinct and correct concc])tion of what the franiers 
 of the Treaty had generally in view v.hon they defmod the 
 Boundaries, in the absence of any settled line then existing 
 between Massachusetts and the adjoining British Provinces, 
 it may considerably advance the argument to know what 
 notions were at that lime entertained of the country, to 
 which both parties a.sserted a claim. No very detailed or 
 perfect information can be expected to result from such an 
 inquiry. The opinion of the American Congress lias just 
 
23 
 
 been cited to the eflect that " probabihties" only can be 
 "urged" with respect to a "rough, unreclaimed country." 
 Some knowledge, however, though in many respects 
 limited and inaccurate, most surely have existed of a 
 region not wholly destitute of settlers,whichhadbeen travers- 
 ed not long before by a body of Troops, and previously in- 
 vestigated by an Officer in the public employment, and of 
 which several maps exhibiting the supposed courses of the 
 principal rivers and the general outline of the coast and bays 
 had been published. That knowledge, whatever may have 
 been its degree, must surely have reached the Negotiators of 
 the Treaty: and there can be little doubt that in describing the 
 Boundaries of The United States, they were more or less 
 guided by its influence. 
 
 The following are Extracts from Governor Pownall's 
 " Topographical Description of the Middle British Ameri- 
 '•'can Colonies," published in the year 1776: — 
 
 " All the Rivers which have their sources amidst the northern ridges of this 
 " preat range fall into Canada or St. Lawrence River, as the St. Francis, 
 " Chandiere, and many others; all which have their sources amidst the eouth- 
 " crt) ridges, yh// inlo the Hay of Fund e or info Ihe main ocean. 
 
 " Connecticut River rises in north lat. 45" 10' at the Height of Land in 
 " long. 4* east of the meridian of Philadelphia. 
 
 " A rangfe running hence across the east Boundary line in New Hampshire, 
 " in lat. 44^*^, and trending north east, forms the Height cf Land between 
 " Ketwjebaig and Chau<liere Rivers; of the nature and course of this highland 
 " I am totally uninformed. * * » 
 
 "As the River Kennebaig has been now rendered famous as a pass by a, 
 " march of sonx' spirit and enterprise, made by the Americans following its 
 " course across tiie land to St. Lawrence, or Canada River, I shall here give 
 " a more particular and detailed description of it than I should otherwise have 
 " entered into. 
 
 " This river in the year 1754 and 1735 was talked of as a route by which 
 " an army might pass the best and shortest way to attack Canada and Que- 
 " bee. * * # 
 
 " When I was Governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, I had thi» 
 " route particularly investigated by Ensign Howard, a country surveyor, under 
 " the direction of Captain Nichols, who commanded at Fort Frederick. In- 
 " stead of a short pass of some eight or ten miles of easy portage, this Indian 
 '* path turned out to be a route on a line as a bird flies, of nearly fifty miles 
 *' over land, impracticable to an armj/ that hath a train of artilleri/ and heavy 
 " baggage. It appeare<l, however, (that although a difiicult and very labori- 
 *' ous route) it was practicable to any body of men, who should go light armed 
 " as a scouting party, either to reconnoitre or to break up settlements. Tlie 
 *' sort of march which Arnold and bis people experienced has confirmed this 
 " account, given 17 or 18 years ago. After taking possession of the Penob- 
 " fknig country, I had all the eastern branches of this river traced to their 
 " sources, and the communications between them and tlie waters of the Pc- 
 " nobskaig scrutim'zed by constant scouting parties. 
 
 " The River Kennebaig, to begin from its principal branch, may be described 
 " Bs rising on the Height of Land, in north lat. 45'^ 20', and in cast long. 
 " from Philadelphia 5'' 10' or thereabouts. 
 
24 
 
 •* The nngn in York •nd CutnbrrUrid rouniir* irend to iha nnriliwird of 
 
 •* Porili-f««f; thotf in the rouniy of Liiiroln, ea«l of Kenneh«i|r, next 'he rout, 
 
 di> to likewise; but wiiliiri l«f.d ih- y Iri-iid niore and more to ihr ea*l of 
 
 north-e»«f. All the hi-aili of Keimeljiiii:, Penoli»ca'(r and pH^i^'imaiiiinilii 
 
 •' Rirrrt are in the Jleigh! of Land, luiming cakt-norlh-easi." — (pp. 15, 17, 
 
 22.24] 
 
 These extracts throw a strong light on tliis part of the 
 inquiry, and serve to bring into one \mnt of view what was 
 known, and wliat was not known, respecting the high ranges 
 of land from whicli the jirincipal rivers to the east of Lake 
 Champlain (falHiig. accortUngt o Mr. Pownall's threefold di- 
 vision, filhrr into the St. Lawrence, or into the Ocean, or 
 into the Bay of Ftnuly) derive their head waters. 
 
 First, there is a range nmning in a north-easterly direc- 
 tion from the source of tjic Connecticut Kivcr, forming 
 " the height of land between Kenncbaig and Chaudiere Ri- 
 vers." 
 
 Secondly, there is the range, also termed " flcis^ht of 
 Land,-' in which are situated " all the heads of Kennebaig, 
 Penobscaig, and Passamaquada Kivcrs.'' This Hcii-'ht of 
 Land runs "cast-north-east." and is raUier a j)rolongalion of 
 the former range than a separate one. 
 
 Thirdly, the tract of Country lying between this " Height 
 of Land" and the St. Lawrence, is described as fifly miles in 
 breadth, offering " a difficult and very laborious route,'' and 
 one only practicable for Troops, when unaccompanied with 
 artillery and heavy baggage. 
 
 It must be added, that with the exception of the head wa- 
 ters of the River Connecticut, which had been recently ascer- 
 tained by an actual sur\-ey, the latitudes of the rivers at their 
 respective sources appear to have been laid down with no 
 great precision. Air. Pownall says, however, that on taking 
 possession of the Penobscaig Country, he had '' all the eastern 
 " branches of this river traced to their sources, and the com- 
 " munications between them and the waters of Penobscaig 
 " Bcnitinized by constant scouting parties." 
 
 Speaking of the whole range of highlands at the head of 
 the Atlantic Rivers nearest to the Connecticut, the author ob- 
 serves as follows : " Between this high mountainous tract 
 " and the Ocean, both in its northern and its eastern range, 
 " there is a Piedmont of irregularly broken hilly land. Of 
 " that, in the eastern parts of New England, especially cast 
 *' of Penobscaig, I can say nothing with accuracy, and will 
 " therefore say nothing at all."' p. 17. 
 
 This, it must be allowed, is the language of an author 
 scrupulously attached to truth : and, on the whole, it may 
 
25 
 
 be inferred with safety from his work, that all the Rivera 
 flowing itito the Atlantic between the Connecticut and the 
 St. Croix were either known or supposed to have their head 
 v>raters in a range of highlands, or mountainous tract, stretch- 
 ing eastward with a strong northerly inclination ; and that 
 less was known of the range in proportion as it extended to- 
 wards Nova Scotia. 
 
 It is hardly conceivable that such a work as Mr. Pownall's 
 should have been unknown to the persons who negotiated 
 the Treaties of 17S2-3, nor is it at all likely that much had 
 been added to the topographical accounts of New England and 
 the adjoining districts, between the period of its publication 
 in 1776, and the conclusion of the Preliminary Articles of 
 Peace. 
 
 At an earlier period than either of those the Royal Procla- 
 mation of 1763, described the Boundaries of the Province of 
 Q,ucbec in the following terms. 
 
 " Firstly. — The Government of Q,uebec, bounded on the 
 " Labrador Coast by the River St. John, and from thence 
 " by a line drawn from the head of that river, through the 
 " Lake St. John, to the south side of the lake Nipissim ; 
 " from whence the said line crossing the river St. Lawrence, 
 " and the Lake Champlain in forty-five degrees of north lati- 
 " tude, passes along the high lands which divide the rivers that 
 " empty themselves into the said River St. Lawrence from 
 " those which fall into the sea, and also along the north coast 
 " of the Bay des Chaleurs, and the coast of the GvJfof St. 
 " Lawrence to Cape Rosiers, and from thence crossing the 
 " mouth of the River St. Lawrence by the west end of the 
 " Island of Anticosti, terminates at the aforesaid River St. 
 " John." 
 
 The utter impossibility which is now known to exist, of 
 joining the two extremities of the Line therein described as 
 passing "along the high lands," and also "along the north 
 (^oast of the Bay des Chaleurs," and a similar inconsistency 
 which had been previously discovered and imperfectly re- 
 medied in another part of the same boundary line, by the 
 description of that line in its counterpart, the Quebec Act, 
 render that document as well as the latter wholly inapplica- 
 ble, for any geographical purposes, to the present question.* 
 
 It is now time to consider the particular expressions of the 
 Treaty in which the diilicuities of this Question are involv- 
 ed, and it may be hoped that the precedir.^ inquiriea and re- 
 
 * A further explanaiion of this will be hereafter giver. 
 
26 
 
 marks will contribute effectually to their solution. The 
 precise words of the second Article are these. '• From the 
 *• north-west anelc of Nova Scotia, viz. that (ingU which is 
 ^^ formed by n line (froirn due tmrth from the source nf St. 
 " Croix River to the Hiishlands, along the said highlands 
 ** which divide those Rivers that empty themselves into the 
 " River St. Lawrence, from those which fall info the Atlun- 
 " tic Ocean, to the north-westernmosf li'Nnd of Connecticut 
 " River." 
 
 This passage declares that the " north-west angle of Nova 
 Scotia'' was to he the jwint of departure for the Boundary 
 Line of the United States. What does the north-west 
 angle of Nova Scotia mean ? The words which follow in 
 the treaty explain its signification: " That angle which 
 " is formed by a line drawn due north from the source 
 *• of St. Croix River to the highlands.'' This definition, 
 which was not in the Article as first jiroposed by The Tni- 
 led States, and which was, therefore, in all probahility, made 
 necessary by some subsequent consideration, evidently com- 
 prehends two lines : the one artificial, viz : a due north line 
 drawn from the source of the River St. Croix : the other, a 
 natural line, fonncd by one of the most striking features of 
 the country, that is to say, the '' Highlands."' The former 
 of these Lines having been sufhciently ascertained for the pur- 
 poses of this investigation,* the fir.st object of the present 
 inquiry is to fix the proper sense of the term " Highlands*' 
 as intended by the Treaty. 
 
 It cannot be denied, with any apjwarance of reason, that 
 in common usage the word " Hi^dilands'' suggests the idea 
 of a mountainous tract or range of conspicuous elevations. 
 Such is the idea we naturally convey in speaking of the 
 Highlands of Scotland or of those of the Hudson River. By 
 the word Highlander is meant, in general, a Mountaineer. 
 
 It may safely be asserted that a tract or range of high bro- 
 ken land, rising occasionally into eminences seen from a 
 distance along the horizon, was in part known and in part 
 believed to exist along the heads of all those Rivers which 
 water the eastern parts of New England from the Connecti- 
 cut to the Penobscot, and so onwards to the St. Croix. The 
 passages which have been ([uoted from Pownall's " Topogra- 
 phical description" confirm the justness of that impression. 
 
 • An explorinjj line only, run by tlio compiss, with occmionul nllownnrei 
 for tlie variution of the needle, has been irnced from the source of the St. 
 Ctoix due north, by the Surveyorj under the Cfili article of the treaty of 
 Ghtrit. 
 
fi7 
 
 The very manner in which the term '• Highlands"' is first 
 used in the Treaty is not indifferent as to the intention of 
 the Negotiators in selecting a word, which was not neces- 
 sary to the expression of their idea, when divested of all re- 
 ference to visible elevation. The term " Height of Land" 
 was well known in America, and frequently used in works, 
 with which the Negotiators of the Treaty cannot be suppo- 
 sed to have been unacquainted, to express any land immedi- 
 ately separating head waters falling off on each side in op- 
 posite directions. ■« We are not then at liberty to divest the 
 word actually chosen by the Negotiators of its own proper 
 signification, especially as it is used, in the first instance, 
 without any epithet or qualification v/hatei^er calculated to 
 chejige or modify the impression, which, taken alone, and 
 by itself, it cannot fail to convey. The words of the definition, 
 as quoted above from the Treaty, are " from the source of 
 " St. Croix River to the Highlands ;'■ — to the Highlands 
 positively, and without any addition. It is not till the ensu- 
 ing clause, where the sam.e word is used again, not, as before 
 for the purpose of laying down the point of departure of the 
 northern Boundary Line, but in order to indicate the direc- 
 tion which it was to take on leaving the point so laid down, 
 that the Highlands are designated with reference to certain 
 Rivers divided by them. 
 
 It is not however intended to call hi question the indisso- 
 luble connection svibsisting under the Treaty between tlie 
 Highlands and the Rivers, but merely to enforce and keep in 
 view the propriety of net entirely changing the natural cha- 
 racter and signification of so prominent a term of the treaty on 
 the very inadequate and erroneous grounds advanced by the 
 Americans. 
 
 Even on Mitcheirs map, to which the Americans are so 
 a.pt to refer, there are traces of its having been thought at 
 that time that elevated tracts or ranges of high land, more 
 or less marked with conspicuous eminences, lay generally to 
 the north of the Rivers falling into the Atlantic Ocean. On 
 comparing that part of Mitchell's map with other parts which 
 represent the known mount ainous regions, such, for instance, 
 as New Hampshire, but little difference is perceptible in 
 those graduated marks which are there used, as in other 
 maps, to indicate liills or mountains. 
 
 There is no doubt however, that, in fixing the true sense 
 of the Treaty, the term "higlilands" must be taken in con- 
 nexion with the words ■• dividing Rivers,'" which immediate- 
 ly follow it in every instance but the first. These words 
 
 u 
 
'i8 
 
 themselv»^s must not be detarlu'd from the remainder ol' that 
 flause. wliicli ffoes on to sjx>cify the j«rtiriilar Rivers divided 
 hy tlje highlands in question, najnely, '• those that rnijity 
 
 • themselves into the River St. Lawrence," and " those which 
 • fall into the Atlantic Ocean." It thus becomes necessary 
 to ascertain what Rivers are meant by the Treaty, in order to 
 settle, with the requisite degree of clearn»j<s. along what 
 Highlands, or parts of the Highlands, tlm IJomularv I.ino is 
 to be drawn. 
 
 There would be less diflienlty in decidni!^ this question if 
 all the waters of the <lispiited Territory crime within om^ or 
 other of the two classes s[)ecified above. Hut there arc other 
 Rivers in that f>art of the Country, and these Rivers fall neither 
 into the River St. l^awrence nor into the Ocean, but into the 
 (lulf of St. Lawrence, (or more properly into the Ray of Cha- 
 leurs,) and the Bay of Fiindy. 
 
 It his been afllrmed on the part of the Americans that 
 'the Treaty recognizes but two classes of Rivers,"' and, 
 therefore it is inferred "that all the Rivers met by the duo 
 
 • north lino Avhich do not actually empty themselves into 
 '• the River St. Lawrence according toils known limits, are, 
 
 • by the Treaty, considered as falling into the Atlantic 
 " Oiccan.'' The assertion and the inference must alike be 
 met by a positive contradiction. It is true that the Treaty 
 only naTurs two di.siinet classes of Rivers in the clau.se under 
 consideration ; Ituf the s;ime Treaty aft'ords abundant evi- 
 dence that other Rivers, separate and excepted from the two 
 classes, thus specifically named, were also in the contem- 
 plation of those who carried on the negotiations ; and the 
 very same clause of the Treaty contains an express limita- 
 tion, which was evidently used on purjxiso to iirecludc the 
 chances of misconstniction incident to a less cautious word- 
 ing of the Article, and which, if that liad not been the case, 
 it is very difficult to believe that the American Negotiators 
 would have retained or admitted. 
 
 The Article respecting Boundaries originated, as it has 
 been stated, with the American Congress. Notwithstanding 
 the alterations which it underwent in the course of. Negotia- 
 tion, the term '' Atlantic Ocean," as apjdicd to the Rivers 
 coniradistinguished from those which fall into the River St. 
 Lawrence, remained in that Article. But although the two 
 words remained, the prof)osition with which they were im- 
 mcdialcly connected had experienced an cs.sential change. 
 By the Treaty Article, the Eastern Boundary of The United 
 States is made to pass along the river St. Croix. According 
 
29 
 
 to the Article orginally drawn up by the American CongresSs 
 and subsequently proposed by their Plenipotentiaries to that 
 of Great Britain, the River St. John, from its source to its 
 mouth, was to have occupied in the Treaty the place of the 
 St. Croix. The result of carrying such a proposal into effect, 
 would have been that the Highlands along which the Boun- 
 dary Line was to pass, would have commenced near the head 
 waters of the Penobscot, and as the line was to be carried 
 westward, along those parts of the highlands which imme- 
 diately divide the head waters of the Penobscot and Kenne- 
 bec, both strictly Atlantic Rivers, from those of the Chau- 
 diere, there was an evident and special propriety in employ- 
 ing the more limited term, applied, as it then was, exclu- 
 sively to rivers failing into the Atlantic Ocean. There is the 
 more reason to believe that the adoption of this term is solely 
 attributable to the position of the si)ot where the Highland 
 Boundary was to begin, since it was substituted for the more 
 comprehensive word " *S'e«," which appears in the corres- 
 ponding part of the Proclamation of 1763, whence the Con- 
 gress of The United States had, doubtless, borrowed the 
 substance of many parts of their proposed Article. 
 
 The Proclamation itself has been appealed to in proof 
 that the terms " Sea" and '^ Atlantic Ocean" were synoni- 
 mous. But in those parts of the Proclamation in which 
 Boundaries are defined, and which were consequently drawn 
 up with a closer attention to the expression, the Atlantic is ma- 
 nifestly used in its limited and more appropriate sense as con- 
 tradistinguished from the Gulfs with which it communicates. 
 Referring to the Government of East Florida, the Proclama- 
 tion limits it by the course of the River St. Mary's to the 
 " Atlantic Ocean,'''' and " to the east and south by the Atlan- 
 ^' tic Ocean and the Gulf of Florida.''^ 
 
 Nothing can be more clearer positive, than the distinction 
 established in the Treaty Article between the Atlantic 
 Ocean and the Bay of Fundy. 
 
 The extreme western limit on the sea coast is described 
 as formed by a line " drawn along the middle of St. Mary's 
 River to the Atlantic Ocean.'''' The extreme Eastern limit 
 is described as formed by a line '' drawn along the middle 
 '• of the River St. Croix from its mouth in the Bay oj 
 '•' Fundy,'''' &c. 
 
 That Article after describing other parts of the general 
 boundaries, concludes thus : 
 
 ■' Where the aforesaid boundaries between Nova Scotia 
 •' on the one part, and East Florida on the other, shall hes- 
 
30 
 
 *• PECTivELY touch the Bay of Fundy. and the Atlantic 
 '• Ocean."' 
 
 If one of tii'sj two icr.'iis is tu be taken a:s coinpreheiicled 
 m the other, why sjxjcify both ? The dcchiration lliat the 
 boundaries, eastern and western, of the United Stales, 
 should touch the Atlantic at each extremity of the country, 
 would surely have been amply sulFicient for all purposes of 
 delimitation, had not the term • Jiay of Fundi/' been intend- 
 ed as totally distinct from tlie term ' Atlantic Oaau.^' 
 
 Maps, ProcUunations and Treaties, all concur in giving a 
 distinctive and special apj)ollation, as well to the Bay of 
 Tundy as to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The lino of separa- 
 tion between thi.s Gulf and the Kivcr of the siune name is 
 established by the Royal Proclamation of 17C3. By similar 
 authority it is that the Limits of the Bay of Finidy, as sepa- 
 rated from the .\tl:uitic Ocean, have been established. The 
 Charter of James I. to Sir William .VIexander, in 1621, de- 
 scribes the Boundary of Nova Scotia as beginning at (.^ape 
 Sable, and after extending thence to St. Mary's Bay, crossing 
 by a direct line the entrance of the '-Great Bay' to the Si. 
 Croix River. In the Commission of Mr. Montague Wilmot, 
 (Governor of Nova Scotia, in 1703. the I^undary liine is 
 tle.scribed as jiassing '' across the cntranrc of the liaij of Fun- 
 " dy from Caj)e Sable to the mouth of the River St. Croix." 
 Again, the mouth of the River St. Croix is declared by the 
 Treaty of I7b3, to be •• in the Bay of Fundy." The Com- 
 missioners under the Fifth Article of the Treaty of 1791, 
 decided that the mouth of the River was at a point in " Pas- 
 samaipioddy Bay ;" and tlie Treaty of Ghent declares the 
 " Bviy of Passania(iuoddy to be yaxi of the Bay of Fundy." 
 
 In all tlieso Documents the limits of the Bay of Fundy 
 are sub.stantially the same, and (pjitc conformable to the 
 Geographical character of the place. The position and 
 limits of the Bay of P'undy being thus clear, and the contra- 
 distinction between that Bay and the Atlantic Ocean being 
 equally so in the Treaty, wlien speaking of the Sea Coast, 
 it follows beyond controversy, that acccrdinglo the meaning 
 of the Treaty, in this part of it, the Atlantic Ocean begins 
 only where the Bay of Fundy ends, and that the framers of 
 the Treaty, when tlius using the term Atlantic Ocean, had 
 in view that part of the Sea, which lies westv/ard of the mouth 
 of the Bay of Fundy. The United States mu.st, therefore of 
 necessity, err, when interpreting the Treaty in such manner as 
 to suppose the Bay of Fundy included in the term Atlantic 
 Ocean, as a general pppcllalion applied to the Sea Coast. 
 
31 
 
 The framers of the Treaty, when describing St. Mary's 
 River as going '' down to the Atlantic Ocean," and the River 
 St. Croix as having its mouth in the Bay of Fundy, had, no 
 doubt, particularly in view the Coast of the Atlantic Ocean, 
 which terminates at the Bay of Fundy, where the name of 
 that Bay begins to have its appropriate and exclusive appli- 
 cation. And this being the case, as beyond all controversy 
 it was, is it credible that in the very next line of the same 
 instrument ths same men should have used the same term of 
 " Atlantic Ocean," intending that it should comprehend the 
 whole Coast together with the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf 
 of St. Lawrence, both of which are particularly marked on 
 the map, and are universally known by their dictinctive ap- 
 pellations, and with a similar precision of limits, as the River 
 St. Lawrence itself ; these three names being, moreover, all 
 of them used in the Treaty without description, as sufficient- 
 ly distinguishing the several places which they respectively 
 designate ? 
 
 In answer to the American argument " that if the Rivers 
 " which fall into the Atlantic through a Gulf, Bay, or Lilet, 
 " known by a distinct name, are not under the Treaty of 1783, 
 *' Rivers falling into the Atlantic Ocean, there is not a single 
 " River that could have been contemplated by the Treaty as 
 " such to which the description applies," it is to be observed, 
 that the mention of St. Marifs River is alone sufficient to 
 prove that there are Rivers considered by the Negotiators as 
 discharging into the Atlantic Ocean without the intervention 
 of any Bay or Gulf. It may be added that some of the Bays 
 nentioned by the other party in support of his argument, are 
 mere enlargements of the mouths of Rivers, and, like Penob- 
 scot Bay and Sagadahock Bay, derive their names from the 
 respective Rivers ; which names, moreover, are little known 
 beyond the immediate vicinity of the place. 
 • The Treaty Article expressly characterizes Rivers by re- 
 jerence to their mouths. Speaking of the River St. Croix it 
 las these words: "east, by a line to be drawn along the 
 ' middle ofthe St. Croix, /row its mouth in the Bay of Fun- 
 " dij to its source." The River St. Croix being thus cha- 
 racterized, as a River having its mouth, that is, terminating, 
 in the Bay of Fundy, can never be a River falling into the 
 Atlantic Ocean, between which and the River so described, 
 a certain space, namely, a part of the Bay of Fundy, inter- 
 venes. Still less, then, can the River St. Jolin, which falls 
 into the Bay of Fundy considerably to the East of the St. 
 Croix, and which is, therefore, more withm the entrance of 
 
as 
 
 the Bay. be classed iimoiig the AtloJitic Rivers specified by 
 the Treaty. On the other liaiid, St. Miirys River is desig- 
 nated m the same Article as reachiiii^ the Atlantic Ocean. 
 P'or the south boundary line pjtsses " along the middle of St. 
 " Mary's River to the Athmtic Ocean ;" while it is described 
 in the same article, as " touchinif the Atlantic Ocean." Now, 
 if the boundary line {Kisses along St. Mary's River till it 
 touches the Atlantic Ocean, it is evident that there is no in- 
 terval between the River and the Ocean, but, on the contrary, 
 that where the former terminates, the latter begins. In this 
 manner we see that the two Rivers dilfer essentially in that 
 particular characteristic by which the Treaty has distinguish- 
 ed them ; and thus two classes of Rivers, comprising respec- 
 tively the one and the other of the two individual rivers just 
 named, and both being distinguished from those Rivers which 
 fall into the St. Lawrence, are clearly e.xhibited in the 
 Treaty. 
 
 If these rea.sons are sufficient to satisfy any reasonable and 
 impartial mind that, in the interpretation of the Treaty, the 
 Bay of Fimdy must be considered as separate and contradistin- 
 guished from the Atlantic Ocean, there can be no doubt as to 
 the obligation of rcL'ardiug the Gulf of St Lawrence and the 
 Bay of Chaleursas ecpially distinct and unconnected ni any 
 Treaty sense with the main Ocean. 
 
 It has been asserted on the part of the United States, that 
 tlie Gulf of St. Lawrence is designated in the 3d Article for 
 a sjiecial purpose, foreign to the (juestiou of boundaries, and 
 that it is further mentioned as a place in the Sea. The words 
 of the .fVrticle are these: ''The })eople of the United States 
 " shall continue to enjoy, unmolested, the right to lake fish of 
 " every kind on the Grand Riiik. and on all other Banks of 
 " Newfoundland ; also in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and at 
 "all other places in the Sea, where the inhabitants of both 
 " Countries used at any time heretofore to fish." 
 
 It is perfectly true that the Gulf of St. Lawrence is desig- 
 nated in this Article with reference particularly to the right 
 of fishing, and not to any question comprized in the Second 
 Article. But it is eijually true that there is no reason, with 
 respect to that question, why it should have been named at 
 all in the Treaty. That the Bay of Fiindy and the Atlantic 
 Ocean are contradistinguished from each other, has been 
 proved to demonstration. Such being the case, the due 
 north line, as will be shewn yet more convincingly hereafter, 
 could not have been intended to intersect the River St. John ; 
 and unless the eastern Boundary Ime were to intersect that 
 
33 
 
 river, and lo pass considerably to the north of it. there would 
 be no question either of its crossing any streams falUng into 
 the gulf of St. Lawrence and the Bay of Chaleurs, or of its 
 terminating at any point immediately in their neighbourhood. 
 Yet the Gulf of St. Lawrence, when mentioned in the Trea- 
 ty, with reference to another subject, is named in a manner 
 which marks its being known as having certain limits, a pe- 
 culiar character, and separate jurisdiction, and v/hicli, in short, 
 distinguishes it entirely from the Atlantic Ocean, except in 
 so far as it is a part of the sea, of which the Atlantic Ocean 
 also is a part. 
 
 The Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of St. Lawrence being, 
 therefore, taken as distinct from the Atlantic Ocean, of which, 
 more especially under the limitations of the Treaty, there 
 can no longer be question, it follows, that the Rivers, which 
 fall into those separate and distinct portions of the Sea, must 
 be considered as forming another class of rivers, such as 
 writers* on the topography of North America have in part 
 noticed, and to which the Treaty indisputably points. Of 
 this class of rivers two only are immediately in question, 
 namely, the Restigoiiche, falling into the Bay of Chaleurs, 
 itself joining the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the >S'^. John^ 
 which falls into the Bay of Fundy. These rivers cannot, 
 therefore, belong to the class of Atlantic Rivers specified in. 
 the Treaty ; and, consequently, it is not true that '' all the 
 rivers met by the due north line, which do not actually 
 empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence, according 
 to its known limits, are, by the Treaty, considered as fall- 
 " ing into the Atlantic Ocean." 
 
 This is not all : there are other lights to guide us to a true 
 interpretation of the Treaty, and to shew with sufficient 
 clearness what Highlands were meant to be designated in 
 its Second Article. 
 
 The United States proposed at first the River St. John as 
 a part of tlieir Boundary on the side of Massachusetts. The 
 Line, as described in the instructions of Congress, was " to 
 '* be drawn along the middle of St. John's River, from its 
 '' source to its mouth in the Bay of Fundy." On Mitchell's 
 map the course of the St. John, as to length and general di- 
 rection, is laid down nearly as in maps of the present day. 
 It appears from the Report of the Committee of Congress, 
 which has been noticed above, that " when the Boundaries 
 '' of The United States were declared to be an ultimatum, it 
 
 II 
 
 See Pownall's topographical description. 
 
34 
 
 •' Was not thought advisable to continue the War, merely* 
 '' to obtain Territory as far as St. John's River." And fur- 
 ther, it has been shewn by untiuestionable onthority, that in 
 the course of the negotiations at Paris, Great Hritain claimed 
 as far west as the Penobscot and Kennebec Rivers. 
 
 Combining these several circumstances, it is perfectly in- 
 conceivable that the Hritish Government could ever have in- 
 tended by the Article, wliich they ultimately agreed with 
 the United States in concluding, to carry the Iloundary Line 
 to the north of the St. John, and by that means, as it has 
 been since ascertained, to make over to an indep<^ndent Go- 
 vernment a much larger extent of Territory than they tliem- 
 se'ives retained towards the Coast by adopting the St. Croix 
 as the Eastern Boundary Line. 
 
 The sacrifice on the part of Great Britain would not have 
 been confined to the loss of a certain ninnber of square miles. 
 The direct communication between Nova Scotia and Canada 
 would have been thereby surrendered, and lands in depen- 
 dence on Canada would have been transferred to the 
 United States, no longer having the character of British 
 Colonies, but that of IndejKudcnt Sovereignties. So far 
 from Great Britain receiving under the Treaty any compen- 
 sation for such sacrifices, her Negotiators had already made 
 other sacrifices of no inconsiderable amount in settling the 
 eastern and northern Boundaries of Mass-nchusetts. By con- 
 senting to take the St. Croix for a Boundary they had rece- 
 ded from their claims to the Territory extending westward 
 along the coast from that River to the Rivers Penobscot and 
 Kennebec. By consenting to the line of Highlands propo- 
 sed in the American Instructions, they gave up to Tiie 
 United States all that Territory which is situated betv/een 
 the Highlands, extending along that part of the line, as to 
 which the British and American Commissioners are agreed, 
 and the northern Boundary of the old Province of Maine. 
 The limits of this Province, it is well known, were regulated 
 by Charles the First's Grant to Sir Ferdinando Gorges ; and 
 the northern limit, according to that grant, was a line drawn 
 westward from the River Kennebec to tlie River Pisratoqita, 
 at a distance of 120 miles from the mouth of each River. 
 The head waters of the Kennebec being at a much greater 
 distance than 120 miles from the Atlantic Ocean, a considera- 
 ble interval was necessarily left between the northern limits 
 of Maine, regarded as co-extensive wufh the Grant of Sir Fer- 
 dinando Gorges, and the above mentioned Highlands, in* 
 which the head waters of the Kennebec are situated. To 
 
35 
 
 this intermediate Territory il M'-ould have been impossible for 
 The United States to substantiate their claim under the Char- 
 ter of Massachusetts ; which Colony acquired the territory by 
 purchase. The outline of this Grant is traced on Mitchell's 
 map in strict conformity with its true description. 
 
 Supposing, what is most probable, that the conflicting 
 claims of the two Parties were so balanced, or rather so in- 
 volved in confusion and obscurity, as to offer no clear and safe 
 principle for their regulation, but that of mutual convenience 
 and conciliation, the Territory intervening between the Ri- 
 vers St. Croix and St. John was surely but a wretched equi- 
 valent for those extensive parts of the British Claim which 
 were given up to The United States. Supposing on the other 
 hand, notwithstanding the strong and convincing evidence 
 already furnished to the contrary, that the final adjustment 
 was grounded on some specific principle of right, of what 
 such principle, at all capable of application to the whole ex- 
 tent of disputed Boundary, is there the slightest trace ? The 
 charter principle, as we have seen, would have thrown the 
 old Province of Maine, and consequently the northern limits 
 of Massachusetts, in that quarter, considerably to the south 
 of the Highlands. The same principle, applied to the Sa- 
 gadahock Territory, would have carried those limits, at the 
 northern extremity of its east boundary* to the River St, 
 Lawrence. The principle of the proclamation would have 
 confirmed the Line of Boundary between that River, from 
 the point where it is struck by the parallel of 45° north lati- 
 tude, and liake Nepissim, as proposed in the American In- 
 structions. A combination of the two principles is equally 
 ineffectual to explain what must be termed the anomalies of 
 the Treaty arrangement, on any supposition but the natural 
 and necessary one of its having been grounded on mutual 
 convenience, since neither Charter nor Proclamation could 
 have warranted the Parties in carrying the Boundary Line, 
 as it -was actually settled to be carried — not, as the latter 
 would have prescribed, to the north of the Great Lakes, nor, 
 as the former indicated, along their southern shores— but 
 through the centre of those inland Seas, and along the mid- 
 channels of their respective water communications. 
 
 It is not the interest of Great Britain and her Colonies that 
 is alone concerned in this discussion. A common interest, 
 the interest of the Treaty, and of both Parties is at stake. 
 
 In an early part of these remarks it was shown that in tlie 
 absence of any express principle specially applied to the ques- 
 
 * TLi» is explained Lereafter. 
 F 
 
36 
 
 lion orbouiidariea, except that of scitling ihem so as to pre- 
 vent tuture disputes, the general intention of the Treaty, as 
 declared in its preamble, was to adjust tlicm in such a manner 
 as to "secure to both ("ountries perpetual peace and har- 
 "mony" by establishing " a satisfactory and beneficial ijiter- 
 " course" between them, " on grounds of reciprocal advan- 
 •' tage and mutual convenience." It is evident, with res- 
 pect to the Boundaries, that nothing was more likely to aid 
 this wise and benevolent object of the Treaty, by prevent- 
 ing collisions, and promoting good neighbourhood between 
 the Parties, than the adoption of a Line which should have 
 the effect of placing the rivers and principal water courses 
 of their res]>ective Territories entirely within the roach of 
 •ach. On this momentous ground, which involves tlie high- 
 est considerations alTecting the welfare of human societies, 
 as well as on those which have been previously advanced, 
 is rested the firm moral conviction that the framers of the 
 Treaty could not p<^ssibly have contemplated so entire a 
 departure from the principles of that instrument, as the form- 
 ing a Boundary between Nova Scotia and Massachusetts, 
 which would have the effect of throwing the upper half of 
 the St. John. — the most important river of the country, — 
 within the Territory of The United St.ates. Equally diffi- 
 cult is it to conceive that, if they had obtained such an un- 
 derstanding with Great Britain, the American Commis- 
 sioners, who were naturally more alive to the exclusive 
 advantage of their States, and from long and familiar ac- 
 quaintance with Colonial interests, were by no means likely 
 to expose them to risk by an oversight in the wording of 
 the Treaty, should have allowed the term " Atlantic Ocean" 
 to remain in its Second Article after the substitution of the 
 St. Croix f*^r the St. John, the proposal of which last men- 
 tioned River, ''from its source to its mouth,''' was to all rea- 
 sonable appearance, the cause of its first introduction into 
 that Article, in place of the more comprehensive word " Sea," 
 employed in the Proclamation of 1763. 
 
 It follows, of necessity, from the whole of what precedes, 
 that the Highlands intended by the Treaty are to be looked 
 for south of the River St. John. The American Negotiators 
 having desisted from their demand of that River, and the 
 British having equally rejected the substituted proposal of 
 deferring the settlement of the Boundary till after the con- 
 clusion of Peace, an arrangement carrymg with it the con- 
 sequcncps of yielding to The United States at once a greater 
 extent of territory thau that which was comprised in the ac- 
 
37 
 
 Ceptance of the St. John as a Boundary, without any recip' 
 rocal advantage to Great Britain, but with results most in- 
 jurious to her just and necessary interests, and also in direct 
 contradiction to the governing principle of the Treaty, maybe 
 fairly, and without hesitation, pronounced to be impossible. 
 
 What reasons may have prevailed with the Negotiators, 
 on the supposition that they intended to designate Highlands 
 to the south of the St. John, as those which the due north 
 line was to meet, not to declare that specific intention by an 
 additional clause of the Treaty, can now be only matter of 
 conjecture. But strong probabihties are not wanting to aid 
 the discovery of the truth even in this particular also. 
 
 In the first place, by retaining in the clause respecting 
 Rivers and Highlands the term " Atlantic Ocean," in con- 
 nection with the limited sense unequivocally attached to it 
 in another part of the same Article, the British Plenipoten- 
 tiary might have reasonably hoped to preclude any future 
 disagreement on the subject. In the second place, the in- 
 sertion of a definition of the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, 
 calculated to obviate any embarrassment which might spring 
 out of the use of that term as a known and settled point of 
 departure with reference to the Colonial Boundaries, may 
 also have contributed to satisfy him as to the efficacy of the 
 wording; as it now stands in the Treaty. 
 
 It may surely be assumed that the Negotiators meant to 
 define the Boundary in a spirit accordant with the just and 
 liberal views declared in the preamble of the Treaty. If it 
 had been possible to describe the whole Boundary Line with 
 minute exactness, their desire to prevent future disputCvS 
 would doubtless have led them to do so. But they evidently 
 did not possess the topographical details necessary for such 
 extreme precision. The Boundary w^as, therefore, of neces- 
 sity, to be defined in general terms. A glance on Mitchell's 
 Map w^as sufficient to shew them, tliat a due north Line 
 could not be drawn from the source of the St. Croix to the sup- 
 posed latitude of (he head waters of the Atlantic Rivers, flow- 
 ing westward of that River, without a probability of its stri- 
 king some of the smaller and very inconsiderable lakes or 
 water courses falling into the St. John. To have changed 
 the grand features of their agreement, on account of this 
 petty consideration, would have been unwise ; and at the 
 same time, there was an obvious and disproportionate incon- 
 venience in guarding in express terms, against a mere contin- 
 gency of no practical importance. Again, they nnif t have 
 known that a cojisidcrable part of the Boundary Line would 
 
3S 
 
 be traced along the Highlands situated nearest to the head 
 waters ol" the Connecticut, and ininiediatcly dividnig the 
 Kennebec from the ('haudu r<.v All Parties agree that tlie 
 words ol' the Treaty apply, without shadow or possibility of 
 doubt, to that portion at least of the Highland Boundary. 
 The Highlands, which were knoxin to range along the 
 sources of the more Eastern Atlantic Rivers, were believed 
 to be a continuation of the others. In order to frame a de- 
 finition more nicely and literally adapted to the varying cir- 
 cumstances of the Line, as thus prolonged, it would have 
 been necessary to obtain an exact knowledge of that part of 
 It, where the chang*- of cinMimstanccs was to operate ; and 
 tliis degree of precision, as already olisorved, was necessarily 
 unattainable from the Uionient that the source of the St. 
 John had ceased to be in view as the proj)osed north-west 
 angle of Nova Scotia. The due north Line was intended to 
 strike Highlands to the south of the River St. John. At 
 the fK)mt of intersection, tlie lioundary was to be carried 
 west in such a manner as to place all the rivers flowing on 
 that aide of the St. Croi-x. and consequently Atlantic Rivers, 
 within the Territory of The United States. Towards the 
 other extremity, there was that large portion of the High- 
 land Line, respecting which both Parties are agreed. Upon 
 these data, it is by no means extraordinary that the Negotia- 
 tors should have fallen into tlic error (for such the pending 
 dilTerence authorizes us to call it) of supposing that they had 
 sufficiently provided, by the present wording of the Treaty, 
 for the dur direction of that part of the Line, which was 
 intended to unite the point of departure on the North Line 
 with tiic north-westernmost head of Connecticut River, by 
 joining on to that other jxirt of the same Line which imme- 
 diately separates the sources of the Kennebec from those of 
 the Chaudiere. 
 
 These probabilities, which"are'not put forward as known 
 undoubted truths, being nevertheless, such evidences as the 
 nature of the case admits, must have their weight in remov- 
 ing the objection to which they immediately relate, and 
 must contribute, in that respect, to confirm and fully estab- 
 lish the position previously maintained on such just grounds, 
 and ])y so many cogent and convincing rea.sons ; namely, 
 Hint, thr Hi ^/t lands of the Treaty were mrant to be fixed to 
 the south of the St. John. 
 
 If, on the other hand, it be supposed, notwithstanding so 
 many proofs to the contrary that it was the intention of 
 the Nejjotialors to carry tjip due north 'line to that point. 
 
39 
 
 ■which the Americau argument maintains to be the true 
 north-west angle of Nova Scotia, the silence which they 
 have kept with regard to the intersection of the River St. 
 John is really very difficult, if not impossible, to explain. 
 Such silence is, on that supposition, the more inconceivable, 
 since it must be agreed that a principal object of the Treaty 
 was to separate the rivers along the adjoining part of the 
 frontier, and to place within the Territories of the respective 
 Parties the whole of each class of rivers so separated. The 
 motives and evidences of this intention are so numerous and 
 convincing, that even if it were true, as the American argu- 
 ment asserts, that no sufficient criterion for determining the 
 direction of the northern Boundary Line is to be found, un- 
 less the precise meaning which that argument assigns to 
 what respects the dividing rivers be received without quali- 
 fication, there would be still wanting sufficient grounds to 
 justify a decision in favour of The United States. But this 
 miaginary defect of the Treaty is, in truth, the mere off- 
 spring of a partial and unwarranted view of its terms and 
 intentions. 
 
 There is no longer any real difference respecting the East- 
 em boundary of the United States. The diiRculties which are 
 now experienced, regard their Northern boundary, which is 
 to pass along the Highlands designated in the Treaty as 
 dividing certain rivers. What rivers they are, which are 
 thus to be separated, has been abundantly shewn above. It 
 has been proved that the Highlands in question were meant 
 to be found south of the River St. John, and, also, that no 
 river east of the St. Croix comes within the class of Atlantic 
 Rivers specified in the Treaty. Hence, it is clear, that in 
 carrying the boundary line westward to the Connecticut, 
 the sources of the Atlantic Rivers are to be left entirely 
 within The United States' territory, and those of the St. 
 John, which intervene between the former and the head 
 waters of the Rivers falling into the St. Lawrence, are to be 
 left within the British line. The American argument has 
 givenrto the Treaty expression " dividing Rivers," a narrow- 
 ness of signification which is by no means borne out by the 
 words themselves. The intention being clear as to the Ri- 
 vers to be separated and therefore to be left within the terri- 
 tory of the respective parties, any highlands rising above the 
 heads of one set of rivers to be separated must necessarily 
 divide those rivers (in this instance the Atlantic Rivers) 
 from the otlirr set of rivers named '\n the Treaty, although ^ 
 they may not extend equally along the jtourscs of these last }- 
 
40 
 
 mentioned rivers. If this liad not been \\\e opinion of tho 
 neKOtialors, il may fairly be piresunicd that they would have 
 adopted some more precise term in explanation of their parti- 
 cular meaninc, and tliat the term '' Atlantic Ocean" would, 
 with rtiuai certainty, have been exchanged for some other 
 of a more comprehensive sense. To go the length of su]>- 
 plying the supposed omission and of enlarging the supposed 
 limitation by a license of construction which cajinot be ad- 
 mitted without defeating the general views of the Treaty, 
 as declared by its introductory terms, and further established 
 in the foregoing jxiges, is a course of j>rocccding dangerous 
 m its example, and tending to introduce a new and unsound 
 practice in the interpretation of Treaties. 
 
 The point of (Icjvnrturc for tracing the boundary line is 
 to be found wlicre the due nortli line drawn from the St. 
 Croix touches the Highlands soutli of the River St. John. 
 It has been shewn above that the existence of such Higliliuids 
 was, to all appearance, a matter of general jxirsuasion at tho 
 f>criod of 17b3, and several years before. That such has 
 since continued to be the impression, there is no inconsider- 
 able evidence to establish. 
 
 In the year 1702 the Government of Massachusetts sold, by 
 contract, to two individuals, natned Jackson and Flint, cer- 
 tain lands, the limits of which are thus described in the con- 
 tract relating thereto, " Westerly, by a line on the east side 
 ** of the great eastern branch of Penobscot River, at the dis- 
 " tance of six miles therefrom ; easterly^ by the River Scoo- 
 " diac, and a line crtciidiv^ iwrtficr/y from the source thereof 
 *^ to the Highlands ; and. northerly, by the Highlands, or 
 " by tlie line described in the Treaty of Peace between Tlie 
 '* United States and His Britannic Majesty.'' From this 
 description of thyiimits in question it is clear that the North- 
 ern Boundary of The United States, as determined by 
 Treaty, was to be the northern limit of this tract, and also 
 that, in 1792, the Government of the State of Massachusetts 
 considered the great eastern branch of the Penobscot River 
 as reaching to the Highlands which form tliat northern 
 Boundary. 
 
 In an early edition of Greenleafs map of Maine, the limits 
 of Flint and Jackson's purchase appear to be marked out. 
 though without the names, in conformity with the terms of 
 the document quoted above ; the line being therein represent- 
 ed as terminating on the Highlands in which are situ- 
 ated th<^ head u'at».rs of tlie P«>n<^hsrof and othrr Atianti'" 
 Rivers. 
 
41 
 
 The '•' Statistical Viev/ of the District of Maine," pub- 
 Ushed in 1816, by Mr Greenleai', the American author, whose 
 map has just been referred to, confirms the correctness of the 
 conclusion to which the terms of the above-mentioned pur- 
 chase inevitably lead. 
 
 The following is an extract from that work, " With the 
 *' exception of a small tract at the eastern extremity, and 
 " some detached elevations along the central part of the 
 "north-western Boundary, the mountainous part of the dis- 
 " trict may be included within, an irregular line drawn from 
 " the line of New Hampshire, not far from Saco River ; 
 " thence proceeding north-easterly, and crossing Andros- 
 '' coggin River near Dixfield, Sandy River above Farming- 
 " ton, Kennebec River above Bingham, the west branch of 
 " the Penobscot at the Lake Pemmidumpkok, and to the 
 " East branch of the Penobscot near the mouth of the 
 '' Wassattaquoik ; thence north so far as to include the heads 
 " of the Aroostook ; thence south-westerly to the head of 
 " Moose-head Lake, and thence westerly to the Boundary of 
 " the district near the sources of the Du Loup. The great- 
 " est length of this section is from south-west to north-east ^ 
 " about 160 miles ; its greatest breadth about 60 miles; and 
 " it comprises about one-seventh part of the district. No 
 " observations have been made to ascertain and compare the 
 '' height of the different elevations in this section ; but from 
 " estimates which have been made on the falls of the rivers, 
 " proceeding from different parts of it, and from the much 
 " greater distance at which the mountains in the western 
 " part are visible, it is evident that the western, and parti- 
 *' cularly the north-western part, is much higher than the 
 *' eastern ; and the section in its whole extent may be con- 
 " sidered as presenting the highest points of latid between 
 " the xitlantic and the St. Lawrence?'' 
 
 This very explicit passage permits no doubt as to the fact of 
 there being at least as far east as the head waters of the eastern 
 branch of the Penobscot, and as high north as the head waters 
 of the Restook, a tract of mountainous elevations, answering in 
 every respect to the Treaty term of '■'■ Highlands," and con- 
 nected with the range which is situated immediately between 
 the sources of the Kennebec and Chaudiere Rivers. 
 
 That there are Highlands so situated, with reference to 
 those just described, as to offer a suitable place for a point of 
 departure from the due north line, has been proved by the 
 Reports of the Siu-veyors and Commissioners under the 5ih 
 Article of the Treaty of Ghent. 
 
There WoiilJ bene pOi;:5ibility of executing Treaty provi- 
 sions, such as are now under consideration, if tlie utmost 
 degree of precision were required, and if no allowance what- 
 ever was made for the unavoidable want of an exact local 
 knowledge on the jxirt of the Negotiators. It is one thing to 
 define a boundary in general terms, another to descril>e it 
 with a minute attention to details. The jvorties to the Treaty 
 of 17S3 did not possess the means of jx^rforming the latter 
 office. They could only act upon the general ideas which 
 they had then obtained of the state of the frontier country. 
 They had no reason to doubt that Highlands, in which were 
 situated the sources of the Atlantic Rivers, properly so called, 
 extended across the meridian of the St. Croix, towards the 
 Ct John. They can hardly be reproached wiili not having 
 sent a Commissioner from Paris, the seal of their negotia- 
 tions, in order to ascertain, by actual measurement, the cor- 
 rectness of so reasonable a sup]X)sition. They did, however, 
 wiiat an inspection of Mitchell's map was wlII calculated to 
 suggest. They agreed to form the Eastern Boundary of The 
 United Stalesby drawing a due north line from the source of 
 the St. Croix to the Highlands, which the greater length of 
 the course of the Kennebco and Penobscot Rivers, as com- 
 pared with that of the St. Croix, was likely to render neces- 
 sary. The details were unavoidably reserved for future set- 
 tlement by means of an actual survey and delimitation. 
 
 It was to be oxjxjctcd that in making that survey and 
 tracing the boundary line along the surface of the country, 
 the localities would not be found to correspond minutely with 
 the idea which had been previously formed of them. Whe- 
 ther it be supposed that the Highlands were intended to 
 have the character of hilly or mountainous heights, or 
 whether they were considered as mere lands, immediately 
 separating the head waters of rivers, it is clear that there was 
 more than one chance against their being found in strict 
 conformity with the Terms, in which c\'cr way they miglit 
 be interpreted, of the Treaty. In one case the due north 
 line might fail to reach any place of suflicient elevation ; in the 
 other it might be prolonged, even to the St. Lawrence, with- 
 out intersecting any spot exactly i:ituatcd between the liead 
 waters of the Rivers specified in the Treaty. The same dis- 
 appointment might have been anticipated in drawing the 
 north boundary line along Highlands, of whatever designa- 
 tion we suppose them to be. It appears that the peculiar 
 characteristic of the river-heads throughout the disputed Ter- 
 ritory, is to interlock with each other and frequently to form 
 
43 
 
 into large pools and spreading morasses. The defects in the 
 line might indeed prove so numerous as to operate a decided 
 change in its characteristic qualities, and render it altogether 
 unfit for the application of the Treaty. But if every devia- 
 tion from the strict rigour of definition, — an occasional break 
 or the intervention of a swamp or valley in the line of High- 
 lands — the want, in fine, of a single link in the chain, is to 
 defeat and nullify the whole design of the Treaty, it will be 
 extremely difficult to conceive by what means any arrange- 
 ment is to be effected, or how it will be possible to satisfy 
 either the one or the other of the claimants. 
 
 The place, called Mars Hill, is that which Great Britain 
 claims as the point of departure for the northern boundary 
 of The United States, and consequently as that spot which 
 is designated in the Treaty as the north-west angle of Nova 
 Scotia. It appears from the reports of the Surveyors, that 
 the due north line crosses its eastern skirt, or flank, at a dis- 
 tance of about 40 miles from the monument, which marks 
 the source of the St. Croix, as fixed in execution of the 
 Treaty. 
 
 There are three ponits to be considered with respect to 
 this elevation : l'^. Its height as compared with that of the 
 country previously traversed by the north line ; 2'-'. Its po- 
 sition relatively to the rivers; 3°. Its connection with the 
 western range of Highlands. 
 
 With respect to the comparative height of Mars Hill, it will 
 suffice to quote the following words of the American Sur- 
 veyor : " The south peak is 175 feet higher than the north 
 " peak, and about 1000 feet above the general level of the 
 ■'adjacent country." This description is decisive of the 
 superior height of Mars Hill, and the concurrent testimony 
 of the Surveyors shews that no ground equal to it in eleva- 
 tion, by many hundred feet, is previously crossed by the 
 North line. 
 
 The situation of Mars Hill, with respect to Rivers, is not 
 to be taken, as the American argument insists, from the petty 
 streams or rivulets falling into the St. John, in its immediate 
 neighbourhood. Its principal summits are situated at a short 
 distance westward of the north line, and consequently in the 
 position intended by the Treaty, on that Highland tract whicli 
 rises to the north of the Atlantic Rivers, and separates them 
 as well from the Rivers of the St. Lawrence, as from the 
 River St. John and its principal tributary, the Restock 
 The due north line does not indeed pass over its highest 
 peaks: but it is sufficient for every liberal and eflective pur- 
 
 G 
 
44 
 
 pos^ uMlie Treaty, that ihu liiH," intersects the rising groiuuls 
 v.'hich form its elevation IVoui the ba:iks of the St. John. 
 
 As to the third |)oint, the British Surveyor, Bouchette, u\ 
 his Report dated the 21st of May, 1818, observes, that he 
 took " the bearings of tho principal range of highlands cx- 
 " lending from Mars Hill to iho Catahdin Mountain ; the 
 " general course of which is N. N. E. and S. S. W., and 
 " highly conspicuous for its height.'' Anotlier of the Sur- 
 veyors, Odfll, states in a report filed the 1 lih of May, 1819, 
 as follows: '"Looking westward from this jilace (Parks's, 
 "near the Iloulton Settlement,) v.hich is itstlf considerably 
 " elevated, and is easily seen from the lop of Mars Hill, there 
 " appears a continued range of liighland, the view of which 
 •' is terminated on one side by Mars Hill, and on tlie other 
 •• by the Sj)cncer Mountains." The general result of these 
 documents with respect to Mars Hill and tlie adjacent licights 
 towards the weBt, is that ''A generally hilly country is found 
 '• to extend towards the eastern branch of the River Pcnob- 
 " scot." This is confirmed by the roj^ort of the American 
 Surveyor Lnring, dated in December. Ib2(). It may be added, 
 that the British Assistant Surveyor, Campbell, describes the 
 Highlands where the Monument is situated on the height of 
 land between the Kemiebec and Chaudiere Rivers as extend- 
 ing in a N. E. to E. N. E. direction, and consequently tend- 
 ing toconmiunicate with the HighUmds at the sources of tho 
 Penobscot River. 
 
 The foregoing information will hardly warrant us in con- 
 cluding that the tract or range of highland country stretching 
 from Mars Hill, or its immediate nciirhbourhood, towards the 
 sources of the Connecticut, is equally continuous and of one 
 imbrokcJi regularity throughout tlie whole extent of the 
 Boundary Line. But such continuity of height was not to 
 be cxiHJCted, nor is it necessary for any presumable purpose 
 of the Treaty. It does, however, appear that tiiere is a chain 
 of highlands, not indeed of uniform elevation, but in which 
 the head-waters of the Atlantic Rivers are situated, with the 
 additional circumstance of their partaJving generally of a 
 mountainous or hilly chnracter. 
 
 It has been urged on the part of the United States, that 
 the three prepositions ^- from;' '• along,'' and •• /o," employ- 
 ed in defnimg the northern boundary line, '• are the clearest 
 " and strongest wliich could have been selected for the pur- 
 " pose of declaring that the boundary, thus described, must, 
 '• throm^h its whole extent, from iti> beginning to its termi- 
 '" tuition, be alon^ highla'.ids." such as tliey presume the 
 
45 
 
 Treaty to have intended. This remark is, indeed, made on 
 grounds which do not apply to the view taken by Great 
 Britainof the same subject. It is, nevertheless, to be ob- 
 served, that in two acts of the highest authority connected 
 with this discussion, a Royal Proclamation and an Act of 
 Parliament, the very same prepositions are used in order to 
 describe lines, which have since been discovered to be too 
 imperfect to admit of their being traced in conformity with 
 this description. The Acts alluded to are the Proclamation 
 of 1763, and the Uuebec Act. The boundary described in 
 the Proclamation has two evident interruptions in the course 
 of its line, notwithstanding the use of the three prepositions, 
 to which so much efficacy has been attributed. In the first 
 place, the line, which is described as passing along the high- 
 lands, and also along the coast of the Bay des Chaleurs to 
 Cape Rosiers, has an intermediate space to traverse between 
 the highlands, wherever they may terminate according to 
 the supposition hitherto maintained, and the north coast of 
 Chaleurs Bay, for which no provision appears to have been 
 made by the terms of the Proclamation. Secondly, there 
 is a similar interval between Lake Champlain and the op- 
 posite extremity of the highlands, which do not extend to 
 the shores of that Lake. According to the Quebec Act, the 
 line v/as to go from the Bay of Chaleurs, alo7ig the High- 
 lands, &c. to a point in 45*^ north latitude, on the eastern 
 bank of the River Connecticut, keeping the same latitude 
 directly west through the Lake Champlain. This amend- 
 ment of the Proclamation itself occasioned a fresh difficulty, 
 which it was subsequently found necessary to obviate in the 
 Treaty. A line described as passing along the highlands in 
 which the sources of the Connecticut are situated could ne- 
 ver, it is manifest, have reached a point on the bank of that 
 river at a considerable distance below its sources. What 
 relates to the want of continuity between the Bay of Cha- 
 leurs and the Highlands is the same in the Act as in the 
 Proclamation. 
 
 There is a further consideration relating to Mars Hill, 
 which embraces one of the arguments most urged by the 
 United States in support of their line, as identified in their 
 opinion with that of the ancient boundaries, and which it is, 
 therefore, convenient to notice separately. 
 
 The Treaty, as we have seen, fixes the point of departure 
 for the Northern Boundary of the United States at a place, 
 where the due north line, drawn from the River St. Croix, 
 touches the Highlands. To that place; wherever it may 
 
46 
 
 }iappen to be, the Treaty has giveti the naine of •the north- 
 \cest angle of Sova Scotia ,'' and this expression it is, which 
 IS in fact the principal, and essentially the sole, foundation 
 of the American claim. The supposition of a perfect iden- 
 tity between the line, as now proposed by The United States, 
 and the ancient provincial boundary, is at the bottom even 
 of that pari of their argument, which turns on a literal inter- 
 pretation of the Treaty Article. Without this supposition, 
 — which is altogether conjectural, and incajmble of satisfac- 
 tory proof, and the merits of which cannot be fully discus- 
 sed without unsettling what the Treaty was most certainly 
 intended to settle in a |>eremptory and conclusive manner, — 
 The United Stales can make no progress whatever towards 
 ^ettlng aside those iminirtiuit linutalioiis, which the words 
 of the second Article of the Treaty, as already explained, 
 do most undoubtedly convoy. They seem to have over- 
 looked an inconvenience and striking objection which neces- 
 sarily result from this mode of treating the question, namely, 
 that they apjily themselves thereby not to the completion of 
 their own boundary, nor to the adjustment of such part of 
 the Brilisii boundary line, as corresponds immediately with 
 their own. but to the regulation of oilier parts of the British 
 Boundary, — tlic northern boundary of Nova Scotia, for in- 
 stance, — with which th«y have no right whatever to inter- 
 fere, and the final ariftngement of which is now, as it always 
 has been, wholly and exclusively in the competency of the 
 British .'\uthoritics. Such was not the object and intention 
 of the Treaty of 1783, the second Article of which, as we 
 have already proved, concerns the definition of The United 
 States' boundaries alone, and aflfects the boundaries of tho 
 British Colonies only in those parts of the frontier where the 
 territories of the one party border immediately on the terri- 
 tories of the other. 
 
 The words " north-west angle of Nova Scotia" were in- 
 troduced into the Treaty from the article respecting bounda- 
 ries, drawn up by the American Congress, and proposed to 
 Great Britain by the American Commissioners at Paris. In 
 that article '• the north-west angle of Nova Scotia" was 
 coupled with the proposal of carrying the boundary line 
 along the channel of the River St. John from its source to 
 its mouth. In other words, it was then distinctly proposed 
 by The United States that '• the north-west angle of Nova 
 Scotia" shoiUd be fixed at the source of the River St. John, 
 and that a considerable part of their northern boundary lino 
 should pas? along the channel of that River. It lias already 
 
AT 
 
 been shewn to demonstration, that, in rejecting that proposal, 
 — for the sake of maintaining which (be it remembered) the 
 American Congress had expressed the opinion that it would 
 not be worth while to carry on the war, — Great Britain must 
 obviously have meant to insist upon a boundary line within 
 the line of the St. John ; but, with reference to that proposal, 
 coupled as it was with " the north-west angle of Nova Sco- 
 tia," it is natural to inquire by what means the line so pro- 
 posed was to be reconciled with the line of continuous High- 
 lands from the Connecticut River to Chaleurs Bay, along 
 which The United States pretend that the northern boundary 
 of Nova Scotia as well as their own must now uninterrupt- 
 edly pass in virtue of that same expression in the Treaty. 
 
 The truth is, that the words in question are wholly subor- 
 dinate to the definition which immediately follows them ; 
 and the definition was, in all probability, introduced into the 
 Treaty for the express purpose of guarding against any mis- 
 construction likely to arise from their being retained in the 
 Article, after it had undergone the amendments which were 
 described above. If, as the American argument asserts, the 
 north-west anale of Nova Scotia was a known and undoubt- 
 ed spot, the mere mention of it in the Treaty would have 
 been sufficient, in like manner as the mention of the Bay of 
 Fundy and the Gulf of St. Lawrence by their respective 
 names, without particularizing their limits, suffices to con- 
 vey a distinct and adequate idea of those two separate por- 
 tions of the sea. But it is not a little remarkable, that the 
 north-west angle should have been named without the defi- 
 nition, precisely in that Article, which would have fixed it 
 in a spot altogether and entirely inconsistent with the line 
 now held up by The United States as that which coincides 
 with the line of the ancient boundaries and of the Treaty ; 
 and that the definition should have been added to the name 
 of the angle exactly in that other Article, where the name 
 alone is asserted by The United States to have so definite 
 and distinct a signification as to exclude the possibility of 
 any other construction. 
 
 In this confusion of circumstances one thing may be affirm- 
 ed without hesitation ; namely, that the position of the north- 
 west angle of Nova Scotia was no more known in 1783, 
 than it is known at this moment. The Charter of Massa- 
 chusetts, as The United States interpret it, would place that 
 angle on the right bank of the St. Lawrence. The Procla- 
 mation of 176u, and the Quebec Act, interpreted by them, 
 would place it on certain Highlands south of those Rivers- 
 
AS 
 
 winch fall into the St. Lawrence. The first j>ropos<il of 
 their Negotiators at Paris would place it at the source of the 
 River St. John. The fact is. that the north-west angle of 
 Nova Scotia is yet to ho formed ; and this has been admitted 
 by high American autluirity. 
 
 The American argument appears to have confounded the 
 assumption in theory of the point designated in the Treaty as 
 the north-west angle of Nova-Scotia, with its existence in 
 fact, although it is evident that these two ideas arc by no 
 means necessarily the same. Even the true position of the 
 River St. Croix, from the source of which the north lino 
 was to depart. iijKDn which tliis assumed point was to be found, 
 was not determined till fifteen years aftr-r the conclusion of 
 the Treaty of Peace ; and when the Commissioners appointed 
 for that purpose entered njx^n the consideration of the subject, 
 they found they had to decide between two rivers, both hav- 
 ing claim to the appellation of the St. Croix, and between 
 several sources of that one of the two to which the prefer- 
 ence was uhimateiy given; and further, that, taking tho 
 two extreme claims on the east and on the west, the distance 
 between their meridians was no less than 40 miles. 
 
 From the manner in which the north-west angle of Nova 
 Scotia is mentioned in the Treaty, and the terms in which 
 the north-east angle of Maine is described in the same sen- 
 tence, it might have been supposed in 1783, that whenever 
 the position of the boundary lino should be ultimately settled, 
 there would be a point where the southern boundary of 
 Canada would, in lorming the northern boundary both of 
 Massachusetts and Nova Scotia, be met by the dividing lino 
 between the two latter Provinces — in other words, that 
 wherever the north-east angle of Maine should be formed, an 
 angle for the adjacent Brili-sh Province mu?!t likewise be de- 
 termined. That the finding of the latter was to be conse- 
 quent to, and not to govern the position of the former ; that 
 it was a point to be sought, and not a point fixed, is admitted 
 by an authority which Tho United States will not be inclined 
 to dispute ; namely, Mr. Sullivan, formerly agent on tho 
 part of The United States, before the Commis.sion for deter- 
 mining the true River St. Croix, afterwards Governor of the 
 State of Massachusetts, and also the author of a History of the 
 District of Maine. 
 
 Mr. Sullivan, in the course of his argument before that 
 Commission, expresses himself as follows : — 
 
 " In the Treaty the angle is described in these word?. 
 
 ' that Angle xchirh r> formed by a line draw?i due north 
 
(( 
 
 49 
 
 ^' -from the source of the River St. Croix to the Highlands} 
 " An angle is the point of intersection on the mutual inclina- 
 " tion of two lines, and therefore to give a second line the 
 " Treaty adds ; ' along the said Highlands which divide 
 " ' those rivers that empty themselves into the River St. 
 " ' Lawrencefrom those ivJiich fall into the Atlantic Ocean ;^ 
 " but still a course to exhibit the inclination of this second 
 '' line was necessary, and it was therefore added, ' to the 
 '•' 'north-westernmost head of Connecticut River. ^ Then 
 *' the Treaty contemplates a line running on the Highlands 
 " so as to divide the rivers which run into the St. Lawrence 
 " from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, but whether 
 '• this is to be a direct or crooked line is not ascertained in 
 " the Treaty. If it divide those rivers as above expressed 
 " there can be no pretence of its being a straight line. It is 
 '' either in its geiieral inclination or in its direct course to 
 "' run to the north-westernmost head of Connecticut River. 
 " There can be no angle existing, as known to any man, 
 '' until those lines are formed, for the point of their incli- 
 '• nation is but a tnathematical deduction frowo a perfect 
 recognition of the lines themselves. It was found at a very 
 •' early period that the rivers flovv^ed from the southward into 
 " the River St. Lawrence, and from the northward into the 
 '•' Atlantic Ocean. This raised a reasonable conjecture that 
 '' thci^e was a ridge of Highlands which divided those rivers 
 '' from each other ; but the savage state of the Country, the 
 '' continued wars of the Nations, and of the Indians, and the 
 *' immense labour of traversing such a>n extensive wilderness, 
 '' raised obstacles too great to be overcome by the prospect 
 " of any advantages which could possibly be the result. 
 '" Indeed we are as entire strangers to these Highlands^ 
 ■• and the sources of the I'ivers on either side of them, as 2ce 
 '' arc to the sources of the Nile. In the Grant of King James 
 " to Sir William Alexander, tlie Highlands do not appear to 
 '" be mentioned ; the words are, ' undc per imaginariam 
 " ^ directani lineam, quce pergere j)^^' terrani seu currere 
 '' 'versus Sepientrionem concipietur, ad proximam naviunh 
 " • stationem, fluvium vel scaturiginem in magno fiuvio de 
 ''' ' Canada sese exonerantevi.^ The Highlands are liere 
 " made no part of the boundary, but the line, as an imagi- 
 '•' 7iary line, was to be drawn towards the north or northerly 
 " to the source or spring of a river which emptied its waters 
 " into the River Canada. The last mentioned River then 
 '* is described as the boundary on the north-east of the 
 " Patent. 
 
*• The line of the Treaty is a hue due north, in its fourse, 
 " and in its extent, reaching from the sourco of the St. Croix 
 •' to the highlands ; the hnc in Sir William Alexander s 
 " patent is an indefinite uncertain line, which is to leave, 
 " not the source, but the most western spring of the St. 
 " Croix, and wander to the unexplored spring or sourco of a 
 " river, which empties its waters into the St. La\\Tence. and 
 *' of the existence of which source or spring there was no 
 ** evidence or knowledge, but what was conjectured from 
 •* the existence of rivers, the mouths of which only had been 
 " seen. From the year 1621 there was no act of Govern- 
 " mcnt. no exercise of jurisdiction, or claim of property 
 " from whicii this line could receive a station, but all wa.s 
 " abandoned and lost in Treaties, cessions, conquests, recon- 
 " quests, by and from the French crown, from Oliver Crom- 
 " well, and from the Kings of England. 
 
 " The country of Canada M-as conquered in 1700 : on tin- 
 " 7th October, 1703, the King of England issued His Roy^I 
 " Proclamation for improving and regulating the islands and 
 " country which had been ceded by the late Treaty of Peace. 
 " In this Proclamation we find this provision ; fir«t. * Tho 
 " ' Government of (iuebec bounded on the Labrador coast 
 " * by the River St. John, and thence by a line drawn from 
 " ' the head of that river through the Lake St. John to thr 
 " 'south end of the Lake Nepissim. from whence the .said 
 "'line crossing the River St. Lawrence, and the Lakr 
 " * Champlain in forty-five degrees of north latitude, passe.s 
 " * along the highlands, which divide the rivers that empty 
 " ' themselves into the River St. Lawrence, from those wliicl! 
 " * fall into the sea.' 
 
 " There is no surh anisic drscribed in tlio Prorhnnation 
 " or in the Art of Parliament as is mentioned in the Treaty 
 " of 1783. The line by the Proclamation is to cross the 
 " St. Lawrence in the 45th degree of north latitude, wliicli 
 " is on a degree nearly equal with the mouth of the Scoudit- 
 " and Magagnadavic Rivers, and very far south of the angle 
 " now sought for, and far below every part of the highlands 
 " referred to. No course or courses are given to the line 
 " which is drawn on the highlands, but all is left to imagi- 
 •' nation. This line coidd have no influence on the minds 
 " of the Commissioners in 17S3. 
 
 " In the Treaty of that date it is provided, that the line 
 " between the two nations shall run on the highlands to the 
 " north-westernmost head of Connecticut River, and then 
 " down the middle of that river to the 4oth decree of north 
 
51 
 
 " latitude : whereas the hne of the Proclamation was in the; 
 " 45th degree at the St. Lawrence, and so to run on the 
 '' highlands to Lake Champlain, without saying at what 
 '• point it should cross the Connecticut. 
 
 '' Thus we find no place for this angle prior to the Treaty 
 " of 1783, and are now left to form it by running' the linen 
 " in (hat Treaty agreed upon. 
 
 " That in order to determine that place as nearly as could 
 '' be done, it was agreed that a certain river, which had 
 '•' heretofore been known and called by the name of the 
 " River St. Croix, aiid which had been deemed and received 
 " as the eastern boundary of the Province of Massachusetts 
 '' Bay, should be taken as a part of the boimdary. and that 
 " to fix a line from the source of that river to the highlands 
 •'' both as a line for the Government of Massachusetts and 
 " Nova Scotia, it should run due north, and that the limita- 
 " Hon of that line should be in what should ultimately be 
 '^ found, when the country should be explored, to be thehigh- 
 '' lands. 
 
 " This is not a singular instance in that Treaty of leaving 
 " that as uncertain which might afterwards be ascertained : 
 " the important boundary of the north-westernmost head of 
 " Connecticut River is unknown and unexplored. There 
 " are several other instances very similar to this which ap- 
 •• pear on reading the second article of the Treaty of Peace. 
 
 " We have come then clearly to this point, that the north- 
 *' west angle of Nova Scotia is to be found by running a line 
 " due north from the source of the St. Croix River to tlie 
 " highlands to a point or a place, where that line shall intcr- 
 " sect a line along the highlands, ivhich divide the rivers as 
 " before mentioned, and run to the north-iv ester nmost head 
 '' of Connecticut River. * * * * 
 
 # *# ***** 
 
 " The Highlands had, in the year 1763, been made the 
 '■' boundary of Quebec, or the Lower Canada boundary, but 
 " where the boundaries or highlatids are, is yet resting on 
 
 " the wing of imagination. 
 
 # * "^ * * * * 
 
 " We are as entire strangers to the Highlands, and the 
 " sources of the Rivers on either side of them, as we are to 
 *' the sources of the Nile. There can be no doubt that the 
 " noj'th west angle of Nova Scotia is yet to be formed, and 
 " that this is to be done by forming the north-east angle of the 
 " State of Massachusetts. To do this it has become neces- 
 " sary to fmd the River wliich was truly meant and intended 
 
 u 
 
5-2 
 
 '* by the Commissioners who doscriLeii tht; bouiuls, lo (md 
 '*■ the source ol" thai river, and to draw a line due north from 
 '• ihence. 
 
 • But even this cannot decide where the nortliwcst angle 
 " is, because this board has no authority to fix tlie lino, which 
 '• is to be intersected in order to form the angle, or llie point 
 '• of mclinalion of the two. The questum resulting from the 
 •' Treaty in regard to the line ujx>n the Highlands is reserved 
 '• to a future period. This board has no concern in it as to 
 " its principles or consequences, and the point of thr loralily 
 " of the norlh-iccst an^le is to be the invesligatiov of the 
 " next rrntury.'' 
 
 The framers of tho Treaty wanted a point of departure 
 for the northern boundary line of The United States ; and 
 they apjxiar to have thought that the supp*)sed |)oitit of con- 
 tact of the three provinces filhng to the south of the St. 
 John, would, when named in the treaty, sulRciently answer 
 that purposn. The northern boundary line, being intended 
 to limit the territory of The United States on that side, was 
 to be carried westward from the f)oint «»f departure thus de- 
 signated, which was necessarily external to the territory of 
 The United States, then first to be acknowledged indepen- 
 dent. The north-eastern angle of that territory it was 
 strictly within the scope and com|)etency of the Treaty, as it 
 was also one of its particular objects, to describe. To des- 
 cribe the north-western angle, or niiy other angle, of Nova 
 Scotia, was not within the Province of the Treaty ; and it 
 has already been shewn that no such angle existed, except 
 in theory, ))rior to the conclusi()n of that instrument. When 
 therefore. The United States object to Mars Hill that it is 
 not, as they atfirm, connected with a chain of Highlands ex- 
 tending to Chaleurs Bay, they exact a condition not only 
 foreign to the declared and legitimate puri)Ose of the Treaty, 
 but also to the real question to be dccidfrd. 
 
 Such being the case, there would be little interest in ex- 
 amining the nature of the country east and north-east of 
 Mars liill. It is enough to know that Mars Hill is calcula- 
 ted to imi»art a character of decidedly suix-rior elevation to 
 that part of the country in which it is situated, that the due 
 north line crosses its eastern sloi»e, and that there are appear- 
 ances of a generally hilly and mountainous tract, marked 
 with occasional eminences of a loftier kind, going olf from it 
 in a westerly or south-westerly direction, and allowing the 
 boundary line lo be carried along this uneven succession of 
 bii^hlajids in sucli a manner as to Icuve the waters of tUe 
 
53 
 
 Atlantic Rivers entirely within The United States' ter- 
 ritory. 
 
 According to the American argument the only spot on 
 the due north line, capable of answering to the terms of the 
 Treaty so see to constitute the point of departure required for 
 the Northern Boundary Line, is fixed at a point about 144 
 miles from, the source of the River St Croix. The line so 
 prolonged intersects the main channel of the St. John and 
 several of its tributary streams, besides intersecting also se- 
 veral other streams whose confluence form the River Resti- 
 gouche ; and it terminates at a place destitute of any mark- 
 ed elevation, between one of the branches of the Restigouche 
 and the sources of a stream falling into the River St. Law- 
 rence, and presumed to be the River Metis. 
 
 According to the same argument the Northern Boundary 
 of The United States is carried from the point thus fixed to 
 the north-westernmost head of Connecticut River, passing 
 all along between the Rivers that empty them.selves into 
 the River St. Lawrence and the tributary streams of the 
 River Restigouche, of the River Si. John, and of Rivers 
 Avhich fall into the Atlantic Ocean. 
 
 The highlands, which the American argument describes 
 as passing, without interruption, from the point proposed by 
 The United States as the true north-west angle of Nova 
 Scotia to the north-westernmost head of Connecticut River, 
 are wholly destitute of any marked or conspicuous elevation 
 through, by far, the greater part of their extent. 
 
 The United States, pursuing their idea of identifying the 
 line designated in the Treaty with that which they suppose 
 to have existed previously am.ong the British Provinces, have 
 objected to the adoption of Mars Hill, as the point of depar- 
 ture for the northern boundary line, that it is not in imme- 
 diate connection with any chain of highlands trending east- 
 ward in the direction of Chaleurs Bay. The reasons which 
 lead to treating this objection as irrelevant have been stated 
 above, and it is not thought necessary to go into the exami- 
 nation of a fact, which, if it v/ere even estabUshcd on indis- 
 putable authority, would be entitled to no weight in the 
 decision of the point at issue. But since The United States 
 appear to think tliat the continuation of the highlands east- 
 ward of the due north line is so essential to a fulfilment 0} 
 the terms of the Treaty, there may be some interest in as- 
 certaining how far the line which they themselves claim, 
 is calculated to fulfil this condition. The line which they 
 claim is. in fact, no other than the boundarv line which they 
 
5\ 
 
 5\ipj)osc to iiavc cxistctl as l-ctweori Cunadnaml ?Sova Scotia 
 III virtue cl' the Royal Pn tlaiiiatinn of 1703. But that line, 
 it is well known, cannot continue along the highlands ac- 
 cording to the condition on which The United States insist. 
 It must leave those highlands, in order to pass along the 
 north coa.st of the Bay dc Chaleurs. In this manner it is 
 evident that whatever may be the character of the country 
 in a direct line between Slars Hill and Chaleurs Bay, the 
 line claimed by the United States is defective in that very 
 quality to wlucli they attacli so creat a degree of importance. 
 
 It lias already been sliewn and lully established that the 
 River Hestii^oucht and the River St. John are not classed 
 by the Treaty among the Rivers falling into the Atlantic 
 Ocean, and consequently that Tlie United States, who main- 
 tain that tlu- Highlands designated by the Treaty must be 
 those which imincdiutcly divide the St. Lawrence Rivers 
 from those of the Atlantic Ocean have failed to substantiate 
 their claim in that res|>ect. The consecjuences involved in 
 the admission of th.'»t claim, as well with regard to the gene- 
 ral principle and purview of the Treaty, as relatively to many 
 un})ortant interests of the British Colonics, which would be 
 thereby prejudiced, without the extension of any correspond- 
 ing benefit to The United States, are such as to call for the 
 clearest proofs and the most irresistible demonstration. But 
 far from this being the case in the present instance, it is 
 manifest, that in order to produce even an appearance of 
 consistency between the American Claim and the letter of 
 the Treaty, one of the principal limitations of that Treaty 
 must bo wlioUy set aside, and even its very terms submitted 
 to a forced and unnatural c<-)nstruction. directly o]>posed to 
 the sense which is incontn^vertibly attached to them in other 
 parts of the same Article. 
 
 That the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean arc con- 
 tradistincuished from each other and confounded together 
 ill one and the same Article of the Treaty ; that the lliver 
 St. John which empties itself into the Bay of Fundy, and 
 the River Restigouche which empties itself into the Bay of 
 Chaleurs and through it communicates with the Gulf of St. 
 T..awrcnce. fall into the Atlantic Ocean in the sense and mean- 
 ing of the Treaty ; that the word " Highlands" is wholly 
 unconnected with the idea of height otherwise than as it re- 
 presents the separation of rivers; that the. British Plenipo- 
 tentiary, at'ter declining the ofTf-r of the St. John as a Boun- 
 dary, consented to give up half of that River together with 
 a lnrer> territorv nortli as v.-ell as south of it to The United 
 
5 
 
 K 
 
 States; that the principle, declared in the Treaty, of secu- 
 ring perpetual harmony and beneficial intercourse between 
 the two parties, would receive its intended application by 
 dividing the principal rivers of the Highland Country in 
 such manner as tolay the seeds of " future discord" between 
 the Parties ; are among the propositions in virtue of v/hich 
 the claim of The United States can alone be made good in 
 opposition to that of Great Britain. 
 
 The United States, in supporting that claim, have labour- 
 ed to establish not only that the Boundary Line designated 
 in tho Treaty is identical with that which subsisted between 
 tha British Provinces of Nova Scotia, duebec and Massa- 
 chusetts, previous to the War of Independence ; but further, 
 that the Line, which they now propose, is identical with the 
 one and with the other of these two Lines. It has already 
 been proved in treating of that point which The United 
 States have claimed as the true north-west angle of Nova 
 Scotia, that any such identity between their line, and the 
 supposed line of the ancient provincial boundaries, is mere 
 matter of conjecture. In going into this question of the an- 
 cient Boundaries, The United States have not been able to 
 conceal the inconvenience, and indssd the insurmountable 
 objections attached to such a disoussion at the distance of 
 forty-six years from the conclusion of the Treaty. It was, in 
 truth, so clearly the intention of the Treaty to settle the 
 Boundaries both peremptorily and definitely, that the argu- 
 ment advanced by The United States with reference to 
 what those Boundaries were, as between the several British 
 Colonies before the War of Independence, must be consider- 
 ed as tending, however undesignedly, to counteract that wise 
 and salutary intention. The treaty itself, as amply shewn 
 before, is silent on this subject. It introduces the definition 
 of the Boundaries by stating it to be " agreed and declared" 
 that they "are and shall 6e" as follows. Such are not the 
 words which parties meaning to confirm ancient boundaries 
 would have chosen. If the framers of the Treaty had in- 
 tended to adopt any line of demarcation supposed previously 
 to exist, they might have satisfied themselves with running 
 a line due north from the St. Croix River to the Southern 
 Boundary of the Province of Q.uebec ; but they were re- 
 solved not to trust to any such vague and arbitrary line of 
 Frontier, but to establish peremptorily a new line, which, 
 whether it might or might not coincide with any supposed 
 former line, should, in accordance with the principle laid 
 down in the beginning of the second article of the Treaty, 
 
56 
 
 prevent all disputes m future on the subject of tUe Boundtt- 
 nes of The United States. 
 
 In maintaining the fact of the silence of the Treaty as to 
 ancient Boundaries, and considering that question as foreclo- 
 sed by the authoritative decision contained in its Second Ar- 
 ticle, tlierc is no intention of asserting on the part of Great 
 Britain that no reference whatever was made to the ancient 
 Boundaries in the course of the negotiations which termina- 
 ted in the Peace of 17S3. There is no diiliculty in admit- 
 ting that the American pro^x^sal. as to Boundaries, which 
 was subsequently transferred with several imi)ortant uUera- 
 tions to the Treaty, derived the greater ptirtion of its terms 
 from the Royal Proclamation of 1703. The correspondence of 
 the American Commissioners further shews that, at least, on 
 their part, the Ciiarter of Massachusetts was brought forward 
 at some period of the negotiation in sup[)ort of their preten- 
 sions. It docs not indeed accord with the situation of the 
 parties, at that time to suppose that The United States could 
 ever have ihomzht seriously of insisting on the acknowledg- 
 ment, by Groat Britain, of a wider extent of territory than 
 thny were understood to have {Assessed, in virtue of some 
 principle or other, as British Colonies. 
 
 But these admisions are perfectly consistent with what 
 has been already asserted on clear specific evidence, namely, 
 that the two j)arties, in proceeding to a final adjustment of 
 their claims, did not agree to decide those claims, on any 
 fixed principle of right, but ultimately determined to adjust 
 them i)y a peremptory declaration founded on mutual consent 
 and mutual convenience, and the interest, common to both, 
 of preventing future disputes and collision. 
 
 A brief review of the principal documents which relate to 
 the ancient boundaries in this quarter, will indeed be suf- 
 ficient to shew that the negotiations might have been pro- 
 tracted to an indefinite period, if those who conducted them 
 had not taken the determination of adjusting their differ- 
 ences on the only priTicii)le adapted to their real interests, 
 and to the new position in which the parties were placed 
 towards each other. 
 
 Sir William Alexander's Grant, which was not in tlio 
 recollection of either Mr. Adams or Mr. Jay when they were 
 examined on oath as witnesses under the St. Croix Commis- 
 sion, and which in former discussions respecting boundary 
 under the Treaty of i7S3, The United States' Agents liavn 
 vehemently rejected, carries the western Boundary of Nova 
 Scotia un to the westernmost source of St. Croix River. 
 
and thence to the River St. Lawrence by a hne extending 
 towards the north, and joining the nearest spring or head 
 stream emptying into that River. According to the same 
 Grant, the northern boundary of Nova Scotia was to pass 
 along the southern coast of the River St. Lawrence to Cape 
 Rosicrs. 
 
 The terms of the Grant would not bear us out in suppo- 
 sing that the western Boundary of Nova Scotia was to be 
 formed by a due north hne. The only positive circum- 
 stances to be collected from them as guides for our opinion 
 are, that the Line between the two sources specified therein 
 shall be a straight one ; and that the source communicating 
 with the,St. Lawrence shall be the nearest. On looking to 
 the map we instantly perceive that these guides might lead 
 us to head VvMters of the River Chaudiere as being the near- 
 est to the point of departure of ail the sources north of it 
 falling into the St. Lawrence. But, without presuming to 
 intimate that such was the real intention of the Grant, dating, 
 as it does, from a period when the face of the country was 
 wholly unknown, we feel ourselves justified in pointing out 
 the vagueness of its terms, and inferring how extremely dif- 
 ficult, or rather impossible, it would have been for the Nego- 
 tiators of the Treaty to have fixed the Boundaries between 
 two Independent States, in conformity with definitions so 
 loosely worded as to involve the most unexpected contingen- 
 cies. 
 
 A line extending from the source of the St. Croix " towards 
 the north" to the riearesf part of the St. Lawrence would, 
 at all events, strike that river, owing to the obliquity of its 
 source, far to the west of that point where a due 7iorth line 
 would intersect it. A reference to the map will make this 
 clear. It must not be forgotten that the Commissioners 
 \mder the 5th Article of the Treaty of 1794, in deciding 
 v/hich was the true St. Croix, adopted the northern stream, 
 to the exclusion of the ivestern. Thus the variations of this 
 one Grant alone offer four several north-west angles of Nova 
 Scotia. The western stream being the one named in Sir 
 William Alexander's Grant, the preference of the northern 
 stream must surely invalidate the authority of the Grant as 
 a binding' designation of the boimdary of Nova Scotia ; and 
 at any period subsequent to the Proclamation of 1763, Sir 
 William Alexander's Grant is altogether irrelevant as to the 
 northern boundary of that Province. 
 
 The Charter of Massachusetts, dated in 1691, does not 
 mention the territory of Sagadahock, which according to 
 
53 
 
 tlie Duke of York's Grant extended by its eastern and west- 
 ern limits to the River St. Lawrence. It annexes to the 
 Province of Massachusetts only '' those lands and heredita- 
 " ments lyinc and extending between the said country or 
 '* territory of Nova Scotia and the said river Sas^adahork." 
 Agreeably to these words, the northern limit of Sagadahock, 
 as annexed to Massachusetts, wonld be a line drawn obliquely 
 from the source of the Sagadahock or Kennebec River to the 
 point of intersection between the western boundary of Nova 
 Scotia and the south bank of the River St. Lawrence. 
 Besides the considerations arising out of this circumstance, 
 it is to be remembered that the right of ISlassachu setts to 
 retain any part of Sagadahock, at least that part of it 
 which lies cast of the Penobscot River, has been contimially 
 questioned and denied by the British Government. 
 
 The Royal Proclamation of 1763, of which the Art of 
 Parliament called tho Quebec Act is a mere paraphrase as to 
 that part of the boundary still in dispute, extended tho limits 
 of Canada considerably to the south of the St. Lawrence. 
 According to that Proclamation, the northern boundary of 
 Nova Scotia, reeulatcd by the southern boundary of Canada, 
 would agree with the following description : " the line cross- 
 " ing the River St. Lawrence and the Lake Chamjilain in 
 " 45® North Latitiide passes along the highlands which 
 " divide the rivers that empty themselves into the said River 
 " St. Lawrence from thos<: which fall into the Sea, a7id also 
 " along tho north coast of the Bay des Chalcurs." To the 
 line thus described the American argument has attributed 
 a degree of precision and ijnbroken continuity, which_ its 
 application to the known circumstances of the country decs 
 not warrant. \ line, of which tho conditions are that it pass 
 along the highlands, as traced by The United States on the 
 principle of a supposed identity between the line now claimed 
 by tlicm and the imcient boundary line of the Provinces, and 
 also that it pa,«!s along the north coast of the Bay des Chaleurs, 
 cannot possibly be continuous "from its beginning to its 
 "termination." The American line prolonged in an east- 
 erly direction would extend to Cape Rosiers, leaving an in- 
 terval of more than half a degree between its ov/n course and 
 the north coast of Chaleurs Bay ; and supposing the line to 
 bo carried along the coast of Chaleurs Bay, agreeably to the 
 terms of the Proclamation, a considerable part of it must 
 necessarily pass, before it reaches that bay, not between 
 rivers falling on one side into tho St. Lawrence and on th«; 
 other into the Sea. but between the streams which lull into 
 
59 
 
 the Bay of Chaleiirs only, and in a direction nearly at right 
 angles with the direction of tlie line prolonged to Cape Ro- 
 siers. The truth is that the lijie described in the Proclama- 
 tion was never put to tJie test of a practical application ; nor 
 did the circumstances of the country require that it should 
 receive a more fixed and positive character throughout that 
 central portion which intervenes from the Bay des Chaleurs 
 to the dividing highlands situated immediately between the 
 sources of the Kennebec and Chaudiere Rivers. On the 
 Bay des Chaleurs there were settlements connected with the 
 fisheries ; at the other extremity of the line settlements were 
 also to be found ; and it was therefore desirable to provide for 
 an actual delimitation relative to the rights of provincial 
 jurisdiction in both those parts of the country. But the in- 
 termediate space was a wilderness destitute of all inhabitants 
 except the Indians ; and the British Government had there- 
 fore no adequate motive for regulating the boundaries of pro- 
 vincial authority throughout a region so little known at that 
 time, and of which the interests were not as yet even par- 
 tially developed. 
 
 Moreover, The United States cannot, with any pretence 
 of right or reason, appeal either to the Proclamation or to the 
 Quebec Act. The American Congress, when engaged in 
 weighing the conditions of Peace, reprobated both the one 
 and the other, as acts of oppression trenching on their rights, 
 and to be reckoned amongst the causes of their Revolution. 
 
 Such are the vague and conflicting documents, by means 
 of which The United States have endeavoured to establish 
 th ^ ir two-fold proposition which forms the basis of their 
 whole argument, namely, that the boundary defined in the 
 Treaty, was intended by the negotiators to be identical with 
 that which they conjecture to have existed previously as be- 
 tween the British Provinces, and that the line now claimed 
 by them, is identical with those two lines. In other words 
 they have attempted an impossibility by means of a discus- 
 sion which they acknowledge to have been definitely closed 
 by the Treaty of 1783, and of which the records of the nego- 
 tiation and the Treaty itself ofl'er no traces to warrant their 
 conclusion, that the confirmation of a pre-existing boundary 
 line was the object and intention of the Article respecting 
 boundaries. The attempt to establish this proposition is 
 termed an impossibility, because it has been proved in the 
 course of this inquiry, that no such line did, in fact, exist 
 before the Treaty of 1783, in the sense presumed by their 
 argument ; that the identical line now claimed by tliem 
 could not possibly coincide with that line,, if it had really 
 
 I 
 
GO 
 
 existed, and that the documents, which they have produced in 
 supiwrl of their pretensions, lure unfit, either singly or collec- 
 tively, to furnish the basis necessary for its establishment. 
 
 There are two |)oints which still remain to be noticed. 
 
 It has been alleged on the juirl of The United States, that 
 all mai)s, comprehendinti the disputed territory, which ^are 
 known to have been published between the peiiods of 176'.i 
 and 1783, and of which copies are now to be procured, con- 
 cur in carrying the boundary line, as described in the Royal 
 Proclamation, along those highlands to which the claim of 
 The United States i)articularly applies. In answer to the 
 inference, which The United States have drawn from tliis 
 sui)posed coincidence, it is to be observed : 
 
 1*^. That in the maps referred to, the highlands in (juos- 
 tion arc represented by a line of visible elevation contrary to 
 ihe true character of the country, as since ascertained. 
 
 2*^. That in some of these maps the line of visible eleva- 
 tion, so represented, is made to intersect the waters, either 
 t.f the St. John, or of the St. Lawrence, and in some, even 
 of both, disproving thereby any intention of its having been 
 traced ui^n the principle of separating those waters. 
 
 3*^. That, notwithstanding some differences of little con- 
 sequence, when taken with reference to general jiurjioses, 
 these maps are so evidently copied, tlie one from the other, 
 that no additional evidence can be safely derived from their 
 coincidence. 
 
 4^. That the selection, on the part of the negotiators, of 
 Mitcheirs map, which was published before tlie Proclama- 
 tion of 1763, in preference to those maps which pretend to 
 give the line described in the Proclamation, contributes rna- 
 Terially to show, that the line in question was not that on 
 which the boundary, as defined in the Treaty, was meant 
 to be established. 
 
 The point remaining to be noticed is the state of actual 
 possession and jurisdiction in the disputed Territory, and on 
 this point a series of important facts and documents will be 
 
 presented. 
 
 There is on the public records at Quebec, a Grant or con- 
 cession from the French Government of Canada, to a French 
 subject, of a territory called The Fief of Madawaska, dated 
 on the 25th of November, 16S3, eight years prior to the date 
 of the Massachusetts Charter, which forms the basis of the 
 American claim. This Fief of Madawaska includes the 
 whole o{ the Tcmisquata Lake and nine miles further in 
 length down the Madawaska River, extending in depth six 
 miles fur the whole distance, as well around the Lake as on 
 
61 
 
 each side of the River. There are also on record at Quebec. 
 deeds, judicial proceedings, and acts of feudal service, by 
 Avhich the title to this Territory is regularly deduced from 
 the original grantee downwai-ds to the present time ; and 
 possession and actual occupation of this extensive Fief con- 
 tinue to be held to this day under the original grant, and 
 under the jurisdiction of Lower Canada* 
 
 In the auebec Gazette of the 24th January, 1765, there is 
 a notice issued from the office of the Provincial Secretary 
 of that Province, by which all Canadian inhabitants are 
 prohibited from interfering with the hunting grounds of the 
 Indians, '' down to the Great Falls of the River St. John.'' 
 This is an act of clear jurisdiction by the Government of 
 duebec down to the place mentioned in the notice, viz : 
 the Great Falls of the River St. John ; and such a jurisdic- 
 tion could not have been exercised had not the place have 
 been deemed to be within the limits of the Province of Que- 
 bec, according to the bounds described in the th^n recent 
 Proclamation of 1763. 
 
 In the month of November, 1784, Charles Nichau Noiste, 
 a native Indian, was tried and convicted in the Court of 
 King's Bench at Quebec, for the murder of one Archibald 
 M'Neil, at Madawaska. The place where the offence was 
 committed is thus described in the Indictment, " near unto 
 " the village of Madawaska, in the district of Quebec, in 
 '' the Province of Quebec." — In the Quebec Gazette of the 
 11th of November, 1784, there is an account of the execu- 
 tion of this Indian for this murder ; and the case is rendered 
 
 * The following is a list of documents en record either in the Government 
 Offices or ofBces of Notaries Public at Quebec, all of them including The Fiev 
 oi" Madawaska : — 
 
 1. Confession of the Fief of Madaivaska lo the children of the Sieur de la Chenage, 25th 
 November, 1G83. 
 
 2. Adjudieation of tlie Fiefs of Riviere du Loup and Madawaska to Joseph Blondeau dit 
 la Trancliise. '29th Oct. 1709. 
 
 3. Act of Foi et Homage hy 5n%e\>\\ Blondeau dit la Fraochise for l\\e Fiefs of Riviere du 
 Loup and Madaicaxka, 13th February, 17J3. 
 
 4. Aveii et deiioinfn-ement hy Joseph Elondean dit la Franchise, 15th Feb. 17-23. 
 
 5. Adjudication of the Fiefs of Riviere du Loup and Madawaska to Pierre Claverie, 29th 
 July, 175.''}. 
 
 6. Act of Foi et Homage by Pierre Claverie for the Fiefs of Riviere du Loup and Mada- 
 waska, mth March, I75fi. 
 
 7. Receipt for the domains and dues for the Fiefs of Riviere du Loup and Madawaska, 8th 
 HI ay. 17,")n. 
 
 8. Deed of Sale, J. A.N. Dandnune Danseville and his wife (the widow of Pierre Claverie) 
 to James Marray, 20th July, 17ri3. 
 
 9. Deed of Assignment dated 2d Aupu'st, 1768, by Richard Murray to Malcolm Fraser 
 of an Indenture of lease made by James Murray to the said Richard Murray and Malcolm 
 
 Fraser And an Indenture of Lease by the said James Murray to Henry Caldwell, dated 
 
 7th April, 1774. 
 
 10. Lease frora Henry Caldwell to Malcolm Fraser, C4th September, 179'2. 
 
 U. Corfirmation before a Notary, 27th December, 178C, of Lease from Henry Caldwell tc 
 Malcolm Fraser, 24th September, 1782. 
 
 )2. Deed of Sale from the Trustees and Executors of Jamca Murray, to Henry Caldwell, 
 Jlst June, IPO'i. 
 
 13. Deed of Sale hy Henry Caldwell, to Alexander Fraser, 2d August, ISW. 
 
02 
 
 rrmarkabU; by a comniiitation of the mode of exccutiu;^ tho 
 ienteiice of dcatli, ordcrcii by the Ciovernor, under llie advice 
 of Council, as appears by the following extract from tin* 
 niuiutes of the Kxecutiv»; (.'ouncil : — 
 
 " On Wodnr»<1iiT tho 3d Norerober, 1784, at the Couocil Chamber, iu Ibe 
 " Caille of St. Lflwis. 
 
 rHFSKNT : 
 
 " IWt Kxcellencf Fhrokruk Hai.dimand. Covernor. 
 
 " The Hon. IIcnbv (Iamii.TON, Lieutenant Ciovernor. 
 " Hoph KinUr. A'lam Mabanc. 
 
 •' Thoroat I'onn. lieorge I'ownall. 
 
 •• Krsncni* l.orrtqiie, J. G. C. De l^ery, 
 
 " Kdward llnrrikoo, ftenrjr Oldwall. 
 
 " John Colliot, K{ftnri» IJaby, K»quircs. 
 
 '■ His Excellency, tin- iiovcni. r. laid before tlie (,'omicil 
 ■ a sentence pronou7ircd this day (i^ditist an Iiidiati nauu:d 
 " Charles \ichau Noistc, indicted for murder, condemnint,' 
 '• the said Charles Nichau Nojste to be hanged by the neck 
 " until he be dead ; and stated that application had been 
 '• made to his Excellency by the friends and relations of the 
 '• culprit, the Indians of his nation, and the Indians of other 
 " nations, to change the punishment pronounced by the law, 
 " into that of shooting, whicliis more consonant to the ideas 
 '• of savages, and haring requested the advice of the Council, 
 '* how far His Excellency ought to extend mercy in the 
 '• change of punishment so earnestly prayed for ; — The Coun- 
 " cil, having weighed the matter, and the consequences that 
 " might ensue, were of opinion unanimously, that the })a- 
 '' nishmenl should bo changed, and that the said Charles 
 •• Nichau Noislc should be shot, in place of being lianged, as 
 " is directed by this sentence." 
 
 The Province of Quebec conlnnied to claim, and in some 
 instances to exercise jurisdiction down to the (ireat Falls of 
 the River vSaint John, until the year 1792, as will appear 
 from the following documents: — 
 
 1. Proccc(lin{;s in the Court of Common Picas at Quebec. 
 
 " Province du Bai Canada, \ 
 " District de Quebec . J 
 
 "COUR DES PLAIU0YER3 COMMLNS. 
 " Terme de Spptembrc, 
 
 " Lundi, 14 Septembre, 1789. 
 « Prcenl, Adam Mabanf.. J ^ . 
 
 " .Imelmc if Mirhael Rohidtaiuc, T 
 
 V. 
 
 " Augftttln DiiV !; Plerri Dupere, 
 
 " Le Sheriff fait »on retour du tervice de la •omtnation, Mt""'' Panel paroii 
 " pour les deni;»ndeiir», et a file trois Licencei et une Lettre ritce d«n§ «a d<«- 
 " claralion, Mfe. Cujjnct, comparoit pour les dcfeudeur#, la (Jour ordonne, 
 
 '•I 
 
63 
 
 " que le DefeD(5eur pretidr.i comnmnication des pieces files par le Jemandeur 
 " et fouruira ses defenses sous trois jouis. 
 
 "17 Septembrc, 1789. 
 " M'^''^- Cugnet, pour les defendeurs a file ses defenses, la Cour ordonne, 
 " que le demandeur en prendra communication et fournira ses repliques sous 
 
 " trois jours. 
 
 " 28 Septembre, n89. 
 
 " M't'P- Panet pour les demandeurs a file ses repliques, la Cour ordonne 
 " que le defeudeur eu prendra communication. 
 
 '■30 Septembre, 1789. 
 
 " La Cour du consentement dps parties a mis en delibeie. 
 
 " La Cour, en proccdent an deliberS de cette. cause, aijant rcmarquS, que les 
 " defendeurs ont allegue dans leurs ecrit de dilfcnscs, qu'il ne sont pas de la juris- 
 " diction de cette Cour, mais domiciliers de la Province de Brunswick, aiiqnel 
 " (dlegne les demandeurs n'ont pas repondu dans leurs ecrit de repliques, ordonne, 
 " que les demandeurs declareront et J'cronl inscrire sur le regisire de cette Cour, 
 " s'ils udmeltent I'alleijite des defejideurs ou non. 
 
 "9 Janvier, 1790. 
 
 " M'""^- Panet, Avocat des demandeurs. a declare, en conformitc du jugement 
 " de cette Cour du quaire Janvier der. qu'ils soutiennent, que les defendeurs ont 
 " etc assignes dans la Province de Quebec, et que I'assignution est sujjisante de 
 " laquelle declaration cette Cour a dunite acte, ct ajix6 a Lundi pour entendre la 
 
 " cause. 
 
 " 11 Janvier, 1790. 
 
 " Apres avoir entendu les parties, la Cour ordonne qn'ellesferont preuve res- 
 " peciive Vendredi prochain, si Madouaska et le Grand Sault sont dans la Pro- 
 " vince de Quebec ou non. 
 
 "U Janvier, 1790. 
 
 " Sur la motion de ]Mt''f- Panet la Cour ordonne, que les preuves seront 
 " peremptoirement entendues et revues Vendredi prochain. 
 
 " 18 Janvier, 1790. 
 
 " JMtre- Panet a dit, qu'il n'a d'autre prcuve a produire en cnnformite du Juge- 
 " ment du onze de ce 7nois, que les licences des demandeurs fil'ces, et la regie da 
 " 14 Septembre, pour fournir les dtj'enses, Mtre. Cvgnet demande jusqu'au terms 
 ^'prochain pour faire preuve, de son allequc en ses defenses: la Cour parties 
 " ouies raets en delibere. 
 
 "22 Mars, 1790. 
 
 " La Cour nyant considicrc les Plaidoycrs des parlies, et apres en avoir 
 " delibere, est d' opinion que les difcndeurs ne se sont pas covformes a P article 
 " onzienie des regies de cette Cour, ayant du lors dujour de relour des som- 
 " malions file leur exceptions, soit peremploires, delatoires ou dccUnatoires , 
 " que le memejour, auquel Air. Cugnet, leurs Avocat filat sa comparation il 
 " fut ordonne, qiiilfourniroit ses defenses et non un ecrit intitule mat a propos, 
 " defenses, qui cepcndant est une exception declinatoire, que les defendeurs 
 " Ti ayant aucunement prouvc ainsi quil lui etoit permis, de le fair par le 
 "jugement inlerloeuloire de cette Cour, que les assignations a eux donnecs 
 " ont He signifiees liors de la jurisdiction de cette dite Cour, Us ent sontjorclos 
 " d'aprcs ces considerations, la Cour deboutc les defendeurs de leurs exception 
 " declinatoire qiiils ont qualificc difenses avec depens occasiones par la dite 
 •' exception, et ordonne qu'ils fourniront leurs defenses uu merile de la cause 
 " sous trois jours." 
 
 2. Extract from the Quebec Gazette, of 10th November, 
 1791, of a Sheriff's Notice of the Sale of Lands of Pierre 
 Diipere, at Madawaska, at the suit of Ansclmc and 
 Michel Robichaud. 
 
 '• District of Quebec, 
 
 " I3y virtue of a Writ of Execution issued out of His Majesty's Court of 
 " Common Pleas for the said Dislrict, at the suit of Anselaie and Michel 
 
64 
 
 •' RobicliauJ, m^rchanU, rciidinp at Piiiirf ties Cu/>irf. Bgnin»l die morpaMn 
 " •nd itnrroTe«bIe properly of Autiuttin J)uht\ htrtlofore of Mtiiiouatk*, now 
 " of I«le \'crle, and I'lcrre Dtiper^, mrrckant at Aladoumka, to me ilirectod, 
 " I hnre teixed and tikkcn in exrculion — 
 
 " I. A piece of land of l«ro arpent* nnd Iwo prrrlie* in front, liy forty-two 
 " arpentt in depth, tituate in the I'arith of Si, Jutin, in tlia Seigniory of I>le 
 •' \'erle, bounded in front by the Rirer St. l^iiwrence. and behind by the lindi 
 " of ibe »aid Sci)fniory, joining; on the touth-west i^iJe to Mr. Lccour the I'llol, 
 " and on the nnrth-eait tide to llie hcirt of Hiouz, the «arao belonging to ihu 
 " *aid Aui;u«liDe I)ubt*, one of the defendant*. 
 
 "II. A pitcf nf land belongiag to the taid Tierro Duperc, the other defend- 
 " ant, containing %\x arpcnti in front on the Ilivfr St. John, at Madouaska, by 
 " a league in depth, ending at tiie ungranled land*, jnining on (he north-catl 
 " tide to Frart^oit Albert, ond on the •outh-wc»t tide to ungninted land*; to- 
 " gethtr with an old hou«e thatched with straw, l.'t fret by 30, n ttore hou*a 
 " of cedar log*, roofed wilh bark, 18 fret by 'M, with arable land for sowing 
 *• three buihel* and a half of grain. Now I do hereby give noiiro, that the 
 " first mentioned piece of land will be told and adjudged to (ho highest bidder, 
 " at the church-door of the said Parish of St. John, on Thursday, the fifteenth 
 " day of I)ecero jer next, at eleven o'clock io the forenoon, and the second 
 " piece abore described situate at Madouaxka, will also be told aod adjudged to 
 " the highest bidder, at the door of the House or Chajtrl where the inhabitants 
 " meet for Divine Service at Madouaska, aforesaid, on Friday the sixteenth datj 
 " of December nert, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, nt which retpeclivc lime* 
 " aod place*, the condition* of tale will be made known by 
 
 «'Ja. Shepherd, Sheriff. 
 
 " All person* having claim* on the above described premises, by mortgage 
 " or otherwise, are hereby requested to give notice thereof to the suid ShorifT, 
 " at his Office in Quebec, before the day of sale. 
 
 <• Quebec, lOlh August, 1791." 
 
 3. Exlrcirt from the Minnlrs nf the Ezcrutlvc Cnunril of the 
 Province of Qiubcr, relative to the Tcmisqiuilu Road, 
 7th July, 1785. 
 
 " Thursday, Ith July, 1785. 
 "At the Council Chamber in the Bishop's I'alaco ; 
 PHESFNT : 
 
 " The Honorable IIekrv Hamiiton, K«q'iire, Lieutenant Governor and 
 
 " Commander-in-Chief, 
 
 " Hugh Finlay, Henry Caldwell, 
 
 " FIdward Harrison, Francis Baby, 
 
 " Adam Mabane, Sumucl Holland, Esquires. 
 
 •• J. G. C. Da Lery, 
 " The Council resumed the consideration of the Po*t Master General's 
 " proposition relative to the Tioad from Kamonrasha to Lake Trmisquata, and 
 " iiaving examined Air. Danbourgess's Report of the expense of carrying this 
 " plan into execution, which exceed* considerably the calculation* formerly 
 " made by Messrs. Finlay and Collins, were of opinion, that the whole should 
 " be as »oon as possible transmitted to His Majesty's Secretary of State, that 
 " hi* M«je*ty'* pleasure may be known thereon ; and, in the mean time, that 
 " Mr. Danliourgess should be directed tn proceed with the fifty men already 
 " empUye.d by him on this service ; that wood should be cut in the proper season 
 " for building the bridge over the River du Loup, and the necessary prepara- 
 " lions made for opening the communication aijrceahle to the plan proposed : from 
 " which the (Jouncil were of opinion, many advanlac/es are to he exprctrd to this 
 " Province as well as Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, particularly in time of 
 " war, when an easy and speedy communication, independent of the Stairs of 
 " America, becomes absolutely necessary,- and when in times of peace, from the 
 " inconvenience of sending Government and other dispatches by way of Ncr 
 " York, which is every day more apparent, the American Poit-flfastcr hmlnfj 
 
65 
 
 "lately re/used the Post-Master-General here to allow the couriers from this 
 *' Province to pass through their territories, insisting that all letters shall go by 
 " their mails only, which can never be tx>mplied with by its. 
 
 " Ordered, That copies of this minute be transmitted to the Gorernors of 
 " Nova Scotia and New Brunswick." 
 
 4. Extract from the Minutes of the Executive Council of 
 
 the Province of Quebec, 9th July, 1787. 
 
 " Monday, 9th July, 1787. 
 
 PRESENT : 
 
 " His Excellency the Right Honourable Guy, Lord Dorchester, Governor. 
 
 " The Honourable Henry Hope, Esquire, Lieut.-Governor. 
 
 " William Smyth, C. J. Le Compte Dupre, 
 
 " Hugh Finlay, Edward Harrison, 
 
 " George Pownall, J. G. C. De Lery, 
 
 " Henry Caldwell, William Grant, 
 
 " P. R. De St. Ours, Francis Baby, Esquires. 
 
 " His Lordship intimated the propriety of ascertaining the limits between this 
 " and the province of New Brunswick, and that the Surveyor-General of that 
 " Province would soon meet Mr. Holland for that purpose ; and as it was 
 " absolutely requisite towards opening and sustaining the land communi- 
 " cation between the two Provinces, that the lands on both sides of 
 " it should be settled, his Lordship proposed, and the Council concurred in 
 " authorizing Mr. Holland to give assurances to all persons desirous to settle 
 " there, and especially the Acadians in that vicinity, of the favourable intention 
 " of this Government to issue grants in their J avow for three hundred acres to 
 " the head of every family, out of the waste lands of the Crown in that quar- 
 " ter ; and it is for that purpose recommended to them to explore the places 
 " fit for cultivation on both sides of the route, and apply, by petition, in the 
 <' usual course, for grants to be made, agreeable to the Royal Instructions." 
 
 5. Report of the Committee of Council appointed to con- 
 sider the Boundary between the Provinces of duebec 
 and New-Brunswick, and the means of encouraging the 
 communication, and settle the lands in that vicinity. 
 
 " To his Excellency the Right Honourable Guy, Lord Dorchester, Captain- 
 " General and Governor in Chief of the Provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia 
 " and New Brunswick, ^c. Sfc. Sfc. 
 
 " The Committee of Council appointed to report as well upon the Question 
 ' of the Boundary between this Province and that of New Brunswick, as the most 
 ' eligible means of encouraging the communication and the settlement of lands 
 ' in that vicinity, have the honour to observe, that Mr. Holland's Report to 
 ' your Excellency has been duly considered by the Committee, who likewise 
 ' paid thorough attention to the description of the Boundaries of the Provinces 
 ' of Quebec and New Brunswick, as extracted from your Excellency's Com- 
 ' missions as Captain- General and Governor in Chief, and on the whole they 
 ' beg leave to remark, that if the Province of New Brunswick may of right 
 ' claim the sources of rivers that take their rise on the height of Land which divides 
 ' the Rivers that empty themselves into the St. Lawrence from those which fall 
 ' into the Atlantic Ocean, the ancient limits of this Governtnent will be curtailed 
 ' towards New Brunswick, and Seigniories under Canadian Grants as far back 
 ' as the years 162.3 and 1683, be taken into that Province ; besides, the Acadians 
 ' already settled above the Great Fall of Saint John's River, and such people as 
 ' may chuse hereafter to settle there, would be greatly incommoded if those parts 
 ^should be included in the Province a/ New Brunswick. Their commercial 
 ' dealings will be with this country, for they must, from their situation, be 
 ' supplied with European and West India commodities from Quebec. 
 
" Th« rommitl^f mott humbly (ubmit to jour Lordkhip. wliethtr it wotiM 
 " nol b« for the iidvan()i|(e of holh (i ovrrnmenl* ihnt the Province of Qurbcc 
 " he Meparafed/rom that •>/ AVu> UruHtvick by a line running along the hi^h- 
 " laniU tchirh extend from the head of ChalenT* Jiai/ to thr foot of the frreat Full 
 " of St. John't River, and from thence crusting the Htver f so tts to include thr 
 " whole of the portage or carrmng place i and continuing in a straight line tou'urJn 
 " the sources of the liicer (Shaudirre. which rise on the highlands that comnifne 
 '• at the said head of the Bay of Chaleurs, and extend all the way to the north- 
 " westernmost head of Connecticut Hirer. 
 
 " W ii\i TtignrA lo settling the new road to F.akt Timiscouala, along that Ink' 
 " and to down the Madavaakn, ihu C'ummiltee \it>i loave to rrpreneiil tlmt llm 
 " (uil in thnt lengthy Inicl it pour in ir<!nprBl ; vel tlicro'i many part* ihroukfli 
 " lU whole extent tit for cultivntiun. though not ul u qiitlitv to induro people 
 " to fettle K) fur remoreil from a»ti«taoce iu their country labours, without gool 
 " encnurnKemenl. 
 
 " From information the Committee report, that tome Canadian Satllera 
 " mav be had on the loliuwin^' lernii : 
 
 " To obtain a grant ot two hundred acres of laod, free from quit-rent, fi>r 
 " twenty yean, payirif; h icI de com. 
 
 " To have lour Rcret cleaied and a lo(;-houte built (hereon, con*i«tinfr of two 
 " apartment*, and tu have an oul-hi>u>o of lo^'i to serve as a stable and barn, 
 " with ihree year* prnvnioni for each family. 
 
 •' The l^omnjittoe hiive furihrr boi-n informed that Loyalists will set down 
 " on that tract on iha followini; mnilition* : 
 
 " That each family have a grant of land ('200 acres), free from quit-rent for 
 " ten rears. 
 
 " Twenty-five pounds to be advanced, to stock the farm ; the lands ond im- 
 " provements to be security that the monpy shall be rrpaid in ten yi'/irs, biil 
 " M ithout intcrent. Th<tt each family be conveyed (o the land allotted to llieni 
 " without expense. To h;ivo two years' provisions allowed them, and deli- 
 " vered at tlinr settlements. 
 
 " The lands from the mouth of Madawaska down to tht Great Fallon St. 
 " John's Hirer are of a superior quality ; it i« therefore presumed that Selllers 
 " would til down in that pnrt on lets encouragement thiiii it above demanded. 
 " By order of the Committee, 
 
 (Signed) Hi'GU Fini.av, Chairman. 
 
 " Council Chamber, l^th Oc.ober, 1787. 
 
 ♦3. Jtidgment of the Court oj Common Pleas at Qutbt-c. 
 
 •• Dittri.t de) p. L Panel.) 
 
 •• Quebec. J Gri-tTr. J 
 
 " George Trois, par la Grjce de Dim. Roi de la Grande Bretagne. de 
 " France, et dlrelande, Delendeur de la Fov, 4ic. Vu que Anselme el Mi- 
 " chel Kubichaud, do In Riviere de Caps a olitenu jugetnenl le seizeme jour da 
 " Uecembre dernier, dans la Cour des Plaidoyert Communt, pour le District 
 " susdit, devant les Jugcs suinommes, a la Chambre d'Audience de la dite 
 ('our, dans la N'ille do Quebec, confre Fian^-ois Albert, habitant de Madawaska 
 " dant le District, pnur la tomme de dix livres slerling, pour la dette, aiii»i q<ie 
 *' celle de treize chelint deux sols courant, pour ses fraix, et qu'il re«te a laira 
 " execution du dit jugement. II vout ett ordonne de prelever la (lite sonimo 
 " et les frait sua dits des hiens mobiliers ct effects du dil Frar)9ois Albert dans 
 " le sua dit District, exceptc toujours les animnux de charue, oulils et inntru- 
 " ments d'agriculture, outils pour I'exercice du metier, et un lit garni ; m-w* im 
 " ens que let autret biens mobiliers et efft-tt du dit Francois Albert ne sufhseui 
 " pas, les dit* animaux de charue, invtruments et oulils d'agriculturo, ct outilt 
 " de metiert, teronl vendus (mai» non le lit garni) huil jours apres avoir fail 
 " afliciier ou crier la vente, au Dimaiiche. a la Porte de I'Eglise piiroii»i«le, 
 " imniediatement apres le service diviu, et ayez I'aruent (ou deniers provenans 
 "delavente) \'cndredi le vingt-septienia jour d'Avril procbain, ufin do la 
 " livrerau dit Antelme RobichauJ ct Michel Robicliaud, pour sa ilelte et %e% 
 
■^ frais. svec un chellu pour ce precept, et quatre chelirts pour vos droits honrt- 
 " raires ; et au cna qu'il vous resta quelques deniers entre las mains apres que 
 •' vous aurez pleiiiement satisfait la susdit juEjenient et los.fraix, vous rendrai 
 " le surplus au dit Francois Albert. Tumoin I'Honorable Jeiikia Williams 
 •' I'un dea Juges de Notre Cour a Quebec, le 15 Jour de Fevrier, dans le 33we 
 *' atin^e de notre rigne. „, ^ t, ^ 
 
 (Sign?;) •'• VviLLiAMS. J. P. C. 
 
 " A. Antoine Cureux Saint Germain, Capitaine, et autres Officiers da MiUca 
 " de la Paroisse de Kamouraska, et Francois Cires, Capitaine et Jacques Cir, 
 " Lieutenant de Milice de la Paroisse de Madaiuaaka." 
 
 7. Report of the Solicitor-General and Surveyor-Geheral. 
 
 " To His Excellenct/ Alured Clarke, Esquire, Lieutenant-Governor and Com- 
 
 " mander-in-Chicfnfthe Pi ovince of Lower Canada, Major- General, Com- 
 
 " manding His Majesty's Forces in North America, §-c. SfC. §-c. 
 
 " Report of His Majesty's Solicitor-General and Surveyor-Genera), under 
 
 •' Your Excellency's Reference of the 18th of June, upon the Petition of An- 
 
 " selme and Michel Robichaud, of the Riviere des Caps, iu the Couuty of 
 
 " Cornwallis, merchants, for a verification of the facts therein stated. 
 
 " May it please your Excellency, 
 
 " The Petition states, that for upwards of Gfteen years they have traded 
 " with the inhabitants of Madawatka, and under divers licences from the Dis- 
 •' trict of Quebec, have also traded with the Savages upon the frontiers, and 
 " even with parts of the Piavince of New-Brunswick, and have purchased a 
 ' ' farm at Madawaska, and made considerable credits. 
 
 " That the Government of Quebec having for many years established Militia 
 " at Madawaska, and the Court of Common Pleas for the District of Quebec 
 "having pronounced several judgments, and issued executions in their favour 
 " against persons settled at Madawaska, they had entertained hopes that justice 
 " would be done them ; but that in the beginning of May last, one Thomas 
 " Cosiin, calling himself a Justice of the Peace for the Province of New- 
 " Brunswick, had caused new officers of the Militia to be elected at Madawaska, 
 " by a majority of voices, at au assembly of the inhabitants, and imposed a fine 
 " on Anselme Robichaud, one of the petitioners, for having caused the goods 
 •' of one Franfois Albert, at Madawaska, to be seized, though such seizure was 
 •' fnade by virtue of an execution issued upon a judgment in the District of 
 " Quebec. Moreover, that Jacques Cir, Lieutenant of Militia, established by 
 " the Government of Quebec, though vested with the execution, was arrested 
 " and made prisoner by a serjeant and four soldiers in His Majesty's troops, 
 " who conducted him fifteen leagues, to a place called the Grand Sault. vyhere 
 " he was compeUcd to pay ten pounds and thirteen shillings to obtain hia 
 '^ liberty. 
 
 " The petition further states, " that as the petitioners have not been able to 
 " learn from the Field Officers of Militia at Quebec, nor from John Collins, Esq. 
 "the Depufi/ Surveyor- General, nor from the said Thomas Costin, who calls 
 " himself a Justice of the Peace, lohere the Boundaries of the Province may have 
 <* been placed upon the line, designated by the statute (if the 14th of His Majes- 
 " ty, and how the change of Government may operate, and to the end 
 " that they may obtain justice in one or other of the Provinces, they 
 " most humbly pray your Excellency to cause them to be i? formed, if it be 
 '• possible, of the Boundaries oj the Province of Lower Canada, and to take such 
 " measures with the Government of Now- Brunswick as your wisdom may 
 " suggest, to prevent the ruin of the Petitioners and others. His Majesty's 
 " faithful subjects, which their ignorance of the limits and such fines and force 
 •' may occasion." 
 
 *' To verify the facts above alleged, it w.isour intention to exa;iiine the pe- 
 " litioners, and such witnesses as they might be able to adduce before us, and 
 " for that purpose the Solicitor General acquainted Colonel Baby thereof, but 
 " from the distance of their residence from Quebec, from their poverty and 
 " from other causes, they have not yet presented themselves. There are, how- 
 
 K 
 
68 
 
 " •▼•r, Mrt»io papers tliKt ncrompanicd jour EtfelloiKy'* reference, nnd nre 
 " barennto MnexrJ, xrliirli in order (o aroi'i any lunser deiny, inJuce ut to rc- 
 " port to rour Kxcellenry, thnl the factf allpi;ed in the petition reipccling the 
 " arrett oi Jaequei Cir, thr Litulinaut of'Miltlia at MnJawaika. nnj hit being 
 " conducted to the Grand ShuIi, and there compeliud to t;ire Li* promiitorj 
 " note to Francii Albert, for ten pound* and thirteen (hillin^i for preiendod 
 " eipente*, taid to hare been occ:i*>oned by hi* having acted contnirr to tho 
 " law* of tlie Prorince of Ne\r-I3run(wick, appear lo at to be true, judging 
 •• from the original pnpert, rii ; — 
 
 " I. A copy of the writ of execution ittued from the Court of Common Pleaa 
 " at (Juebec. tetled I jth Fehruary, I71h2. 
 
 " 2. A littter from Fran^oi* C'ir and Jacquei Cir to Colonel Dambourgtc, 
 •' certified by Keifi* UoliiriiauJ, without date. 
 
 *' 3. A paper signed Thomas Costm, Jaye <1 imix pour U district Jt Mada- 
 " \easka tt York Contf, purporting to be an inhibition to Franfois Cir and 
 " Jacques Cir from executing any order issuing from any other Province within 
 " the District of MadiiKaska, unless it be signed and onUred by a Judge of Aeiv 
 •' firunswick, dated '2Cth March, 1792. 
 
 "4. An Bcknovrledi;ment, to which i* tubicribed Fran^oi* Albert, of hi* hiir- 
 " iof received a promistory note of Jacque* (.'ir, for tan pound* thirteen thil- 
 " lin|;t, for ezpentet ocratinnvd by hi* having acted contrary to llie lawt of 
 •' New Drunjwick, dated 'JSlh .March. 1792. 
 
 "3. A letter dated M.idawa'^ka, '2.'JJ April, 17W. from Frnn9oit Cir and 
 " Jacque* Cir, to Mr. Dambourgct, Colonel of the South Militia. 
 
 " Lieutenant Colonel Baby of the Canadian Militia, attiire* m thai a Com- 
 " panu of Mditia w(U cstabluhcd bj/ His Excellency Lord Dorchester at J\f<i- 
 " diwBska, about two years ago, and that Jacques Cir is a Lieutenant in that 
 " Company, so that that fact is also true. 
 
 " We have applied to the Council Oflice here for a copy of any proccidings 
 " that might have been had in Council respecting the line of diviiion between 
 " this Province and Xew Bru>uuick, and have obtained a copy of certain pa- 
 " pen there deposited, which show that the line between the two Provinces 
 " has not been ascertained: a copy of thotc paperi we herewith submit to 
 " your Excellency, viz :— 
 
 " 1. Description of the BoundariM of the Provincee of Quebec and New 
 " Brunswick, from IIi» Excellency Lord Dorchester's Commitsiont, and the 
 " United States of America, from the defioitive Treaty of Peace, in the hand 
 " writiiie of Mr. Secretary Motz. 
 
 " 2. Copy of Lord Dorchester's Instructions to Mr. John Holland, who was 
 *' directed to accompany Mr. Fiiilay, in order to aiiist in marking out the 
 " Boundary Line, dated Quebec, 9ih July, 17b7, alto in the hand vTriling of 
 *' Mr. Secretary Motz. 
 
 " 3. Letter by wav of Report, from Mr. John Holland to Lord Dorchester, 
 " dated Quebec, 26th July, 1787. 
 
 " 4. Report of a Committee of Council charged to consider the subject of 
 " the Boundary Line between the two Provinces, and the means of cncoura- 
 " g"^Z the communication and settling the lands in that vicinity, dated Council 
 " Chamber, 13th October, 1787. 
 
 " All which is respectfully submitted to your Excellency's consideration, 
 (Signed) J. Williams, Sot. Gen. 
 
 Samuel Holland. 
 
 " Quebec, 29tb July, 1 792." 
 
69 
 
 8, Extract from the Minutes of the Executive Coimcil of 
 the Province of Quebec, ith August, 1792. 
 
 " Saturday, 4th August, 1792. 
 " At the Council Chamber, in the Bishop's Palace; 
 
 PRESENT : 
 
 " His Excellency Major General Clarke, Lieutenant Governor. 
 
 " And the Honourable William Smith, j) 
 
 Hugh Finlay, > Esquires. 
 Fran9ois Baby, ) 
 
 " Read the Memorial of A. and M. Robichaud, dated the 8th June, 1 792. 
 - " Read a Report of the Committee of Council, appointed to consider the 
 " Boundary/ between the Provinces of Quebec and New-Brunsw'cl:, and the 
 " means of encouraging the communication and settlement of the lands in thai 
 " vicinittj, dated \6lh October, 1737. 
 
 " Read a Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, dated 15th February, 
 " 1792. 
 
 •' Read the Report of the Solicitor-General and Surveyor-General, dated 
 " Quebec, 20ih July, 1792. 
 
 " Ordered, that these Papers be entered upon the Minutes, and it is humbly 
 " suggested by the Board, that it may be expedient to transmit copies to the 
 " Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of New- Brunswick, for his co-opera' 
 " ti7ig in representations to call the attention of His Majesty's Ministers to 
 " the adjustment of the limits iiecessary for jireserving the public tranquillity 
 " on the borders of both Provinces." 
 
 9. Extract from a List of the Parishes in the Province of 
 Quebec, contained in the Minutes of the Executive Coun- 
 cil of that Province, for the year 1791. 
 
 " List of the Parishes in the Province of Quebec, with the dates of their 
 " erection and their extent. Also, the names of the Seigneuries, parts of Seigncu- 
 " ries. Fiefs, and other Grants holding of the Crown in each Parish respectivelij 
 " comprehended ; likewise the number of Male Inhabitants in evert/ Parish, dis- 
 " tinguishing those of the age of \6 years and not exceeding 19, from those of 19 
 " years nf age and upwards, in conformity to the Order issued the 22d Feb- 
 " ruary, 1790, by his Excellency the Right Honourable Guy, Lord Uorches- 
 " ter, Governor-General of the Province of Quebec, 8ic. he, to a Committee 
 " of Council. 
 
 Parishes. 
 
 Seiprneuries and other Grants 
 holding of the Crown in each 
 Parish. 
 
 Total of the 
 
 Males in the 
 
 respective 
 
 Parishes. 
 
 remarks. 
 
 Madawaska. 
 
 Free and Com- 
 mon Soccage. 
 
 Settled by 
 Acadians. 
 
 19 years and 
 
 upwards. 
 
 Under Grants from 
 theGovernment of 
 New-Brunswick. 
 
 6j. 
 
 " Malcolm Fraser, Esq., reports a Seigneurio to be in his possession, called 
 " Madawaska, near the River St. John, beintr of about three leagues on each 
 " side of the River Madawaaka, together v.'ith the Lake Tamiscouata, and 
 " two leagues in depth." 
 
TO 
 
 Theso Jucuments rlearly prove tlie unsettlod condition, 
 in point of fact, of tho eastern part of tho southi'rn lloun- 
 (lary of iho Government of Uucbcc from the Bay of Chaloura 
 nlonq the Hichlantls — tlioy also shew that immediately allor 
 the Treaty of 17S:i, when settlemonts began to be made on 
 the iip|x;r part of the River Saint John, pretensions widely 
 difTcrent were set up by the respective Provinces of Quebec 
 :ind New Rnmswick as to this I^imdary. — Tho discussions 
 between these Provinces upon this subject appear to have 
 terminated with tlic proposition made by tiie Government ot 
 Q.ucbec, on the -llh August, 1792, to call on the Government 
 of tho Mother Country to adjust the limits between them. — 
 At thi.s perio<l the question as to what was the true River St. 
 Croix intended in the Treaty of 17b>3, had arisen between 
 <Jreat Britain and the United States. The decision of this 
 question, upou which tho very starling point of tlie Bcmui- 
 dary of the United States in the interior necessarily depended, 
 was provided for in the Treaty of 1794. and since that time 
 the other subjects of difrercncc between the two Powers on 
 |XDints of boundary have been in a gradual process of dcvelopc- 
 ment and decision, the most imjwrtant among tliem being 
 that which forms the subject of these remarks. The con- 
 llicling inter-colonial chiims between Canada and New 
 Brunswick as to the southern boundary of the former, have 
 been awaiting the issue of the national controversy, and tho 
 result of this controversy will undoubtedly have a material 
 influence on the judgment of tho Mother Country in the 
 future adjustment of these Provincial Boundaries. 
 
 But whatever doubt may exist as to fhr* true position of tlie 
 Boundaries between the Provinces of Lower Canada and 
 New Brunswick, there is none as to the fact of British pos- 
 session, either under the one Province or the other, of tho 
 whole district of country in which the.«;e boundaries arc to be 
 found. The Canadian jurisdiction has already been exhi- 
 bited. — That of New Brunswick will now be adverted to. 
 This is shewn in the history of " The Madawaska Shttle- 
 ment" — for which reference will again be made to American 
 authority. " The Madawaska Settlemknt," it is always 
 to be understood, is quite distinct from " The Fief or Ma- 
 dawaska." and extends, on the mmn River St. John, from 
 the neigiibourhood of the Great Falls, upwards, for several 
 miles above tho confluence of the Madawaska River. The 
 American authority, hero referred to, is that of Mr. Barrcll, a 
 special Agent sent by the Government of the I'nited States 
 to the disputed Territory for purposes of inquiry, in the year 
 
n 
 
 IS'3S. His Report was conimnnicated to doiigress, in a 
 Message from the President, on the 4th March, 1828. The 
 following is an extract from this Report : — 
 
 " This settlement," says Mr. Barrel!, " derives its name 
 " from the River Madawaska, which empties itself into the 
 " River St. John, about thirty-six miles above the Great 
 " Falls, and about one hundred and sixty miles above Fre- 
 " dericton. The first settlers arrived soon after the Treaty 
 " of 1783, and the first grant, which Avas of fifty-one several 
 '' lots or plantations of land, was made to Joseph Muzeroll and 
 " fifty-one other French settlers, in the month of October, 
 " 1790, by Thomas Carleton, Esq., then Lieutenant Gover- 
 " nor of the Province of New Brunswick. The land granted 
 " lay at intervals between the River Verte and the Mada- 
 '' waska River, nine miles distant from each other, and on 
 " both sides of the River St. John. The second grant was 
 " of 5253 acres of land lying below the River Verte, and 
 " Avas made to Joseph Soucer and others, by Lieutenant 
 " Governor Carleton, in August, 1794. These are the only 
 " grants ever made by the British Government within the 
 " settlement, excepting one to Limo Hibert,* of 250 acres of 
 " land opposite to and upon the River Madawaska, in May, 
 " 1S25. 
 
 " The laics of the Province of New Brunsiokk appear to 
 " have been alwaijs in force since the origin of that settle- 
 " ment. The settlers have acquiesced in the exercise of Bri- 
 " tish authority, both civil and military, among them, and 
 " have for many years had an organized militia in the set- 
 '' tlement. * ***** The po- 
 
 " pulation of Madawaska amounts to about 2,000, and is 
 " almost exclusively French." 
 
 In farther elucidation of the history of " The Madawaska 
 Settlement," and in further proof of the actual possession 
 of this part of the country, and of the exercise of jurisdiction 
 over it by the Province of New Brunswick, there will be 
 annexed to these remarks, full reports of two important trials 
 which have taken place in the Supreme Court of this Pro- 
 vince at Fredericton ; the first being the trial of John Baker, 
 in the month of May, 1828, and the other that of Barnabas 
 Hannawell and others, in the month of October, ISSl.f 
 
 The facts elicited in these trials shew the anxwus desire 
 of the State of Maine to oust Great Britain of her long estab- 
 lished and peaceable possession, in this quarter. But the 
 
 * Simon Hebcrt. \ Appendix No. II. and No. III. 
 
72 
 
 doctrino laid down by the Court, as tho clear rule of pulilir 
 law applicable to the case, namely, that " the existing British 
 " sovereignty and jurisdiction can bo chans^cd only by n pub- 
 " lie act of the Hriiish Crown for that purix)sc," has never been 
 controverted. A chanu'o o( possession may indeed be cU'ected 
 by force, but this is an alternative, which, it may be confi- 
 dently asserted, the Government of the United Slates is not 
 prepared to resort to, and to which Great Britain would never 
 submit. 
 
 In im early j^art of these remarks it was observed, that by 
 carrying the boundary line to the north of the River St. John, 
 the prejudice thereby occasioned to the British Provinces 
 would not bo confined to a mere loss of territory. What 
 has been stated res|K'Ctini; the i>oint of arfiial possession 
 confinns the truth of that observation. The extensive Firf 
 of Madaicaska, which, as already remarked, was granted 
 several years before the Charter of Massachusetts, and which 
 has been held uninterruptedly under Canadian jurisdiction 
 to the present day, would be thoroby transferred to The 
 United States, whose claims to territory, during the nego- 
 tiations of 1783, could never for a moment have been sup- 
 posed to extend beyond their rights when clearly established 
 as British Provinces. The British authorities would also 
 be thereby called upon to surrender a jurisdiction which they 
 have continually exercised as far as the Great Falls of the 
 River St. John, from tho earliest period at w^hich any settle- 
 ments have been formed in that part of the country. A 
 large body of British subjects holding pro]x;rty within the 
 Fame territory, and some of whom have held it in unnitcr- 
 rupted succession from the period of 1763, would be compel- 
 led either to resign the possessions of their families, or to 
 retain them under a Governniont to which they owe no 
 natural allegi.incc,'. 
 
 Nor would these bo the only prejudicial consequences 
 resulting to Great Britain from the projxised transfer of terri- 
 tory to The United States. It is well known to what degree 
 the direct communication between Quebec and New Bruns- 
 wick would be thereby impeded. How far the communi- 
 cation between one part of Canada and another, — between 
 Quebec, for instance, and the settlements at Gaspo, — would 
 be rendered more difficult by the same award, may be col- 
 lected from Bouchette's Topography of Canada, page 587. 
 
 It may be doubted whether the anticipation of so much 
 detriment to British interests, though unattended with any 
 corresponding advantages to ThcUmted States, and evidently 
 
73 
 
 calculated to defeat the most enlightened intentions of the 
 Treaty, as explained before, would alone justify a departure 
 from the strict rule of right, supposing it to be made clear in 
 favour of the United States. But in proportion as the above 
 mentioned consequences are evident, it is difficult to con- 
 ceive that the British Government could ever have lent itself 
 to an arrangement from which these consequences must 
 naturally have been expected to flow ; and the stronger, 
 therefore, is the presumption that the acknowledgment by 
 Great Britain of the independence of The United States was 
 felt to impose upon her the duty of carrying her claims, 
 whatever they may have been, to the utmost extent war- 
 ranted by principles of equity and considerations of mutual 
 convenience, in order to protect the interests and secure the 
 rights of her remaining Provinces. 
 
 Presumptions, however probable, are not the sole founda- 
 tions of the British claim. It has been proved, that the 
 Rivers designated in the Treaty are not those which The 
 United States insist upon, in virtue of an interpretation 
 necessary indeed to the prosecution of their argument, but 
 wholly unwarranted by the letter, context, and spirit of the 
 Treaty. It has also been proved, that the Highlands which 
 they maintain to be the Highlands intended by the Treaty, 
 exclusive of all others, agree neither with the specific terms 
 of the Treaty nor with the intention of those who framed 
 it, as manifested by the general tenor of that instrument, 
 and by the circumstances which accompanied its negotia- 
 tion. It has been shewn to demonstration, that the north- 
 west angle of Nova Scotia was totally unknown in 1783, 
 that no provincial boundary line had been acknowledged, 
 ascertained, or even existed for any practical purpose, at that 
 time between the western extremity of Chaleurs Bay, and 
 the Highlands situated at the heads of the Kennebec and 
 Chaudiere Rivers, and consequently that the supposed iden- 
 tity between that line and the line now claimed by The 
 United States, is a mere illusion, resting on no positive foun- 
 dation whatever. 
 
 On the other hand, it has been estabhshed by proofs, suf- 
 ficient to satisfy any reasonable and impartial mind, that the 
 Rivers, described in the Treaty, as falling into the Atlantic 
 Ocean, are entirely distinct from those which fall into the 
 Bay of Fundy or the Bay of Chaleurs ; that the Highlands 
 designated in the Treaty, are those which lying to the south 
 of the River St. John, trend westward from the due north 
 line drawn from the source of the St. Croix ; and, finally, 
 
that the line claimed by Great Britain, as passing along thoso 
 Highlands from the point called Mars Hill, is not only more 
 consistent with the precise terms of the Treaty, than any 
 other line hitherto })roi^»osod, but is calculated to I'ulfil ui 
 every impi^rtant respect the declared as well as tlu- jiresunied 
 intentions of the Treaty, leaving within the territories of 
 either Power the whole of those Rivers, of which the mouths 
 are situated respectively therein, and in this manner provi- 
 ding most efToctually for that great principle of the Treaty 
 which has been already pointed out, that is to siiy, the ad* 
 vantage and convenience of both jxirlics. 
 
 KORTII-WKSTERA.MOST IIKAU OF C03rSBC?TICi:T IirVER< 
 
 Thf. second article of the Treaty of 1783, after describing 
 tlie Highlands, along which the northern boundary of The 
 United States was to be carried, adds, that the boundary line 
 was to extend " to the north-tcestcnxmost head of Connecti- 
 cut River,''^ and " thence doicn olonQ^ the middle of that 
 river to the Aoth decree of north Intitudcy 
 
 It is claimed, on the part of Great Britain, that the boun- 
 dary line in question should be carried to the source of the 
 north-westernmost stream, which flows into the uppermost 
 of the Lakes above Connecticut Lake, up to which the Con- 
 necticut River is known by that distinctive ap|X!lIation ; and 
 that from thence the line should be traced down along the 
 middle of that river to the 45th degree of north latitude. 
 
 The grounds on which that claim has been rested, are, 
 first, that the River, which issues from Connecticut Lake, 
 now bears, and has always been known by the sole appel- 
 lation of Connecticut River, and, secondly, tliat, as no stream, 
 which joins the Connecticut River below where it is known 
 by that name, can with propriety, or according to geogra- 
 phical practice, be taken for the Connecticut River; so, it 
 is certain that no head-water of such stream can be taken for 
 a head water of the river itself. 
 
 In opposition to the British claim, it is contended, on the 
 part of The United States, that the north-westernmost head 
 of Connecticut River intended by the Treaty, is either acer- 
 tain head of a stream called Hall's Stream, or one of another 
 stream, called Indian Stream, both which streams fall into 
 the Connecticut or main Connecticut River, from the north : 
 
75 
 
 ihe former at a short distance above or below the 45th deffree 
 of north latitude, according as the real situation of that paral- 
 lel, or its supposed situation agreeably to a survey made in 
 the year 1772,* is taken, and the latter between two or three 
 miles, more or less, according as the one or the other of those 
 principles is adopted, above the same parallel. 
 
 The grounds upon which this counter-claim of The 
 United States is maintained, are various, but they are all 
 reducible to one, namely, that the " head of Connecticut 
 River" intended by the Treaty is the head of the north- 
 westernmost branch falling into that river, without reference 
 to the specific appellation, or superior volume and length of 
 the main river above its confluence with that branch. 
 
 It is evident that in this proposition two terms essentially 
 different from each other, are confounded together. Hall's 
 Stream, and Indian »Stream, are branches of the Connecticut 
 River, each having its own peculiar heads or sources. The 
 Connecticut River has also its heads or sources independent 
 of them, and it is, no doubt, the most north-westerly of 
 these last mentioned sources or heads, that is " the north- 
 westernmost head of Connecticut River," which the framers 
 of the Treaty intended to designate. 
 
 No one would think of looking for the heads of the Rhine 
 at the sources of the Moselle and Maine, though both these 
 rivers are tributary to the Rhine in the same manner as Hall's 
 Stream and Indian Stream are tributary to the Connecticut, 
 but they must be looked for in the range of the St. Gothard 
 Mountains, where the several heads of the Rhine, to what- 
 ever point of the compass they may be referred, are 
 alone to be found. The same observation may be applied 
 with equal truth to tiie Mississippi, the Ohio, and the Mis- 
 souri. The waters of these three great rivers of the North 
 American continent finally unite in one channel, and reach 
 the Gulf of Mexico under the common name of Mississippi, 
 But each of them has its own heads and sources distinct from 
 those of the other two. On MitcheH's map the sources of 
 the Ohio are laid down by name a little to the south of Lake 
 Ontario ; and the heads of the Mississippi, of which the pre- 
 cise situation was then unknown, are pointed to in equally 
 express terms at a distance of nearly thirty degrees of longi- 
 tude to the west. 
 
 In treating this question. The United States have fallen 
 into an error of the same kind as that which led them to 
 
 * This survey will be more particularly adverted to under the third head of 
 these remarks. 
 
7t> 
 
 confound the Bay of FunJy with the Atlantic Ocean in dis- 
 cussing the fonnor {X)int o( lUllcrcncc. Except where dif- 
 ferent branches of a river bear the same name, with some 
 distinctive addition apphed, as in the case of the Penobscot, 
 to each branch, the name which is borne by a river at its 
 mouth, accompanies the main channel, and the main chan- 
 nel alone, as it is traced upwards into the country. Whert^- 
 crer the river forks, the name, if it be not altoiiether lost, as 
 in some peculiar instances, adheres to that branch which 
 exhibits in the strongest degree the characteristics of the 
 river below the confluence, and the length of the channel so 
 named constitutes the river to which the name applies. It 
 has alrtady been shewn, that the heads of a river are not to 
 be confounded with its brandies, which have scjiarate heads 
 of their own, and, in the particular case now under discussion, 
 distinctive appellations. The branches terminate at their 
 juncture with the main river. 
 
 Other strong arguments, in support of the British, and in 
 refutation of the American claim upon this jioint, might be 
 adduced ; but it is intended, in these remarks, to give only 
 a general view of this part of th'.- disjtute. 
 
 UOVKD.VRY ALOSU THE PAHALLEL OF tS" NORTH LATITl DE. 
 
 The principal circumstances relating to this third point of 
 diflorenre may be comprized in few words. 
 
 By the olh Article of the Treaty of Ghent it was agreed 
 that Commissioners, to be appointed for the I'urjosc, should 
 cause the boundary " from the sotirce of the llivcr St. Croix 
 " to the River Iroquois or Calaraguy (St. Lawrence) to be 
 " surveyed and marked." A preceding clause of the .same 
 article contains the following words : " whereas that part of 
 " the boundary line between the dominions of the tAvo 
 " Powers, wliich extends from the source of the River St. 
 " Croix. — to the north-westernmost head of Connecticut 
 " River, thence down along the middle of that river, to the 
 " 45th degree of north latitude, until it strikes the River 
 " Iroquois or Cataraguy, has not yet been surveyed," &c. 
 Then comes the agreement as above. 
 
 The particular part of the boundary line here in question 
 is that which extends /roy/i the iniddlc of the Connecticut 
 River along the A5th degree of north latitude to the River 
 St. Lawrence. 
 
77 
 
 The survey agreed by the Treaty to be made of this por- 
 tion of the boundary Vme was commenced and executed, 
 with respect to a considerable part of it, by Astronomers 
 duly appointed for the service in the year 1818. The Bri- 
 tish Commissioner and Agent were uniformly ready and 
 desirous to proceed in ihis work ; the difficulties which pre- 
 vented it arose altogether on the part of The United States. 
 
 The complete execution of the survey thus agreed to be 
 made, is claimed by Great Britain on the simple ground of 
 the clear binding terms of the Treaty. 
 
 The United States now object to the execution of the 
 Treaty in that particular, on the ground of its having been 
 ascertained, that the part of the boundary line in question 
 had been previously surveyed and marked, and, therefore, 
 on the supposition that the Treaty of Ghent did not intend 
 to institute a fresh survey of those parts of the boundary 
 line, which were already surveyed and marked by compe- 
 tent authority, but only to cause a survey to be made of 
 those parts of it which had not been before surveyed and 
 marked in that ofhcial manner. 
 
 It remains to be decided, whether an express stipulation 
 of a Treaty is to be set aside in order to justify The United 
 States in retaining a portion of British Territory, which had 
 passed into their possession in consequence of a delimitation 
 at variance with the express terms of the Treaty, and which 
 they continue to hold only by deferring the execution of a 
 positive provision of the Treaty of Ghent. 
 
 Great Britain claims, as the line due west on latitude 45° 
 from Connecticut River to the River St. Lawrence truly 
 intended in the 5th Article of the Treaty of Ghent, the 
 parallel of latitude 45° between these two rivers as 
 resulting from the astronomical observations made under 
 the authority and by the order of the Commissioners ap- 
 pointed to carry into effect the provisions of that Article of 
 the Treaty. 
 
 The Agent of The United States opposed heretofore 
 the claim of Great Britain, by laying before the Board of 
 Commissioners proof of the running of a line intended 
 to be along the parallel of latitude 45°, and extending 
 from Connecticut River to within about ten miles of tho 
 river now called Saint Lawrence, by order of the Govern- 
 ments of New York and Quebec, between the years 
 1771 and 1774. This line, he contended, having been 
 for many years acknowledged as the boundary between 
 the two countries, tho provisions of the Treaty of Ghent 
 
78 
 
 that a line due west on latitude 45*^ from Connecticut 
 River to the River Saint Lawrence, shall be surveyed and 
 marked, had in view only the ten miles wliich had been 
 left unfinished, and not the 140 miles which were already 
 surveyed and marked under the authority of the local 
 Governments.* 
 
 The claim of The Ihiited States to the old lino of boun- 
 dary, which their Aqent had thus endeavoured to uphold by 
 the circumstance that tliis line had formerly been left incom- 
 plete, was afterwards supported by the contrary i>roof that 
 this same line had been entirely completed at the lime above 
 referred to. It appears, indeed, that the same archives, 
 from whicli the Acent of The United Slates drew his male- 
 rials for jirovini; that the line uj)on latitude 15"-' had been 
 only ivxrtially ascertained, contain likewise the proof that the 
 whole of this lino had been determined under the same au- 
 thority, without any other interruplion than that inleri>osed 
 by the seasons, and that all jvtrlions of this line had receiv- 
 ed an cijual sanction from the two provincial governments. 
 There is no intention, on the part of Great Britain, to deny 
 that this line liad been considered as accurate in the year 
 177 I, when it was finished. It must likewise be allowed, 
 that this line haviimbeen once established, h;is continued for 
 want of a better one, to be practically the line of boundary 
 between the two countries. But it is capable of proof, that 
 long before the conclusion of the Treaty of (Jhent, both 
 Governments liad received information whicli must have en- 
 tirely altered their opinion res|K?cting the correct execution 
 of this line. It apjx-ars from documents laid before the late 
 Commission, that each of the two Governments had gootl 
 reason to believe, that the territory which would have fallen 
 to its share from thr* line of boundary, if correctly ascertained, 
 had been considerably curtailed by the errors which had 
 
 • The American Agent, ot the same lime, declared, tlial if hi» view, xyilh 
 regard to this former survey, dhonid not be nrquiejcod in tiy tiio C<>mmi«*ion- 
 rrs, and if the question •hould be «till contiJered as unsettled, he should, in 
 ihfit cnse, ho compelled to require that ihe parallel of 4.')'^ north latitude sltould 
 he laid down according to what he termed the principles of ^' ijeoceulric latitude" 
 as contra-distinguished fron^ iho pencrally received or " ubserted \niUuile." 
 The practical effect of the substitution oi geocentric for observed latitude would 
 be to throw the parallel of 45" north latitude, about thirteen miles further to 
 the north than the true parallel. This claim to tiio adjustment of the boun- 
 dary line in question upon the principle of geocentric latitude, thus put forth 1)7 
 the American Ajfcnt, allhouijh not afterwards urped, yet was never disavowed 
 or retracted by the American Government. It was probably oninff to litl* 
 rircumstanca that (he Kin(? of the Netherlands, in his award, cxpre«*lv declared, 
 that the line upon the paialUl of IJ" ihoulJ be lun npnn the prinriplo of thn 
 ehterved latitude. 
 
79 
 
 crept into the operations of the surveyors, by whom thishne 
 had been determined. It is not surprising indeed, that the 
 Governments should readily have given credit to the inform- 
 ation which they received respecting the inaccuracy of 
 this line. The latitude of but one single spot on the eastern 
 bank of Lake Champlain, had been ascertained in the year 
 1767, at a time when portable instruments for accurately 
 determining the latitude were rare in Europe, and much 
 more so in America. From this spot surveyors had, appa- 
 rently by means of the magnetic needle only, run lines in- 
 tended to be along the parallel of latitude 45*^, extending to 
 the distance of ninety miles on one side, and sixty miles on 
 tlie other, without ever checking their operations by any 
 new determinations of latitude. These operations required 
 of course a very exact knowledge of the variation of the 
 needle, which is not very readily obtained, and they Avere 
 carried on through an almost uninterrupted dense forest. 
 The State of Vermont, whose northern boundary is formed 
 by the line on latitude 45*^, extending ninety miles from the 
 eastern bank of Lake Champlain to Connecticut River, ap- 
 pears to have first suspected the accuracy of this line ; and, 
 as early as the year 1806, the Government of that State 
 engaged Dr. Williams, the historian and philosopher of Ver- 
 mont, to ascertain the correctness of their northern boundary. 
 
 He reported that the line, as drawn, deviated to the south- 
 ward of the parallel, under an angle of eight degrees ; that it 
 consequently cut off, in its eastern prolongation, more and 
 more from the territory which ought to belong to the State 
 of Vermont, and that that State had suffered a loss of more 
 than 600 square miles of its territory by the whole course of 
 this erroneous line. The Report of Dr. Williams was re- 
 ceived and approved by the Legislature of Vermont ; and it 
 appears, that, in the opinion of the people of that State, the 
 inaccuracy of their northern boundary, and their loss by it, 
 was from that time placed beyond the reach of doubt. 
 
 It appears that the Government of Vermont only waited 
 for a favourable moment in order to obtain through the, 
 mediation of the General Government of The United States, 
 the territory of which they thought themselves unjustly 
 deprived. This opportunity presented itself at the conchision 
 of Peace in 1814; and the Treaty of Ghent contains, ac- 
 cordingly, the provisions cited above.* 
 
 * It is to be obseivecl that tlie Treaty y?es tlie words " ascertain and deter- 
 mine'' with regard to points only; the op«raiion of tracing or running a line i« 
 in tiie Lmgunge of the Treaty designated by the words "survey and mark." 
 
80 
 
 It is not contended on cither side, that the negotiators of 
 the Treaty of Glienl were unacquainted with the existence 
 of tlic old hne, and the Amorioau negotiators must certainly 
 have been as fully aware of it as the Hritish. Both parties 
 must have been desirous of substituting a new correct line 
 of boundary for the old one, the errors of which were gene- 
 rally known, when such a good opportunity presented itself, 
 especially as other circumstances rendered it adrisable to 
 establish the other jKirts of the boinidary which had never 
 yet been established at all. The clear words of the Treaty, 
 by which the surveying and marking of this part of the 
 boundary, is made one of the " several {)ur{xises" for which 
 the Commissioners were to be apix)iuted, manifestly prove, 
 that such was the intention of both Govenun'MUs, parties to 
 the Treaty. Thai this was really the intention of the 
 framcrs of the Treaty, and that the words of the Treaty 
 were at first likewi.se tuiderstood agreeably to this interpret- 
 ation by the Government of The United Slates, clearly 
 npjx?ars from what has taken place during several years sub- 
 sequent to the date of the Treaty. The American Negotia- 
 tors of the Treaty of Ghent are alive, and no deposition of 
 any one of them, as in the ca.so of the River St. (/mix, has 
 been brought forward to prove that they were unactpuunled 
 with the existence of the old line, or that it was not their 
 intention that this provision of the Treaty should have the 
 effect, that a new line of boundary along the parallel of lati- 
 tude 45*^ from the Connecticut River to the River St. Law- 
 rence, should be established by accurate astronomical obser- 
 vations. 
 
 No reluctance was shewn on the part of The United Stales, 
 to carry on the operations necessary for the determination of 
 the parallel of latitude, till some time after it was 
 known that the changes which would be produced by the 
 establishment of the new {xirallel of latitude as the boundary 
 line, would be mainly against the interest of The United 
 States, principally by the loss of the fortifications at Rouse's 
 Point on the western bank of Lake Chamj)lain. 
 
 It having been thus clearly proved that there was sufficient 
 reason for making the provision that the parallel of latitude 
 45*^ from Connecticut River to the River St. Lawrence should 
 
 These words are in the jlh Article of llic Treaty applied to a lin« consistinjt 
 of four different parts, viz: a meridian,— a line alon:,' lii^'liiandg,— a line ihronL'h 
 Rriver,_and a parallel of Lililudo. It i« well known tlinl the meridian lind never 
 been established, and ih.it, therefore, llio words " survey and mark" were in 
 the Treaty intended to imply all the operations required for nsccilaining 
 it, and amcng tluac aslrcriCr.-.ii.;i'. obicrrnlions. 
 
81 
 
 be established anew ; that the provision that such a new 
 parallel should be surveyed and marked under the authority 
 of the Commissioners appointed by both Governments is 
 clearly expressed in the Treaty ; that there is no reason to 
 believe, that it was not the intention of the negotiators who 
 framed the Treaty, as well as of the Governments v/ho 
 ratified it, that this new line should be established, and be 
 considered as finally and conclusively fixing the boundary 
 between the two countries ; and that both Governments 
 sanctioned for several years the measures which were taken 
 for carrying into eflect this particular provision, Great Britain 
 believes that she has fully proved the justice of the claim 
 which she has preferred, and contends, accordingly, that the 
 provision, as cited above, of the 5th Article of the Treaty of 
 Ghent, shall be carried into complete cfi^ect. 
 
 As a matter of historical interest, connected with this 
 subject, there will be subjoined to these remarks the Award of 
 the King of the Netherlands.* This aAvard was, in the out- 
 set, peremptorily rejected by The United States, and in the 
 progress of negotiation Great Britain also withdrew her con- 
 sent to be bound by it. Whether it was liberal or wise in 
 The United States, thus to reject this award, every candid 
 man will form his own opinion. The award has been de- 
 scribed in a report of the Senate of the United States, as 
 " The impartial opinion of a disinterested Judge, selected 
 " by both parties, to settle a question of great pei'plexity.''^ 
 
 * Appendix No. I. 
 
AFFEi^Bii:* 
 
 NO. I. 
 
 — ©o© — ^ 
 
 DECISION 
 
 "bF THE iilXG OS' THE XETHERLAWDS, IN RELATIOSf TO 
 
 THS DISPUTED FOUNTS OF BOUNDARY 
 tinder the Fifth Article of the Treaty of Ghent. 
 
 TRAlSSIiATIOiV. * 
 
 VniililAJ*!, by «ie Grace of GOD, King of tlie Nctlicrlands, Prlnea 
 
 of Oi-ajage, Nassau 5 Grand Dwite of Iiuxemburg-, &c. &,c, &c. 
 
 Having accepted the functiona of Arbitrator conferred upon us by the note 
 of the Charge d' Affairs of the United States of America, and by that of the 
 Ambabsador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Great Britain, to our Minis- 
 ter of Foreign Affairs, under date of the I2th January, 1829, agreeably to tha 
 fifth article of the Treaty of Ghent, of the 14ih December, 1814, and to the 
 first article of the Convention concluded between those Powers at London, ou 
 the 29th September, 1827, in the difference which has arisen between theoi 
 on the subject of the boundaries of their respective possessions : 
 
 Animated by a sincere desire of ansvverinsr, by a scrupulous and impartial 
 decision, the confidence they have testified to us, and thus to give tbem n 
 new proof of the high value we attach to it : 
 
 Having' to that effect, duly examined and maturely weighed the contents of 
 the first statement, as well as those of the definite statement of the said differ- 
 ence, which have been respectively delivered to us on the 1st of April of the 
 year 1830, by (he Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of tha 
 United States of America, and the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipo- 
 tentiary of His Britannic Mnjesty, with all the documents thereto annexed in 
 support of them : 
 
 Desirous of fuifillinjr ut this time the obligations we have contracted in ac- 
 cepting the functions of Aibitrator in the aforesaid difference, by laying before 
 ihe two high interested pcrties the result of our examination, and our opinion 
 on the three points into which, by common accord, the contestation is divided. 
 
 Considering that the three points above mentioned ought to be decided ac- 
 cording to the treaties, acts and conventions concluded between the two Pow- 
 ers ; that is to say ; the Treaty of Peace of 1783, the Treaty of Friendship, 
 Commerce and Navigation of 1794, the Declaration relative to the River St. 
 Croix of 1798, the Treaty of Peace signed at Ghent in 1814, the Convention 
 of the 29ih September, 1827; and Mitchell's Map, and the Map A. referred 
 to in that convention. 
 
 We declare, that. As to the first point, to wit, the question, which i« the 
 place designated in the Treaties as the North-west angle of Nova Scotia, and 
 what are the highlands dividing the Rivers that empty themselves into the 
 River St. Lnvrence from thosf? which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, along 
 which is to be drawn the line of Boundary, from that angle to the North- 
 western-most head of Connecticut River. 
 
 ~ It .Yc^f.— Ti.ii) is i!ic Americanpfl'.clal tracaUtion. 
 
II. 
 
 APPE><DIX 
 
 iJunrUertng, Tk^t (h« h)|{h iriCei'««r*d pailiat re»(icciivel)r ciaim (hat lint of 
 hoiiiidary at the Sautb, and at (he North of the Rivrr St. Jubn ; and hava 
 r»cU iMiliraied on tha Map A. the i:iic nrbich they claini. 
 
 CuHsidering, Thnt accordini; to tha intiancet all(>(;cd, the trrm highland ap- 
 phf« not only to a billy or elevaird country, but alto to land which, widiAui 
 lipinif hilly, divides waters flowini; in diffrrent directiont ; and thai (hut (ha 
 rli«iiir((*r inore or leis hilly and eleru(ed of (he coun(r)' throuijh which ara 
 firawn tiie (wo linn reapeciirely cluimed, at (he Nor(h, and at the South, uf 
 the River St. John, CHimut form the batii of a choice between them. 
 
 That the text of the lecond Article of (he Treaiy of 1783, reciti*, in part, lh« 
 word* previously uied, in (he F'focl<nnB(ion nf I 7G3, and in (he Quehi-c Hct of 
 1774, (n ind>cale (he Soudiem boundariea of the Government of Quclier. 
 from Lake Champlain, " in foiiy-fivc degrroa of Nofdi I.ii(!(ude, alonj: ih* 
 hi|ihland« which divide the Kivcr* (liat empty (hemtelvei into (he Kiver S(. 
 La«vrenre, fmrn (hi>«e which fall into (he aea, alao along (he north coaal of 
 (he bay d«-» Chuleura," 
 
 That in 1763. 1765, 1773. and 1782, it wai eitoblithi d (hat Nova Scotia 
 ahould be buunded at the north, a< far a* the weiiern extremity of (he Buy 
 del Chaleurt, by the southern bdundary of '.he Province of Quebec ; thnt tins 
 delimitation is again found, wiili rrtpect to the Province uf Quebec, in the 
 Commi«»ion of the Governor General of Quebec of I 7iS(J, whi-rrin (lie bin- 
 f!u.i|{e of (he l*fOclami(ion nf 171*3 ani nf the Qiibec Art of 1774, ha* be<-n 
 Oard, as a!*;) in the commi»»ioii» of I 7sG, nnd oiber* of *ub<e(|iieiii dales of 
 the Goveriiori of New Ikunswuk. with rr»pect (o (he List mentioneii Province, 
 ■« well as in a ({rcat number of maps anterior and posleiior, to the Treaty of 
 1763; a":l the first article of (he said trea(y specifics, by nam*, (he stales whuie 
 indppi-ndenca is acknowle'lced : 
 
 But (hat (his mendon does not imply (Imp!lquc) the rnOre coincidence of 
 the l»)undaries between (he two powers, as settled by the following Article, 
 with the ancient drlimi(a(ion of the Hriii<>h Provincr*. whotc ptcirrvaiion ia 
 not mentioned in (he Trj-niy of I 783, and wli ich owing (o its conlintiHl chi-.ngea, 
 and the urcertaiiity which continued (o exist re«peciing it, crcutcd, from (imi 
 to (ime, differences between the Provincial authoiities: 
 
 Thot there reiiilis from the litis drawn under the treaty of I 783, through the 
 freat Lakes, west of the Rirrr St. Lmvrence. a licpartiire fiom the aruiciit 
 provincial churter^, with regard to those boundaries : 
 
 That one would vainly attempt to expUin why, if (he intention was to re- 
 tain the ancient prnvincixl boundnry. Mitch>-"'s map, published in 1 775, and 
 c.>n«equently ontetior to die proclamsticm nf 1713, and to the Quebec Act of 
 1774. WH« precisely (he one used in the negntlaiion of 1783; 
 
 That Great Britain proposed, at first, the River Piscadiqua os (he Eaitern 
 boundary of (he L'nited Stated ; nnd did not sulupquent'y agree to tlic propo- 
 aitiiin to cau»e the boundary of Mulne, or Muisathusctts bay, to be ascertained 
 at a la(er perloJ : 
 
 Thnt (he treaty of Ghent stipulated for a new cxaminniion on the spot, which 
 <oiild not be made applicable to an hi'ioiical or Bdmiiii»irative boundary : 
 
 And that, therefore, the ancient delimiiation of the British Provinces, does 
 not, ei(her, aflford the basis of a decision : 
 
 That the loiuitude of the North-west angle of Nova Scotia, which ought to 
 coincide with that of the source of the St. Croix River, was deteroniiird only 
 by the derlamiion of 17f)S, which indicated that River: 
 
 That the Treij(y of fricndsh'p, commerce, and iinvigntinn of 17f)4, alludes 
 to the doubt wliich had nri'pn with respect to (ht- River St. Croix, and ih.it 
 the first instructions of the Congress »( (he (ime of the nrgo(iHii'>n» which 
 resulted in the Treaty of I 783, locate the *aid angle at tlic source of the River 
 St. John : 
 
 That the Uiifode of thnt angle is upon the banks of the St. L«wrer>ce, rc- 
 •orJin^ to Miicfieii't map, wJneh is atktiowledjfed to have regululed the com- 
 
AifPENDIX. Ill' 
 
 b)n«d and official labori of the negotiators of the Treaty of 1783; whertat, 
 Bgreeablv to the delimitation of the government of Quebec, it )• to be looked 
 for at the highlands which divide the Rivers that empty themselve* into th« 
 River St. Lawrence from those which fail into the sea. 
 
 That the nature of the ground east of the before mentioned antjie not hav- 
 Sns been indicated by the treaty of 1783, no argument can be drawn from it 
 10 locate that angle at one place in preference to another: 
 
 That, at all event?, if it were deemed pmppr to place it neerer to the source 
 of the river St. Croix, and look for it, at Mars Hill, for instance, it wonld bo 
 BO much the more possible that the boundary of New-Iirunswick drawn tlienc* 
 north-eastwnrdly would give to that Province several norih-west angles, fitua- 
 led farther north and east, according to their greater remoteness from Mart 
 Hill, that the number of degrees of the angle referred to in tiie Treaty has not 
 been mentioned : 
 
 That, consequently, the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, here alluded tn, 
 having been unknown in 1783, and the Treaty of Ghent having again declared 
 it to be unascertained, the mention of that historical angle in the treaty of 1 783 
 is to be considered as a petition of principle (petition de principe) afTording no 
 basis for a decision, whereas, if considered as a toppjii-^phical point, having re- 
 ference to the definition, vie: " that angle which is fcimed by « line drawn due 
 north from the source of the St. Croix River to th<> hif^hlands," it forms sim. 
 ply the extremity of the line " along the said higlihiiids, which divide tho»e Ri- 
 vers that empty themselves into the River St Lawrence from t!iose which fall 
 into the Atlantic Ocean," — an extremity which a reference to ihe ncrth-wes; 
 ongle of Nova Scotia does not contribute to ascertain, and which stilt ren-'ain- 
 ing, itself, to be found, cannot lead to the discovery of the line which it is to 
 terminate : 
 
 Lastly, that the arguments deduced from the rights of sovereignty f-Tercisrd 
 over the Fief of Madawaska and over the Madawast<n 8-ttlement— ev< n fidn it- 
 ting that such exercise were sufficiently proved — ciinnot decide the question, 
 for the reason that those two Bettlements only embrace a portion of the territory 
 in dispute, and that the high interested parties have acknowledged the country 
 lying between tlie two lines respectively claimed by them, i>s constituting a 
 subject of contestation, and that, therefore, possession cannot be considered a^ 
 derogatii-g from the right, and that if the ancient delimitation of the province* 
 he set aside, which is adduced in support of the line claimed at the north of tha 
 River Saint John, and especially that which is mentioned in the Proclamution 
 of 1763, and in the Quebec Act of 1774, no aranment can be admitted ir» 
 support of the line claimed at the south of the Rivvr St. John, which would 
 tend to prove that such part of the territory in dispute belongs to Canada or 
 to New-Brunswick. 
 
 Comuleriiig, that tl;e question divested of the inconclusive arguments drawn 
 from the nature, more or less hilly of the ground, — from the ancient dciimiia- 
 lion of the Provinces, — from the north-west angle of Nova Scatia, and from 
 the actual possession, resolves itself, in the end, to these : wlurh is the liri9 
 diawn due north of the River St. Croix, and which is (he ground, no mhtter 
 whether hilly and elevated, or not. vvliich frotn that line to the north-western- 
 most head of Connecticut River, divides the Rivers that empty themseivj-* 
 into the River St. Lawrence from those which fail into the Atianiic Ocean; 
 That the higl) interested parties only agree upon the fact that the hout.daiy 
 sought for must be determined by such a line, and by such a ground ; that they 
 further agree, since the declaration of 1798, us to the answer to be givin to th* 
 first question, with the exception of the laiinide at which the line drawn doe 
 north from the source of the St. Croix River i« to terminate ; that the said lati- 
 tude coincidi'B with the extrair;:;y of the ground which from that line to 'he 
 ftorth-westenimost source of Coimfcticut River divides the R!ver« whkh 
 empty themselves inio the River St. Lawrence from thoee which fail into th« 
 AtiKniic Ocean ; and that, tb^'i efo;?, it ooiy remfiii;s to a&ccrtain that ground : 
 
iV. APPLNDIX. 
 
 That 01) entering upon ihti pprrmion, it it diicorered on the one band : 
 Fir»t, ihit if, by idopiing the line cl«imfd et the north of (he River S». 
 John, (ireat Britain cannot he coniiiJered at ohtaining a territory of Im* value 
 than if »he iiud accepted, in I 78."]. the river St. John at bcr frontier, tnkinjj in- 
 to vievT iheaituation of the country tituatrd bctwren '.he Iliveri St. John and 
 St. Croix in the vicinitj of the acK, and in the poisettion of both hanks of the 
 River St John io the lower part uf ill courie, laid equivalent would, neverlhe- 
 leat be deatrnycd by tbe interrupriou of die communication hrlween Lower 
 C<inada and New Drun«wick, especu'ly between Qucbtc and Frrdericlon ; and 
 one would vainly seek to difcovrr what motives cjuld have determined (h« 
 Court of London to content to auch an ioterrup'.ion. 
 
 That if, in the tccond place, in contradittinctiun to the Rivcrt that empty 
 themtelvft into the River St. Lawrence, it lud been proper, agreeably to lh« 
 !an|{ua|{e ordinarily uted in geography, to conaprrhenil tl>e Rivrrt fiillmg into 
 the Bay of Fundy and Bay det (Jhaleurt iviih tliote emp'yina themtelvea 
 d rrctly into the Atlantic Ocean, in ihe ffencricfll denomination of Rivers falling 
 into the Atlantic Orran, it nould br hiiznrdoui to include in the >pecica 
 brlon((inf( to that c!a»t the rivt-r* Saint John and Rctfigouclie, which the 
 line claimed at the north of ihe River St. John «lividet immediately from Ri- 
 ver* emptying ihrmtclve* into the River St. Lawri-nce, not with other Rivera 
 fulling into the Atlantic Ocean, but alone ; and (hut to apply in interpreting 
 the delimitation eatabiiahcd by a treaty, where each word mu*t have a mean- 
 ing, to two exclusively tpecial raset, and where no mention ia made of (ho 
 (jenui (genre) a general expression which would ascribe to ihem a broader 
 meaning, or which, if extended la the Schood c Isles, the I'enobscot and the 
 Kennebec, which empty themselve« directly into the Atlantic Ocean, would 
 establish the principle that (he Treaty of 1 7S3 meant highlnnds that divirlo 
 at well mediately at immediati-lv, the Rivers that empty ihemselvca into the 
 River St. Lawrence from ihote whiofc fall into the Atbintic Ocean — » 
 principle equally realized by boih lines. 
 
 Thirdly : That the line claimed at the north of the River St. John doea not 
 divide, even immediately (he Rivers that empty themselves into the River St. 
 Lawrence from the Rivrt St. John end Hc^tigouche, but only livera that 
 empty themselves into the St. .John and R<«iigourhe. with the exception of 
 the last part of said line, near (he snurcet of the River St. Jol.n, and that 
 hence in order to reach the Atlantic Ocean, the Rivers divided by that iin* 
 from those that empty themselves into the River St. I^awrence, each need 
 two intermediate chiinneU, to wit : ihp ones, the River St. John nnd the 
 Bay of Fundy, and the others, tiie River Restigouche and the Bay of Cha- 
 le!ir» : 
 
 And on the other hand, that it cannot be sufTicietifly explained how, if tha 
 hich contracting parties intended, in 178.3, to establish the lioundary nt th(» 
 aouth of the River St. John, that river, to wiiich the territory in dispute is in 
 a great measure, inrlebted for its distinctive character, hat been neutralized and 
 set aside. 
 
 ThRt thr verb " divide" appears to require the contiguity of the obj?cti to 
 be " divided." 
 
 That the said boundary forms at ils western extremity, only, the immediate 
 reparation between the River Mettjarmette, anri the north-westernmost bead 
 fif the Penobscot, and divide*, medintcly, only the R vers that empty them- 
 selves into the River St. Lawrence from the waters of the Kennebec, Penob- 
 scot, and Schoodic Lakes ; while the boundary claimed at the north of the 
 River Saint John divides, immediately, the waters of the Rivers Rcstigouche 
 and St. John, and mediately, the Schoodic lakes, and the waters r,f ihe Rivers 
 Penobscot nnd Kennebec, from the Rivers that empty themselves into the 
 River St. Lawrence, to wit: the rivers Beaver. Metis, Rimousky, Troia, 
 Pistolet. Green, Du I.oup. Kumouraska, Quelle, Rras Sf. Nicholas, Du Sud, 
 la Frtniir» and Chaudiere. 
 
APPENDIX. V\ 
 
 That even selling aside the Rivers Restiojouche and St. John, for the reaion 
 «hat th?y could not lie considered as failing into the Atlantic Ocean, the north* 
 ffrn line would still be as near to the Sctioodic lakes, and to the wafers of 
 the Penobscot and of the Kennebec, as th,e southern line would be to the Ki- 
 Tprs Beaver, Metis, Rimousky and others, that empty themselves into the 
 River St. Lawrence; and would, as well as the other, form a mediate separan 
 tion between these and the Rivers falling into the Atlantic Ocean: 
 
 That the prior intersection of the southern boundary by a line drawn du«» 
 north from the source of the Saint Croix could only secure to it an accessary 
 ftdvantage over the ether, in case both the onp and the other boundary should 
 combine, in the same degree, the qualities required by the treaties : 
 
 And the fate assigned by that of 1783 to the Connecticut, and even to the 
 St. Lawrence, precludes the supposition that the two powers could have intend- 
 ed to surrender the whole course of each river fiom its source to its mouth, to 
 the share of either the one or the other : 
 
 Conndering, That, after what precedes, the arguments adduced on either 
 side, and the documents exhibited in support of them, cannot be considered ai 
 sufficiently preponderating to determine a preference in favor of one of the two 
 Jines respectively claimed by the high interested parties, as bu'.m Jaries of their 
 possessions from the source of the River St. Croix to the north-westernmost 
 bead of Connecticut River ; and that the nature of the difference and the vague 
 and not sufficiently determinate stipulations of the Treaty of 1783, do not per- 
 mit to adji.dge either of those lines to one of the said parties, without wound- 
 ing the principles of law and equity, with regard to the other: 
 
 Considering, That, as has already been said, the question resolves itself into 
 n selection to he made of a ground dividing the Rivers that empty themselvea 
 into the St. Lawrence from those that fall into the Atlantic Ocean ; that the 
 high interested parties are agreed with regard to the course of the streams de-. 
 lineated by common accord on the Map A. and affording the only basis of a 
 decision. 
 
 And that, therefore, the circumstances upon which such decision depends 
 cnuld not be further elucidated by means of fresh topographical investigation, 
 nor by the production of additional documents: 
 
 We are of opinion. That it will be suitable [il conviendra] to adopt as the 
 boundary of the two states a line drawn due north from the source of the River 
 St. Croix to the point where it intersects the middle of the thalweg (*) of the 
 River St. John, thence the mi<idle of the thalweg of that River, ascending 
 if, to the point where the River St. Francis empties itself into the River St. 
 John, thence the middle of the thalweg of the River St. Francis, ascending ir, 
 to the source of its south-westernmost branch, which source we indicale, on 
 the Map A, by the letter X, auiheniicated by the signature of our Minister of 
 Foreir-n Affairs, thence a line drawn due west, to the point where it unites 
 with !!ieline claimed by the United States of America ai;d delineated on the 
 Map A, thence said line to the point at which according to said map, it coin- 
 cides with that claimed by Great Britain, and thence the line traced on the 
 nap by the two powers, to the north-westernmost source of Connecticut 
 River: 
 
 As regards the second point, to wit : the question, which is the north* 
 westernmost liead of Conrieciicu: River: 
 
 Considering, That, in order to solve this question, it is necessary to choo«e 
 between Connecticut-lake River, Ptrry's Stream, Indian Stream and Hall's 
 Stream : 
 
 Considering, That according fo the us'jpe adopted in geography, the source 
 end the bed of the River are <lenoted by the name of theRiver which is attached 
 to §uch source and fo such bed, and by their greater relative importance a> 
 compared to that of other wafers communicating with said river : 
 
 • TIiBlwp(f—f« German rorapmind word-Tliol. v»H»j-, and VVeg-, way. It meanf har« 
 tlt» (ie«>p«>»t channel of llip river 
 
Tl. 
 
 irrtNDix. 
 
 Coiuuieruig, Th»l in ofEcul leltfr of 1772 »lrf«dy n-.ention» thr ntme of 
 lltll's Brook ; and that in an oflicial Irtter, of lubtoquent date in (he tama 
 7car, Hail'a Brook it rapretcntfd at a troall river failiti(( into (he Conneciicut : 
 
 That the River in which Conneciicut Lake it »iluatp<l appeurt more conti. 
 drrable tlian either Hall't, Indian, or Perry'* Stffam ; that Ccnru'Cticiil Lake 
 and the two Laket tituatcd norih\rard of it, teem to aicribe t» it a grea'er 
 Tolumt of \rater than to the other three Uivcri ; and that by Mdmiding it to ba 
 iht bed of the Connecticut, the course of that river it extended further than it 
 would be if a preference wt-rc ijiveii to either of the other threi- llivert: 
 
 Laitly, that the Map A, hitvinj; been rfC04jnized by the coiivention of 1827, 
 •I indicating the coiirtet of ttreamt, the authoiity of thnt map would likewiit 
 arem to extend to their appellation, tince in cnio of dispute, turh name of 
 Ri»er, or Lake, rc«peciinjj which ihv pariiet were not agreed, might have been 
 o-nitted; that said mip mention* (,'onnecticut Lake, and that the name of 
 Conneciicut I^ke implici the applicability of tha name of Coiiiieriicui to iha 
 River which flowt through the taid lake ; 
 
 H'e are of opinion, that the itream tituated furihett to the north-wetf, 
 among iLote which fall into the n'>rthernmoil of the ihrt-e laket, the Inut of 
 which heart the name of Connecticut Lake, mutt be contidcred at the norlh- 
 wettrrnmoit head of Connecticut Kiver: 
 
 At to the third point, to wit : the quetlion which it the boundary to he 
 traced from the River Connecticut, along the parallel of the 4Jih degree of 
 north latitude, to the Uiver Saint Lawrence, named in tlie Trcatiet Iroquoit 
 or ('ataraguy : 
 
 Cunsi'ieriiig, that the high interettcd parliea differ !n opinion a* to the ques- 
 tion — \\ heihrr the Tieatiet rrqirre a frrth turvey of the whole line of lK>iindary 
 from the RiverConneciicut to the River St. F^twrcnce, named ifi the Trcatiet Iro- 
 quoit or Cataraguy, or limply the completion of the ancient provincial turvcyt. 
 
 Consideriii/^: That the fifth article of the Treaty of Ghent of 1814 does 
 not ttipulate that *uch portion of the boundaiiet which may not liave hitherto 
 been turveyed, thall be turveyed ; but declaret that the boundaries bava 
 not been ; and ettablithet that they thall be, turveyed : 
 
 That, in effvct, tuch turvey ought, in the relation* I), twccn the two powers, 
 to be coiitidered at not having been made from the Coniiecticui m the River 
 6l. Lawrence, named in ihe treaiiet Iroijuoit or Cataraguy, since the ancient 
 Burvry wa* found to be incorrect, and had hern crd'red, not by a common ac- 
 tord of the two Power*, but by the ancient Provincial anihoritiet : 
 
 That in dficrminin? the latitude of placei, it it cuilomary to follow tha 
 principle of the observed latitude. 
 
 And that the Government of the United Stu'et of Ameiica hat creeled cer- 
 tain furlificationt at ilie pUce tailed Rou&e'u Point, ti'uler the imprettion th«l 
 the ground formed p«rt of their tefritory— on impretfcion tuflicientiy authorized 
 by the cirriimttancet that (he line had, until then, been reputed to correspond 
 with the 4alh degree of North Latitude; 
 
 We are /•/ opitiion : That it will be tuilable [il conviendra] to proceed 
 to frfth operationi to measure ihe observed lutitudr, in oider to mark 
 out the bouriiliry f.om the River Connecticut along the parHiltl o( the 43ih 
 degree of North Latitude to the River St. Lawrence, named in the Ireafiet 
 Iroquois or Cataraguy, in such a matiner, however, tiat. in all catet, at the 
 place called Rouse't Point the territory of the United State* of America shhil 
 extend to the fort erected nt that place, and shall include said fort and ilt 
 KilojiPtrical radiut [rayon Jviiomelrique.] 
 
 Tbut done and given under our Royal Seal, nt the Hagur, thit tenth 
 day of Janunry, in the yeir of our LoRP one thousand e'jjht hundraif 
 and thirty one, and of onr Heigr, tha eighteenth. 
 
 WILLIAM. 
 Tbt Miniiier of Feri-ign Affairt, 
 
 (S-jj-i^d) VRR'TorK PR SOKIEW. 
 
NO. ir, 
 
 [From tba Fredericton Royal Gaaelte, Ma/ 12. 1928.] 
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL OF 
 JOMIV BAKER. 
 
 Supreme Court. Easter Term. 
 
 DURINO fhe sitting of the Court on Wednesday, the Attomer Gener&i 
 [Robert Parker, Esquire,] stated to the Court, that he should be prepaifd 
 on Thursday morning to proceed with the Trial of (he Indictment which 
 lad lieen found against John Baker, and two others ; and understood th« 
 Defendant was in atieiidance. 
 
 On Thursday, immediately after the opening of the Court, the Attorney 
 General moved for Trial ; and as fl;e Jury was called, it was iniimated to tha 
 Defendant Baker, by the Court, that he might challenge any of the Jurors for 
 cai'se : Tlie defendant declined avaiiincr himself of this privilege, and the Jurora 
 were sworn, in the order they appeared. 
 
 The Clerk of the Crown read the Indictmetit, wliich charged the Defendant! 
 John Baker, James Bacon, and Charles Stud^on ; that they being factiouRly 
 and seditiously dispoFed, and greatly disaffected to the Government of Hii 
 MHJesly within this Province; did, at the Parish of Kent, in the County of 
 York, conspire, comhine, confederate, and agree together, falsely, malicioujiy, 
 and seditiously, to molest and disturb the peace and common tranquillity of this 
 Province, and to bring into hatred and contempt the King ar.d his GovertJ- 
 ment, and to create false opinions and suspicions in His Majesty's Sul)jecti, 
 of and concerning the King's Government and Royal Power and Prerogative 
 within the same : and iiiu thereupon then and there erect a flag staff, and place 
 thereon a flag as the standard of the United States, and did declare the «^lac« 
 10 be the territory of the United States, and did also afterwards present to 
 His Majesty's Sul.jecls, a paper writing, and requested them to sign it, de- 
 claring that by such paper they would bind themselves to oppose the execu- 
 tion (.f the laws of Great Britain in that part of the said Parish, called the 
 Madawaska Settlement : and did also obstruct the passage. of His Mnjei- 
 ry's Mail, declaring that the British Governmer.t had no rigiit to send its 
 Mail by that route ; and that they had received orders from the United Statea 
 to felop the conveyatice of the .Mail tliroirtrh the same: and did also afterward* 
 at another time, hoist the flag of the United States on a Staff there erected; 
 declaring that they had actually entered into a written agreement to keep the 
 »ame flag there, and nothing but a stronger force should take it down ; auii 
 that th-y had bound themselves to resin by force the execution of the Lawi» 
 of Great Britain ; in contempt of the King and his Laws, to the example of all 
 others in the like case offending, and against the Peace, See. 
 
 The Attorney GRNERAt., in his opening to the Jurv, «tated, ;hat ihcnuh 
 this was a case which it was his duty as the Law Offirer of the Crown to brin^ 
 bf-fore them, it had not originated with him : It was an Indictment which had 
 be en laid before the Grand Jury at the former Term, by a O entlemnn* who then 
 
 * Tuo>j&3 Wetjiore, Esquire. 
 
 e 
 
VUl. 
 
 APTENDIX. 
 
 held ttie hi((h ofiicr, ((he Jutict of which h« wii k( th« prcteiit ditrhtrgind) 
 •lid o( whote tiTvicet aini eminent (■lcri(« (he Crovrn and Country hid Lteeri 
 drprived hy draih tince the Use kitiinjf of thi< Court : It h«d been in (he ordi- 
 nary cour«e of that Gentleman'* doty ; and the (JrHnd Jury of the County 
 bavinfT returned it a (rue h II, 'he prevent Uefenditnl John Laker was arrai^jned, 
 and having pleaded Not Gudty, and iraverted the Indictment until the preienc 
 Term, had now appeared to fake hii Triwl, and the Jury wrrc empannelled to 
 try the i«»iie jnncd on (hut Tr:iver«e. The Defendant Jnhn Hiker itood in- 
 dicted, together with Jnines IJ^con and ('hurlet StuiUoii, for having conspired 
 and combintM], fiic(iou*ly aixl tcditioatly In mnleot and dittiirb the Peace and 
 f>mmofi tranqnilliiy of the Province, to bring into hatred and contirrpt the| 
 King'* (luvcrnment and I.h\v<, and to create fal^e opiniont and tuspicioni of 
 aoij concerning i|i« Mujrkiy'k Uosul Powerar.d Prerogntive; and in purfuniica 
 of thii conspiracy and cumhinaiion, had Committed certtin specific acti which 
 are (rt fi>rth in the Indictmenr. The»e ore called ir. the language of the Laur 
 ovcrl aclt, and proof of ihi-m or any of them mi^ht maniri^t the guilt of tiiu 
 purty. That though the«c »c!f wire lo •pecilic.illy at-l forth, llu-y did not 
 form the main point of •ifTi'iice. TH* -"S'l-f and material fact which (hey had 
 10 try, wa* ivnriiti-r me Defendant Uaker did conspire vvidi Khcoii or S(ud«on, 
 with inre'it to kuhvi-rt thr (i>»ornm»'nt of itn* Province, und t'' cxoite fcditioii 
 and di«a(rection among Hi* Mijeniy'n aiilyrtta in the Mailawaska Settlement 
 ■o Calleil : and if any on« of the overt act* were proved, it would be tu(!icieiiC 
 It support the charge, if the Jury were, froin the circumstance* iifcnding if, 
 convinced of the intention of the Di-ieiidunii. The offci.re, u* iaid, amounted 
 only 10 a Mittdemeanor, and wa* therefore punifhabic no farther than by a fni« 
 and impri^oiiincni ; hut it wat one of ■ very i^criou* nature, and might be pro- 
 ductive of (he most gr lVou* cunseqiience*. It tiiuck at the root of all aociety ; 
 for if Individual* could be permitted to unite for the purpose cf subverting the 
 Juiisdiclion, putting down iha Laws, and bunging the (iovernment into con- 
 tempt, '.T'.ihout bring liable to punishment ; and could be juttiGed in to doing, 
 because ihry took on ihemselvet to deny the authority of the Established 
 Govetmnent 5 ail protection for life and property was taken awny. The inha- 
 bitants were virtually outlawed, and made the prey of every maraiider who 
 cume with fT'^.-rior force to their own. Had murder or any of the highest 
 crimes bcc'i committed by tlie Defendants ; they might escape with impunity, 
 M there could be no law by which they could be tiied, no tribunal before 
 which they were compelled to answer. There could be no redress for private 
 wrongs, no remedy for agreements broken, no recovery of debt* contracted j 
 and (he wliole land, instead of being inhabited by an organized society, living 
 under the blessings of a free Conititution, might shortly be overrun by thu 
 outcasts of other countries, and the present poKSessors destroyed or driven out. 
 Such would be the efl'ects of success in Conspiracies like the present. It wh-i 
 not for hjm (the Attorney General) to anticipate the defence which might I 
 ■et up 0(1 the present occasion : but if the Defendant still persisted in his former 
 declaratio.t, he would probably, ii'Stend of disproving, endeavour to justify the 
 acts which he hail committed. The Defendant was, he believed, u native of 
 (he United States, but it m a well known rule of Law, that an Alien being 
 undiT the protection of a Government, was siihject to its Laws, and owed a 
 local and temporary allegiance so long as he mijlit coniinue within it. Me 
 (the Attorney General) understood the present Defendant justified his conduct 
 on the ground of hii being in the Territory of the United State*. If the De- 
 fendant could moke this appear, it might aflford him a good defence : or if he 
 could make it appear that he came lo the Madawaska .Settlement, with the full 
 intention to take up his residence on the Icrritoiy and within the allegiincc of 
 ihut Government, and had settled, with the full conviction and belie' that he 
 was withi:i those limits; although the offence would not be ther»'i>y purged 
 unless it were f^und to be the case, stili his criiniiiulity would be much lessened, 
 ant.' be would be more eutitied to miii^aiiun in any puniibnient which the 
 
APPENDIX. IX. 
 
 Court would award him. As to the proof \vhi«h he (tlie Attorney General) 
 should bring before them in support of his charge; he thought not only one, 
 but all the overt acts would be proved, and the criminal intention of the party- 
 most clearly established, by this and other circumsiniicea which would come 
 out in evidence. The place where the oft'ence is charged to have been com- 
 mitted is the Madawaska settlement, so called, in the Parish of Kent, in the 
 County of York ; and it would appear that the inhabitants Itnve ever since the 
 first erection of the Province considered themselves British subjects, and 
 under its Government j that they have always received the protection 
 and been amenable to the provisions of the laws here in force; that ihey 
 have been enrolled in the Militia, have voted at Elections, and were therefore 
 represented in the Provincial Assembly; and, in fact, exercised all the same 
 privileges as the other people of the Province; that Peace Officers had been 
 appointed there. Magistrates issued their M-'arrants, and the Processes of the 
 Courts of Justice had been served throughout the whole Madawaska settle- 
 ment, in the same manner as in any other part of the country, until lately, 
 without any interference or obstruction whatever. It would be proved also, that 
 this very defendant had considered himself living in this Province ; had derived 
 protection from the Laws; had in several cases himself appl-ed to Mr. Justice 
 Morehouse for summonses against persons within the settlement, from whom 
 lie claimed debts, and was thereby enabled to collect them ; and it did not lie 
 with him to deny the obligation of that law, from which he derived aid and 
 protection. He not only, then, enjoyed the benefit of the Institutions which 
 he was endeavouring to destroy, but had even received from the Revenue of 
 the Province, a bounty which the Legislature have bestowed for grain raised 
 on new land within the same; the land on which he raised it being the same 
 where he has now hoisted the flag of the United States, and set at deGance tha 
 Laws of the land. It was no question for them or this Court to determine 
 \vhat might eventually be the fate of this country ; no decision of theirs could 
 alter or affect the question. There was no doubt it had been claimed by the 
 Unitt'd States, and that claim resisted by Great Britain; and the two Govern- 
 ments had agreed upon a mode of settling the dispute. This depended on 
 the true construction of a Treaty entered into between Great Britain and the 
 United States; but it would be monstrous to suppose that upon the claim 
 being trade, the country was to be withdrawn from the sovereignty of the 
 British Crown, and remain without the protection of any Law, or delivered 
 over to the claimant until rhe right was ascertained. Should it be decided 
 that this claim shall prevail, there was no doubt the decision would be met by 
 Great Britain with the same spiiit that has always actuated her conduct, in 
 the observance of Treaties; but at present nothing was decided. This coun- 
 try was once clearly under the Government of the Crown, and had continued 
 so, uninterruptedly, ever since ; and after the erection of this Province, was 
 luider its Government; and tliere was no act whatever, by which the relative 
 Ftate of the parties could as yet be altered or affected. Indeed it was necessary 
 for the interest of both parties that some jurisdiction should be e.xercised, as 
 without it the Territory could not be preserved. A degree of imaginary 
 importance had been given to this case, by the defendant's having 
 been dignified by a high title to which he had no pretension ; and set himself 
 up as the Agent of, and acting under the authority of, a foreign Government; 
 which was not the fact : whatever he and others might have done, was in their 
 individual capacities, and on their own responsibility. The Attorney General 
 then stated to the Jury, that a great deal had been said, a great deal writter;, 
 and a great deal printed on the present business, but this could have no weight; 
 whatever; and the Jury must disntjiss it altogether from their minds. It was 
 the great principle of our Laws, the exercise of which we are now vindicating, 
 that every person is presumed innocent until proved guilty ; and this proof 
 could only be by evidence given in his presence before the Jury who are to 
 decide on his case. The Jury must, therefore, consider nothing whatever hue 
 
 2 
 
X. APPKMJIX. 
 
 the ftctt which fni){bt be pioveJ before (hem (hi» day. If, after heariiif; ihe 
 evidence, thry could nut in iheir comc-ienre* say whether ibey wereiatikried of 
 the guilt of the defendant, he would be entitled to iic(]uiitai : hut if the ollonce, 
 M alleged in the Indictment, wa< proved, they would fenrleMly di<chHr|;c theit 
 duly, by pronouncing him guilty- The Attorney (leiioral then read tome 
 •uihoriti4>* on the generikl nature of the churjje, and the proof necessary to 
 aupport It, and proceeded to call (he wicneatcf. 
 
 George Morchoute was the 6rtt witness sworn : his p»idenie was as fol- 
 lows : — I i»m a Justice of the Penn- for the Cnunty of York. I reside in the 
 Parish of Kent, on the lliver St John, about 3U miles below the (irand Falls. 
 The Mada*a*ka settlers commence a few miles above the Falls, and 
 extend up 40 or 30 miks. I have been settled where I now live six years ; 
 but my acquaintance with the Madawatka settlement commenced in 1819. — 
 At this lim« the inhabitants were pniinpally French. There were a f*w 
 American ritirens. I cannot aay whether defendant was there then. Ilia 
 brother Nathan was. I do not recollect the defendant's being theie until 
 September, I82-2. He and the other Americans had formed a lumbering 
 cktdhlithment at the head of the Madawaska Ecttlemeni, on the cast side of thu 
 River St. John, by the Meriumpticook stream. That part of the country 
 where the French and Americans were, has been invariably under the juris- 
 diction and Laws of this Province since I knew it. I have been in the con- 
 stant habit, as a Magistrate, of sending my Writs imd Warrants there. No 
 interruption or ohjeciion was made to the service of them until last August. 
 Until then it was my belief that all the inhabitants there considered (hem- 
 selves undtT the jurisdiction of, and sul'joct to the Laws of this Province, both 
 American citizens and the Fremh seliiers. When I speak of last August, I 
 mean, that ibis was the first intimation I had of any objection being made (o 
 the exercise of the jurisdiction of (hii> Province (here. That intimation waa 
 made by o Report or communication from Mr. Rice, that John Uakcr, the 
 defendant, had bicn gnilty of seditious practices. I forwarded this communi- 
 cation to the Secretary of the Province. A few days after, about the 3d of 
 August, I received written instructions from His Miijesty's Attorney General, 
 to proceed to Mndawanka and take depositions ; and get a copy of the written 
 paper which it was reported thu defendant had handed aliuut for signature. 
 I proceeded accordingly to Maduwuska on the 7th of August, and arrived at 
 the place where Raker's house is situate, and went into (he house of James 
 Riicoii, and a«ked him to let me see the paper that had been handed about for 
 signature. He said he had it not. 1 then requested Bacon to go with cue to 
 Maker's, to look for the paper. Ilf dcclincil going. I then went toward 
 Raker's house, and met him on his mill dam. The mill dam is made across the 
 River Meriumpticook. I stated to him that it had been reported to Ciovernmenr, 
 that he and other American ritizens residing there, had b.;en guilty of seditious 
 practices; that I was authorised to make inquiry. I told him it was reported 
 that he had drawn up and circulated among the settlers, a paper, the purport 
 of which was, that they were American Citizens, and had bound themselves 
 to resist the execution of the Lhws of (ireat Britain. He ntilher admit(ed 
 or denied it, but said that he had been charged with an attempt to stop the 
 Mail, which he said was false. 1 requested him to shew me the paper which 
 had been handed round for sigRature. He said he believed it was not in his 
 possession. He did not deny the existence of such a paper. He said he did 
 not know whether it was in his possession or not. He thought Studson had 
 it. I requested him to go to his house and search his papers, perhaps he 
 wighl find it. We proceeded together towards his house. Between his resi- 
 dence and the mill there is « r.ew house, where ten or twelve Americans 
 were assembled. I did not know them to be Americans, but supposed them 
 to be so. They were not French settlers. When we got there Baker took 
 two or three aside and consulted with them a few minutes. He then came 
 back uhJ said to uie " Mi Moiehoui'.-, I have consulted with the Commitleei 
 
APPENDtX. XJ. 
 
 ^* and we have determined that you shall not see this paper. We have formcr- 
 " ly sliewn you papers in similar cases, which has been very prejudicial to us." 
 — I observed when I went there, a flag staflT erected on the point of land where 
 Baker lives. The point is formed by the jimction of the Meriumpticook River 
 with the Saint John. There was then no flag' on it : but after coming out of 
 Bacon's, I observed a flag hoisted. A white flag with an American Eagle an<l 
 semi-circle of Stars red. In the conversation I had with Bacon, he deprecated 
 Baker's practices, and said he would not desist until he brought the Americans 
 there into trouble. I think the persons Baker took aside to consult with, 
 were Bartlett and Savage. After I received the answer before mentioned, I 
 pointed to the flag and asked Baker what that was ? He said " the American 
 flag. Mr. Morehouse, did you never see it before ? If not, you can see it 
 now." I asked him who placed it there." Bacon was present at the time. 
 I requested him, in His Majesty's name, to pull it down. He said " No, I will 
 " not: We have placed it there, and we are determined we will support it, and 
 " nothing but a superior force to ourselves shall take it down. We are on 
 " American Territory; Great Britain has no jurisdiction here; What we are 
 " doing we will be supported in ; We have a right to be protected, and will 
 " be protected in what we are doing, by cur Government." He did not pro- 
 duce or exhibit any authority. I then turned to Bacon and said, " Bacon, 
 "you have heard Bdker's declaration; Do you mean to support him in 
 " it ?" He said " Of course I do." I then left them and came away. Baker, 
 about the first of February, 1825, applied to me, as a Magistrate, for sum- 
 monses against some of the Madawaska settlers, to collect debts. I gave him 
 six summonses against persons all living in the Madawaska settlement. 
 The return made to me was, that the debts were paid when the writs were 
 served. Baker has a considerable improvement and raises more or less grain 
 every year. In the year 1823, I was at the place where he resides. I never 
 knew of his cultivating any other place in the Province. I understood from 
 what passed, that Baker and Bacon both acknowledged they had signed the 
 paper. They spoke of having bound themselves by a written agreement to 
 resist the Laws of England. 
 
 The direct examination being closed, the Defendant was informed he might 
 cross-question the witness. He declined doing so, saying, under the circum- 
 stances in which he stood there, he did not intend asking any questions. The 
 Court then said he must consider himself on his Trial ; and if he did not choose 
 to avail himself of the right which every defendant had of crcss-e.xamining the 
 witnesses, it was his own fault; Baker then said he fully understood this, but 
 should follow the course he had stated. 
 
 To questions then put by the Court, the v.'itness stated : — The Madawaska 
 settlement proper terminates at the Madawaska River, there are a few miles 
 interval with a few scattering houses. The main aettlement then commences 
 about nine miles above the Madawaska, and extends 7 or 8 miles. The Meri- 
 umpticook isabout 18 miles above the Madawaska. This settlement has for- 
 merly gone by the name of Chateaugay ; latterly it has been called St. Emelie 
 by the French settlers in the settlement. 1 mean distinctly that the upper 
 as well as lower settlement has been subject to the British Laws. It is at the 
 head of the settlement the Americans reside. The whole settlement has 
 gone by the general name of the Madawaska settlement throughout the conn- 
 try. The name Chateaugay caused some differences among themselves. The 
 Priest changed it to St. Emelie. There has been no distinction in the actual 
 exercise of jurisdiction between the upper and lower part of this settlement. 
 The lower bound of the Parish of Kent is 18 miles below my residence. 
 
 Francis Rice sworn. I reside in the Madawaska settlement, at the head' 
 of the first part. I am Adjutant of the 4th Battalion York County Militia. 
 The Madawaska settlers are enrolled in this Battalion. I have been in the 
 Court and heard Mr. Morehouse's evidence. I made a Report to him as he 
 has stated, I did not know the facts cny?clf, they were reported to me. I 
 
XII. APPKNDIX. 
 
 iiccomp»iiieJ Mr. Morrlioii«e oh hi* ritit to the ••lilement on the 7th of Am- 
 |;u»t la%r, ami wai pretrnt nt the converiitiunt with Hiker and Uaron. I'he 
 f^cti all took place at lie hat stared. I can *ay nothing more. The Mnda- 
 waika settler* att<>nd aiid turn out at the Militia training pretty regularly, both 
 above and below the confluence of the Madawa«ka. 
 
 The French aettleri not bein(f »blf to speak Knplish distinctly, the witness 
 Franci* Hice had previously been iworii as Iiilei |'ri.'.er, and acted as such 
 throu(;hout the Trial. 
 
 Abraham Chamberlain sworn. I live in the upper part of the Madawkaka 
 •cttlemenr, above the Madaua^kn Iliver. Have residi-d there four years thit 
 summer. Was born at the I3jy Chaleur, cnme from th«'iirc to the Mtdawaska 
 four year* ngo, and have always lived since in the Maduwuska sctllcment. 
 Charirt Studson preiented me a paper I think in July last. 1 don't remember 
 sre:r|{ Haker. Huron arid Ami'ry,nnd some other Americiins were present. [ 
 was pastinjf by. When they hanJid rue the paper, I asked if uiiy of the Fnnch 
 had sif^ned it, they said not ytt . 
 
 The witness beinu then asked as lo the contents of the piprr, atui the pro- 
 priety of such evidence being qiie»tinned by the Court, the Attorney (leneral 
 cited the case of Rex vt. Hunt and others, ti liarn and Aid. 30G, where it 
 was decided in a trial for Conspiracy, thot secondary evidence of the contents 
 uf a paper which was in the defendant'* possession, was admissible, without 
 prnducififir the orif^inal, or ((ivini; notice to produce it ; and ihut parol evidence 
 of inscr:piions and devices on banncis and ^Agt is oi^io adniisiiible. 
 
 The question was then put, but the witness could *ny nothin|; at to iht 
 cnriteni*, srnlinfr thst it was read to him, but being in Rnclish he did not 
 understand it. They asked him to sign ; but he did not undcriitund fur what 
 rerson. lie wnnlcd lo know sthetliir any of the French had I'jjned if. Thi* 
 took {ilnce on the point of land near the m:il. There was a llsi; hoisted with 
 an Ea({le and Stars on it. They did not say any thing about having signed the 
 paper themielfcs. 
 
 I'clcr Marque sworn. I live in the Sf. Emelie ictllemcnt, the tipper one. 
 Ainery, Dacon, and StuJson, some time latt summer, I cant say whut part of 
 ir, tried to muke me sign a paper. This wns at the pljcc where the pole 
 ktands. I never understood the purpose lor wliu'h I was called to sign the 
 paper. I worked eleven days for Duker last year nt tlic time of gittin^r hoy. — 
 They told me Chamberlain had signed the p ipcr. I don't remember any more. 
 
 Peter Silitte sworn. I was employed last summer to carry the Mail from 
 Madawaska to Lnke Timiscouta. A^ I wns taking it up the Uiver, polling in 
 n canoe, I met John linker coming down the River on a rufr. Uuker asked 
 me in English" Do you carry the Mail?" I said. Yes. He said ho huii 
 orders from America not to let the Mail pass that way. I replied that I had 
 no ordeis to stop there. This was all that passed. Thi? was I think in July. 
 
 Joseph Saufaton sworn. I lire in the Madawaska, half a mile below the 
 dreen River. The Gieen River is below the Madawaska. I was iiorn uC 
 Maduwaska. I bought land from Joseph Sonci. Me had a grant from tlic 
 (lovcrnment of this Province. I bought it six years ago. I hare been a 
 Constable for two years for the Parish of Kent. I was olistructed in my duty 
 of Constable by Bukcr, Racon, Rartlctt, Savage, Sthorley, and Jones. I had 
 an execution from Mr. Morehouse against James Ducon. I abked Bacon if be 
 would come, he said he would not leave the place. Baker said, it is of no use 
 fur you to go there, you shall not have the man. Bacon talked about settling 
 if. Baker said " Bacon you mu = t not settle it now, you must settle it another 
 " lime. I will not allow any ofliccr to go up there." He asked me if I had 
 any authority to go there. I showed him the warrant. He said if it came 
 from the States he would mind it, but it was only from Mr. Morehouse, an.! 
 he would not mind if. They prevented my taking Bacon, who refused to 
 go. This took place near Baker's mill. 
 
 Edward Miller, Esq. sworn. I am High SherifTof the County of York. 
 ! have been so since 181 1. I have beenacquninicd with the Madawaska settle- 
 
APPENDIX. XIU. 
 
 inpiit seven yeni'-. I never could make any division in the lettlement between 
 tho upper and lower. When I first knew it, it extended to seven miles from 
 the Fulls. Lately it has conae within 3 or 4 miles. I know the Meriumpti- 
 cook River. I have been in the habit of serving writs throughout the whole 
 of the settlement, the same as in any other part of my bailiwick. When I 
 first became acquainted with the settlemenr, 1 considered the inhabitants as 
 under the jurisdiction and Government of this Prpvince, without any dispute 
 whatever. The distance is so great 1 have never summoned them to attend 
 as Jurors. It would be so inconvenient to attend. The inhabitants serve in 
 Militia. I never met with any obstruction in the dischage of my duty. 
 
 Peter Fraser, Esq. sworn. I have been an inhabitant of this Province since 
 1734. I am acquainted with the Madawaska settlement. It is about 7 or 
 8 years since I was first there, but I have been acquainted with the settlers 
 since 1787. I considered them always under the Government of the Province. 
 The first settler I knew was Captain Duperre, a Captain of the Militia of 
 this Province. The date of Iiis commission was between 1787 and 1790. He 
 resided at ths settlement. The setliers have voted at Elections. There was 
 some dilliculty at first in their doin^ so, on account of the oath which was re- 
 quired to be taken, as they were Catholics j but when this was altered, they 
 voted without difficulty. To my own knowledge they voted in 1809, and ever 
 f.ince. I considered the Madawaska settlement as extending from the Great 
 Falls to the Canada line. I have been where Baker lives, and always deemed 
 the part above Madawaska River as in the Madawaska settlement. There is 
 no distinction in this respect hetween what is above and below that river. The 
 Madawaska settlers are enrolled in the Militia of this Province. In Captain 
 Diiperre's lime there were two Companies. In 18'24 they were formed into 
 a separate Battalion, consisting of five Companies. I am the Major of the 
 Battalion. They turn out very regularly, I never heard them make any ob- 
 jection to training, 
 
 Htnrt/ G. Cbjtper sworn. I am Clerk of the Peace and Register of Deeds 
 for the County. I was appointed Clerk in 1823, snd Register in 1820. I 
 succeeded my father in both ofliocs. I have discharged the duties since 1820, 
 having acted for him before receiving the appointment myself. Parish Officers 
 were appointed by the Sessions for the Parish of Kent. There was a separate 
 list for the JMadawiiska District in that Parish. I have been as far up the 
 river as ten miles above the Grand Falls. There are a great many Deeds re- 
 gistered in my office, of lands in Madawaska, v\here the parties are the Ma- 
 dawaska setliers; some as long since as 25 or 30 years back. As Clerk of the 
 Peace, I received the money given as bounty for Grain raised on new land in 
 this County. In May, 182j, the defendant John Baker applied to me for the 
 bounty for Grain raised by him on new land ; he received the bounty from 
 me. The paper now produced by me, is the document under which he be- 
 came entitled to it. I observed to him that lie was an alien, and I was not 
 aware whether he was strictly entitled to it. lie said his certificate had passed 
 the Sessions. The paper I now hold is the certificate, and the only one. k 
 has been on file in my office since. The pajjer was here put in, and read by the 
 Clerk of the Crosvn, and is as follows: 
 
 " I, Jolin Haker, of ICcnt, do swpnr, thrit ninety Biishi'ls of Wheat were really nnd 
 " truly rHi-eti mi the land ociMipicii liy mo, nnd iire artiially of the Crop of the year 182:1 
 " [18JJ] and that the uood ivas eiit dun-ii, hiinit of cli'iired otffrom the land on which tho 
 " sauip w.-ii raised, within tivo years previous to the time that tho said erop was taken off; 
 " aiKi that they were of the first'and only erop of (Jraiu niisud oQ land from wlu !i the wood 
 " was so cut down, burnt or cleared off as aforesaid. 
 
 JOHN CAKER." 
 
 Sworn before me at Woodstock, 2d July, 1R23. 
 
 JOHN BEDELL, Justice of the Peace. 
 
 ' I verily believe the facts above stated to be just nnd true.' 
 
 JOHN BEDELL, 7. P. 
 
 I paid him by a check on ls\x. Necdham — the amount was £4 os. 3d. 
 This is the order I gave Mr. Needhain. 
 
XIV. APPKNDIX. 
 
 CroU'eramined by the Drfendanl. — H«re you got the rrcf ipt I gave joo 
 for (he monry ? The wiine«« hrre produced tiie schedule and lignaiure to it 
 by Raker; and said tbii it the only receipt he gave ine, except the one given 
 to .Mr. .Nreilhdm. 
 
 Mark XeedAam sworn. I remi^mber the circumitance ofpayini; (hit order. 
 The wordt ' received payment,' on it, are in my writing;. I have no doubt I 
 paid it; but hive not now any recollection of (he defendnitt. I coiitidcred ic 
 paid, and charged Mr. Clopper with it. 
 
 George J. Dthblce iworn. I am acquainted with the hand writiilf; of the 
 defendant John Baker. I have teen him write. The tignature to (he receipt 
 On ilic order it hit hand writing;. I have no doubt of it. 
 
 Stmon Abcar OT Iltbcrl, twoin. I live two miiet below Modawntka River. 
 Have lived there 40 yeart next month. I moved there from the French Vil- 
 lage, about ten milet above Fredericton. I have a grant of my land from this 
 Province. It it the Crtt %t^m in the Madawatka ; and was made about two 
 or three years af'.rr I moved up. I live under ihii Government, ond huve 
 alwayi lived under it. All the NIadawatka lettlert live under the same Go- 
 vernment. I rote at Elections. — The firtt time was about eight yeart ago. 
 Baker came lait year to my hoiite, and a^ked me what time I go to train my 
 Company. I am a (^aptain of Mihtia. lie said there is not much occasion to 
 train at Madajvaika. I enquired the reason. He said nothing. I told him 
 I would go next Saturday ; he must be stronger than roe to prevent me. I 
 know where Baker lives, lie came fire or six years ago. lie has sUvnys 
 lived at the same place. Raised grain there. I believe he cultivnled eio where 
 else. Baker said " I had better not (rain," but did not ask me not to train. 
 
 Georf^e li'esl sworn. I know the defendant Baker. Have known him 
 •inre I8'J0, he wai then settled at the Bay Clialeur. I saw him next nt the 
 Madawaoka. It was when Judge Bli»< was President. I l>eiievc in 1824. 
 I seized three hundred logs from him. I was (hen a seizing officer. He said 
 he wished to become a British subject, as he had been here the necessary 
 time. He enquired of me whst steps it would be necessary for him to take. 
 I told him as far as my information went. This wus at the place where he 
 lives. It is called Baker's Mill Stream. He spoke as if he considered himself 
 ■ resident within this Province, and wished to have all the lenity shown him 
 on that account. It was shewn him. He was allowed (o redeem (he logs nt 
 the rote of 28. Gd. per thousand feet, counting three logs to a thousand. The 
 logs were seized os cut on Crown Lands without a license. I have seen him 
 •ince. There was a Warrant of Survey sent to ntc, to execute of (his land where 
 Baker resides. It was in Samuel Nevcrs' name. Baker himself attended the 
 execution of the warrant, and directed the course of the lines. The privilege 
 was considered Baker's, but token in Nevers' name, as Baker was not a Biitish 
 •abject. I think (bis was abou( two years ago. 
 
 The evidence on the part of the prosecution having here closed ; the defen- 
 dant wos called upon for his defence. He addressed the Court nearly as fol- 
 lows : — 
 
 I am a citizen of the United States, and owe nllegiancc to that country. 
 1 have lately received my Deed from the States of Maine and Massachusetts. 
 I bold myself bound to their Courts. I live in American Territory, and hold 
 myself only liable to (he Courts of (hat place, being (he Couniy of Fcnobpcot 
 in the State of ."Maine. I enter on no defence, and call no evidence. I do 
 decline the jurisdiction of this Court. 
 
 The Defendant alluded to a letter he had in the course of (he (rial handed 
 to the Chief Justice, which was delivered to him; and he was informed he 
 ruight, if he chose, read it as part of his defence, but he declined doing so. 
 
 The Attorney General then addressed the Court and said; that as he had in 
 his opening stoted generally the nature of the case and evidence ; and the De- 
 fendiini had not made any defence; ho did not think it necessary, after so much 
 
APPENDIX. XV, 
 
 timeliad been taken up, and the evidence so fully gone into, to address the 
 Jury; but would merely read two or three authorities (which he did from 
 Starkie's Evidence, Comyn's Digest, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Arch- 
 boid's Ciim. Pleadings,) and then leave the case in the hands of the Court. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chipman charged the Jury. He Sjegan by stating the Indict* 
 ment and Plea, the general nature of the offence, and the proofs requisite to 
 support the charge. He stated that the body of the offence was the conspi- 
 racy, llie combir;ing and confederating toge{i.er with the intent laid in the In- 
 dictment. In the present case, the intent charged, was to bring into coniernpt thtt 
 King's authority, to spread false opiiiions among his Majesty's sul>jecto as to his 
 power and prerogative over them, and, in fact, completely to unsettle tlieic 
 minds as to their allegiance to the Government under which they lived. This 
 mind and intention must be made manifest by overt acts. It was usual, though 
 held not to be absolutely necessary, to set forth overt acts in the Indictment, 
 but if from the facts proved in evidence, the Jury should be satisded that the 
 defendant Baker, now on trial, did combine and confederate with one or both 
 of the other defendants named in the Indictment, with the intent imputed to 
 them, that would be sufficient to make up the ( "ance. Ar the essence of the 
 crime was the combining, two persons at the least must be engaged in it. 
 The Judge then stated that before going into a consideration of the evidence, 
 he would dispose of the ground which the defendant hati set up, wh°n called 
 on for his defence; which was that the place where the acts were co.iimitted 
 was in the Territory of the United States, and that he, "he (iti>>^T\i]-i>it, wfc.s 
 not amenable to the Laws, or subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of this 
 Province. The Judge then stated that the question as to the nation.!' right 
 to this Territory, now well known to be in controversy, is one which tiiis 
 Court is utterly incompetent to enter into, and can have nothing to do with. 
 It is a matter of State to be settled between the two Nations, Great Britain 
 and the United States, to be dealt with by the Governments of the two Coun- 
 tries, atid not by this Court. This Court will only inquire whether the place 
 in question is actually in the possession, and under the jurisdiction and Laws 
 of this Province; and if so, the Court will maintain that jurisdiction, and 
 continue the exercise and protection of those Laws, until some Act of the 
 King's Government shall effect a change. There can be no stronger evidence 
 of the possession of country than the free and uncontrolled exercise of a juris- 
 diction within it ; and the Court is bound by its allegiance to the Crown, and 
 its duty to the King's subjects, to act upon this, which it considers as the 
 only principle truly applicable to the case. This principle has already been 
 acted upon in this Province. 
 
 The learned Judge then referred to the case of the sloop Falmouth, adjudged 
 in the Court of Vice-Admiralty of this Province many years ago, [I8UG]. 
 He stated this to have been the case of a seizure by a British Officer, of an 
 American vessel lying in the waters of Pussamaquoddy Bay, for lading h^r cargo 
 within this Province; no foreign vessel at that time being admissible into ifie 
 ports of these Colonies. The Counsel for the prosecution in that case went 
 at large into tlie question of right to all the Islands in that Biiy. undei the pro« 
 visions of the Treaty of 178.3; and contended, that by virtue of the Treaty, 
 all these Islands, including Moose, Dudley, and Frederick Islands, then in the 
 actual possession of the United States, of right belonged to Great Britain; 
 and that no foreign vessel could lawfully lade a cargo in any part of that B.iy. 
 But the learned Judge of that Court at that time, now one of the Judges of 
 this Court, (Mr. Justice Botsford,) in pronouncing judgment, would not enter 
 into the question of right to th2 Islands, which he considered a matttr of State 
 for the two Governments to decide upon ; but finding the three Islands before 
 named to be under the actual possession and jurisdiction of the United Stales, 
 he applied the principle of the law of Nations, applicable to a Water Boundary 
 between two different Countries, and directed his attention solely to the point, 
 
XVi. APPENDIX. 
 
 — \Vhf(her (he vcisei la>leJ her ctr^o on the Uiiciih lid* of > tniilJIe liiitf 
 drawn between theie Itlatid*, thus in the poiieftion of llie I'uited Slatet, 
 and the Hritith Inland* opposite. It thut appenrt that rhia doririnc of lakinK 
 the actual Hate of lhir>{{s as we fitid-xhim, and applyins the luw accordingly, 
 has been already acted upon in ihi« Provinci*, in an instance where it was 
 favourable to (Citizens of the United Stales ; and the Court !>«« no henitatinn 
 in Bpplyin({ the same doctrine, which it considers the true doctrine, to the 
 present case. It is to be obserreil, that the dtfenrlant, in the prenent cast-, 
 has given no evidence whatever of the place in question bL-ing in the posse^- 
 aion or under the jurisdiction of the United Slater; that he does not appear 
 to be in any respect an Agent of tli«t Government, or acting utiderils autliori* 
 ly ; and that what has been done mu<t be considered as hrin^r oltogelher the 
 acts of unauthorized individuils. The place where the irniisuciion occurred, 
 ffoes by the general name of the Madawaska settlement ; and if this seitle- 
 roent shall appear to be, in point of fact, under the jurisdiction nf this Province, 
 the case must receive the same consi'ieration, and the conduct of the defendHnt 
 be viewed in the same light, as if the nets complained nf had boin commiiied 
 in any other part of the Province, one hundred miles further down on the Uivec 
 St John, or even in this town of Kredeiicton. 
 
 The learnt-d Judge then proceeded to read over the whole of the testimony 
 from his notes, commenting upon the scverHl par:* nf it as he went on. Ha 
 considered the overt acts as to hoittiig the FIh); of the United Sttlet), with 
 the express intention of aubrctting Uriiisili authority, as most distinctly and 
 fully proved, and asked what more unequivocal iridiration there could be, of 
 an intention to bring the King's (lovcrnmcni into cnnlempr, nnd of unsetllinjf 
 the administration of the Laws of the Province, than the ereclirjj of a foreign 
 Standard with this dtciartd purpo»i-. NV ih respirt to ilia trun^iriion with 
 the Postman, he directed the Jury, that if they considered the act of the defen- 
 dant in this instanrc to have proceeded from the combinmion and confederacy 
 to subvert the King's authority, the defendant was properly cimrgcd wiilt 
 them under this Indictment; fcnd thnt in forming their judgment of this and 
 all the other fact<i detailed in evidence, they should take into view all the 
 coincidences of time, of place, and of action, in determining the ch iriicter of 
 the several transactions. With respect to the written agreement by whirh 
 they bound themselves to resist the Hritish Laws, he tho<ii.'ht that was sulli- 
 ciently proved with ref^ard to the American citizens; but it was not made 
 out in proof thai this was the saroe paper which was handed to the French 
 aeitlers. But the learned Judge raid that he could not admit of any distinction 
 in this respect between aliens being under the jurisdiction and protection of 
 the British Laws, and natural born siibjecls. Tlie former owe n local allegiance, 
 and what would be a breach of the Laws by the one, would be equally so by 
 the other. 
 
 The learned Judge, in closing, stated, that if in detcrmininjr the present 
 case, this Court was undertaking to enter upon a question of a conflict of rights 
 between the two natifins, it mi;jbt be diiposed to approach it with a degree of 
 trepidation. But this case was ahoirether unembarrassed by any such consi- 
 derations. It presented a chain of evidence of clear possession and undistufbed 
 ed jurisdiction on the part of this Province, from the period of ite 6rRt erection 
 to the present time ; a spare of more than forty years. One of the oldest 
 inhabitants in the Madawaska settlement had proved that he removed thither 
 from the lower part of this Province, forty years ago; that he and all the set- 
 tlers there, always considered themselves as living under this Government, 
 It is also proved that these inhabitants have received grants of land from this 
 Government; and have from the becinning been enrolled in the Militia; thnt 
 they have voted at Elections for the County of Voik ; have applied to the I'lo- 
 vinciul Courts for rediess in all suits at Law ; ond have uniformly exer- 
 cised all the privileges, and been subfct to ail the duties of other inha- 
 bitants of the Province; excepting only that the SberilT stales, that he 
 
APPENDIX. XVll. 
 
 {las not Bummoned tliem to nttend on Juries at Fredeticton, liy reason of 
 tlieir great distance ; but he expressly declares that he has alwnys been in the 
 habit of serving writs throughout the whole of that settlement, as much as in 
 any other part of his bailiwick. It appears also, that the defendant Baker consi- 
 dered himself as livinp^ within the territory, and under the jurisdiction of this 
 Province; that he applied to Mr. Morehouse, the provincial Magistrate, for 
 processes to recover his debts from inhabitants in the Madawaska settlement; 
 that he received the provincial bounty for grain raised on new land, which fliere 
 ran be no question is the land on which he now resides; and this on his own afllda- 
 vit, stating himself to be .John Baker, of the parish of Kent. It further appears 
 that he attended a provincial Surveyor iu laying out tiiis very land, for which 
 n warrant of survey, under the authority of the Province, was in a course of 
 execution ; giving directions as to the course of the lines, the grant being in- 
 tended for the benefit of Baker, although it was to be taken in the name (if 
 Nevers, a British subject. Baker himself also had an intention of being 
 naturalized, and stated to one of the witnesses, Mr. George West, that he had 
 resided the necessary time, and wished to know what other steps were neces- 
 sary for this purpose ; this conversation taking place on the spot where he lived, 
 at the head of tlie Madawaska settlement, and at a time when logs cut by him 
 had been seized as being cut on crown lands without license, and Baker claimed 
 to be dealt favourably with by reason of his residence within the Province, 
 and liis intention to become naturalized. The learned Judge also stated, that 
 it appeared from the evidence, that there was no line of division to be drawn 
 between any parts of that whole settlement, as to the possession and exercise 
 of jurisdiction by this Province ; that he could not imagine any principle upon 
 which any sucli line of division could be made ; that one of the witnesses spoke 
 of the settlement having, when he first knew it, commenced seven miles above 
 the Great Falls ; that it had since extended downwards to within two or three 
 miles of these Falls. It had also been gradually extending upwards, and all the 
 inhabitants in every part of it were equally under the jurisdiction of this Pro- 
 vince, and entitled to the benefit and protection of its laws: and if they were 
 to be transferred from this jurisdiction and protection, it must be by some act 
 of the King's Government, competent for that purpose. 
 
 The learned Judge with these observations left the case to the Jury, directingf 
 them to consider it in the same light, and to give the defendant the benefit of 
 the same considerations that they would in the case of any other inhabitant of 
 the Province. 
 
 The Jury then retired from the box; and after about an hour's deliberation, 
 returned into Court with a Verdict of GUILTY. 
 
 The Defendant was then required to enter into recognizance to appear on 
 Monday next, to receive the Sentence of the Court. The same bail was 
 accepted as before, in the same amount. 
 
 The Attorney General stated to the Court, that he should enter a nolle 
 prosequi, on the ex-officio information which liad been filed against the defen- 
 dant ; and also on the Indictment which had been found against John Baker 
 and six others, for a riot ; so far as regarded the present defendant. 
 
 The witnesses were informed their further attendance would not be required. 
 
 Klonday, IStli May, 1838. 
 
 The Defendant, JOHN BAKER, appearing to receive Sentence, the 
 Attorney Gknerai, addressed the Court ns follows : 
 
 Jflay it pjease \''our Mottofs ; 
 
 John Baker, the defendant at the bar, having been indicted and found 
 guilty of a conspiracy to excite sedition and disaffection to the Government of 
 this Province, to resist the execution of the Laws, and to bring into contempt 
 the Royal Power and Prerogative within the Territory lying near the Mada- 
 waska River, under the actual Sovereignty of His Majesty, and within the 
 jurisdiction of this Court; it is my imperative duty to move that judgment 
 may be passed upon him for this offence. 
 
 3 
 
tVllI. APPKNDfX. 
 
 I( it not try aim, in any thini; I may addrr** to your fTonori, (o rail for anv 
 afvt-rer punijlimt-iit than the Court rnay tietm abioluirly rirrr»»Hry. Imiffil it 
 i* rnihir with a contrary inlfntion I have tiow riim. '1 hut ihe defindarit 
 •liould be punished it nrrratary ; hit oflTrnre rrquirt-a it; he nmy aUo be rauitht 
 »ul>jrrrioii to the la\ri under which he liifniieif has tnugi)t and found prolrction 
 ■lid relief, »o loop at he rrmoink within their rrarli. It it further necetiRry, 
 that the othcrt of whom he appear* leader, may learn from this example, thsi 
 tliey will not he permitted, wiih impunity, to het themsclvet in array against 
 the OoTernmrnt ; but more than all, it is requitiie to latiify the proceablr aiid 
 lioneit tetilcn at the Madawa»ka that tl.ey will be protected in thcii per«oirt 
 and properl'et, to long at ilit Majetiy acknuvvltdges (hem a* iiihjccti ntidint 
 within hit dnminiont. 
 
 The dtfendaril mutt hare undertland"njf «iiflicient In tec wlinf conteqHriicet 
 tkil! ineviiabiv follo\T from acti tuch as have been proved acnin^C him, nnlett 
 rhecked in time. He cannot, indeed 1 think no person, nf whatever country 
 lie may be, could entenain a doobi of the propriety of the verdiri : the evi- 
 dence wai irretitdble, and the full consciou«neti of what ihii would be, liat, I 
 conceive, influenced the defendant in the cour«c he hat adopted : he denied the 
 juiiidiction of the (.'ourt which he knew muH convict him. 
 
 He attrrit, however, that to acknowle(t|;e it, would he contrary to iha 
 allegiance he owet to the United Statrt, and the 'J'errifory whtre the acit were 
 done, to be within the jurisdiction of the count of Maine. 
 
 That there may noi he the tl'ghtett mitappreheniinn of the principlet on 
 which ihit proteiution it conducted, 1 distinctly admit, that for whatever 
 crime he mav have committed in Hiiy place nnder the juritdiclion and loverrignty 
 c>f the United fciaict, the defendant cannot lie called to account here; noi 
 lliough it were a personal injury of the hi^heiil nature done to a Krilith aiib- 
 ject ; not thoufjh he himtelf were ■ Rritish tuhject ; neither, indeed, had he 
 perpetrated the crime here and etraped thither, could he he arretted and brought 
 back bv any authority of ihit Provincp ; when once within the limits of therr 
 juritdiction, he is tafe from nil power but thcirt. If thv acta were committed 
 out of (hit jurisdiction, it i« mutter of defence on the trial, of which a defendant 
 may avail himself without being involved in any difficulty at to his allegiance. 
 This question may arise in every country, but evidence such at was given in 
 this case, can never be made null by the mere protestation of the nccused. 1 
 did not, it it true, lay before thii Court the treaties between (ireat liiituin and 
 the United Sta'et ; and call on your honors to murk the houndury on the map ; 
 this is not the tribunal before which the parties have come to have this adjuat* 
 ed, and by whose decision they aeree to be bound. Hut I did bring forward 
 many wiinesses of unexceptionable character, from their tituationt most cog- 
 nizant of the f jctt, who proved an uninterrupted exclusive exercise of sovereignly 
 ■nd jurisiliction over the .Mtdjwaska settlement. 
 
 The United States claim ihc territory, but it hat never actually been 
 withdrawn from the King't dominion; the claim is resitierl : each government 
 asserts iti right, ind each admits the possibility of a decision adverse to its 
 claim. It is submitted to a third Power; who certainly will not be influenced 
 liy any unauthorized act of either party, in determining the meaning of a treaty, 
 nearly half a century old, refirring to the natural features of the country. 
 While this is pending, are both governments to exercise n concurrent jurisdic- 
 tion over the territory? oris there to be none ? or is it to be that of the 
 United Slates ? If the first is the correct lule, we should still claim the right 
 to punish ofl'ences, particularly such as were calculated to oust our jurisdiction 
 altogether: but the idea of two distinct sovereignties, one Monarchical, the 
 other Republican : two sets of laws, one administered at Fredeiicton, the other 
 at Penobscot ; peaceably binding the same place at the same time, is loo pre- 
 posterous to be seriously maintained. No civilized nations can allow that a coun« 
 try lying between them, and claimed by both, should be without rule or law ; 
 where everv crime might be committed with impunity ; and which would 
 
APPENDIX. XLJt. 
 
 afford fi sanctuary for the criminals who might estMps thither from either ; fur 
 sio legal warrant could there arrest them. To admit such a principle, would 
 be at once to say, that every act of sovereignty and jurisdiction which has been 
 exercised over the various places left in dispute by the Treaty of 1783, is un- 
 fluthorised and void, so lonu; as the true bounds remain undefined. I have said 
 thus much on this point, because, though the defendant does not rest on it, ha 
 must I conceive, to make out his excuse, be driven to adopt it; for what pos- 
 sible reason can be urged for now transferring the jurisdiction to the State of 
 Maine? Is there any argument in support of her claim, which will not with 
 at least equal force maintain that of Great BritarTn ? Or is it to be left to 
 every accused person to select the ji!ris({ictioM he likes best: at one tune that 
 of New Brunswick, another, Maine ? His Hi)nour Mr. Justice ChipjiaN has 
 already adverted to a case where the Couils of this Province gave to American 
 citizens the benefit of this doctrine; but have not the United States practically 
 uphehl the same ? 
 
 Before the true Sr. Ooix was ascertained, there was a large territory in dis- 
 pute, part u?ider the sovereignty of one government, and part under that of tha 
 other; but was it attempted to subvert the jurisdiction of this Province over 
 St. Andrews and a large part of Charlotte County, or that of the United State§ 
 over the country lying to the westward of the Scudiac, or between the branches 
 of that river? 
 
 The defendant perhaps relies on his character of an American citizen for ii 
 JHsfification. 
 
 If I could for a moment believe he was actuHled by any conscientious fet-ling 
 of patriotism ; that his natural allegiance wnrmed his breast and stirred him up 
 to defy this gorernment ; however I might deprecate his acts, I might in some 
 sort, respect his motives ; but the whole tenor of his conduct is at variance with 
 Fuch fine feelings. He may seek shelter under the cloak of patriotism, but 
 the sacred name of country should not be pnllutcd, in order to furnish excuses 
 for acts and actors like the defendants in this Indictment; particularly the one 
 now here. The easy tenure of the land where he has seated himself; the (res 
 range through the forest for supply to his mill; escape from arrest for the 
 large sums he owes to British subjects; the popular applause he may hope to 
 maintain among a portion of his countrymen, will I think be found the moving 
 springs ; or, it may be a worse motive ; such as was alluded to by one of his own 
 confederates; that restless spirit which actuates unprincipled men of desperate 
 fortunes to long for troublesome times. The circumstance of his being uii 
 American born, cannot alter the case ; as he intended to be, and considered 
 himself in New Brunswick; he had been some time at the Bay of Chaleur; 
 after he moved to the Madawaska, was desirous of becoming naturalized as n 
 British subject; inquired the requisite steps ; (and it could be proved, if one of 
 the witnesDss had not been absent from the Province, was ready to take the 
 most serious one;) he claimed and enjoyed the benefit of such a disposition; 
 held himself under our laws ; applied to them for the recovery of his own rights; 
 and, in short, was as much a subject, for the time, as if he had been born and 
 lived in this place; swore to the land as part of New Brunswick, after culti- 
 vating it as such ; and assisted in running out the lines under a warrant of 
 survey from His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor, in order that a grartt 
 might pass, which thou,!jh not in his name, the Surveyor says would have been 
 for his benefit : If then the jurisdiction io to be determined by the national 
 character of the defendant's possession ; are not the acts which have been 
 proved unequivocal marks of its beiiig British rather than American ? He 
 sees it in this light liimself ; he fixes a lime for changing it ; hoists the Ameri- 
 can flag; and he arid his confederates pour out their libations under it ; urnl 
 without the least authoriry from their Government, utter a new act of 
 independence for Madawaska, and bind themselves lo give defiance to (ireat 
 Britain, declaring they should be supported because thty ought to be. Is not 
 this a plain confession that the Biiiiab Govemmenl was in force, and soniB 
 
XX. APPENDIX. 
 
 art WA( re'fuireJ to drtermint it? C«n cbe United States allow the raliJii/ 
 of acts like iheie, or will diry upon priiiriple (uffer the qiiettion of tnvrrei^'irjr 
 •rid jurisdiction to depend on the b.inner a few unauthurizod inil^viduHls m.iv 
 rlioote to ditpliiy, or the document they may choose to tulinctibr ? Anoihcr 
 prrinn may ljuy the land from tite drfenddnt tomorrow, and iruke prorUmu- 
 lion for re-establishing; the Uriiith law* under the ensign of Ki'^land. The 
 ttatement* of the witnetset mutt be to fuliy in the recuilectiun uf your Honora, 
 that It will not be nrrestary for me to repeat them; tiierc never wa» pi-rhiipi u 
 more wanton and unprovoked outra(;e; or a con«pirary more deliberately 
 planned and acted on. Whatever consequencet may ensue, I frel fully con- 
 vinced, and were it with my Ust lircnth I should say so, that it was nccea>ary 
 to rairy on this prosecution. If this had passed without notice, the ifeftndiinti 
 would have persisted, and urged to tlie Nluduwaskt icttters the limidiiy or im- 
 beciliry of this Government, as an inducement for their putting; lhemi>elves undrr 
 the ; n of a state more able or wiliiiii; to defttid them. There was no 
 
 alttr: . ;wcrn biingin^ this man to trial, and yieldiii(; up, in cflVcr, the 
 
 iorerei){nly, jurisdiction atid possession of the Mudnwuftka. We need not 
 iheiefore ba surprised at the protest a(;ain«t the power of this Court, and the 
 clamour raised in his behalf. \N'hat has passed I h'>pe will prevent u recur- 
 rence : the dffendnnt is a man of some years, and haa khown a sense of pro- 
 priety by hi* respectful demeunour towards the Court. I should urj^e him to 
 rrflect orr hi« conduct. I a^k not any severe punishment ; the dcft-iidant has 
 already snfTircd a loin; itnprisoiunfni ; and hns come some dis'iince to Httcnd 
 (he trial ; he was (li»rharj;ed also from a civil suit urulcr the confined dcbinrs 
 act ; I must therefure suppose him uoHble to pay a very iar|;e fine. I have 
 already usid the discreliotr vested in me, in his favour, by di^confiruiinif 
 tiie other prosrcutinns against him, and I should be ^lod to nhow him dml ilia 
 exercise of our laws is characterised by mildness as well as firmness. 
 
 The Defendant beiru a^ked whchcr he had any thin;; to say in mitigation, 
 Bddre»sed the Court to the followinjf tlTiCt : — 
 
 That having been brought here i«nd made amenable to tho jurisdiction of 
 this Court, bo mhs bound to submit ; hu bad nutliin^ parliculur to ur|;<>, and no 
 BfGJnvit to produce ; there were cirruniktnnci-s, ulitcli if be couM be able to 
 brin;: fonvar.l, n)i;,'lit be of usi-, but a* be was not prepan-.l wi'.li nil, he con!«i- 
 dered it not worth while to adduce uuy proof; hu kubmiUed biruself to tha 
 consideration of the Cosrt. 
 
 His Honor .^Ir. Justice Dliss then proceeded to pass ccnlcnce to the fol- 
 lowing tfftct ; — 
 
 Thai the iJefeDrl.int, John I3aher,\\ai been indicted by tho Grand Jury of the 
 County of Vurk, fura seditious con>pir.-icr, committed liy him and others witi>iu 
 the Jurisdicliun of this Court; to which he had pleaded not guilty ; ul!c;,'in{f 
 ut the same lime, that be did not consirier himself amenable to the proces^i of 
 the Court, bein^ a citizen of the United Slates, and that the offence chari;ed 
 was coniinilted in their territory ) but the Court could not admit this t« be the 
 case, it appoarinif clearly lli«t the .Maibiwask.i settlement, where the offence 
 was coniinilted, had been from the fifst erection of the Province hilherto, 
 under our laws and subject to our juriidiction ; and a^lfr n very fair and full 
 iiiveslijjalion of the ca*e, be, the defendant, haJ been convicted by a Jury ol tha 
 country, and it now remained for the Court to pass their sentence upon him 
 for (hisofTeoce: in doin? which their object was to treat him with that lenity 
 which, so f.ir as was consistent with the ends of j-istice, was uniformly extended 
 to hia Majesty's subjects ; and allboujh the Court considered tho crime of which 
 the defendant had been I'ound guilty, of n very n^j^ravated nature, they have 
 had rei^ard to his previous Ion;,' imprisonment; and their olject beint; to secu'e 
 the future peace of the country, and not to pass a vindictive sentence personally 
 "gniost himself, they had awarded the punishment accordingly ; and did sen- 
 tence him to be imprisoned in the common (faol of tho County of York, fur 
 the term of two calender months, and to pay a fine of £'2j to the King', and 
 remain committed uutil ihe&ne be paid. 
 
NO. Ill, 
 
 [From the FraJerktoa Royal Gazette, October 19, 1831.] 
 
 Of the Trial of Barnabas Hannawell, Jesse Wheeloctc, and 
 Daniel Savage, before the Supreme Court of the Province 
 of New-Brunsv/ick, at Fredericton, on Saturday the 15th 
 October, 1831 ; being in Michaelmas Term, in the second 
 year of the Reign of King Wilm.ui the Fourth. 
 
 SIPKEJIE COURT. 
 
 ."flichaeltnas 'Stents, Zd ^W*illiani If*. 
 
 On Thursday the 13th October, in this Term, the Grand Jury for the County 
 of Yoik preseiiiefi a Bill of Indictment against Barnabas Haimavvell, John Baker, 
 Walter Powers, Jeisse Wheeiock, Daniel Savage, Randal Harford, John Haiford, 
 Nathuiiicl Bartlett, Augustiii Webster, and Amos Mattocks, as follows. 
 
 SUPREME COURT. 
 
 0/ Michaelmas Term, in Ihe second ijear of the Reign of King William 
 
 the Fourth. 
 York, to-ivit. 
 
 1st. The Jurors fur our Lord the Kinrr, upon their oath, present, tliat Bur- 
 nabas Hannawell, late of the Parish of Kent, in the said County of York, 
 labourer, John Baker, late of the same place, labourer, Walter Powers, late 
 of the same place, labourer, Jesse Wheeiock, late of the same place, labourer, 
 Daniel Savage, late of the same place, labourer, Randal Harford, late of the 
 same place, labourer, John Harford, late of thesaine place, labourer, Nathaniel 
 Bactlett, late of the same place, labourer, Augustin Webster, late of the same 
 place, labourer, and Amos Mattocks, late of ihe same place, labourer, beinjr 
 pernicious and seditious men, and greatly disaffected to our Lord the now Kinjj 
 and his government, within this His Mnjesty's Province; and also of unquiet 
 and turbulent dispositions, and devising, practisinj^, and falsely, unlawfully, 
 unjusily, maliciously, turbulently and seditiously intending to disturb, molest, 
 and disquiet the peace of our said Lord the now King, and the public tranquil- 
 lity of this His !NI.ijesiy's Province of New-Brunswick ; and, as much as in 
 them lay, to move, stir up, and procure sedition within the same ; and to sub- 
 vert llis said iVLijestj/'s authority/ within the same, and to set up and estab- 
 lish a Foreign Power and dominion in place thereof; they the said Barnabas 
 ll.innawell, John Bdker, Walter Powers, Jesse Wheeiock, Daniel Savage, 
 Randal Harford, John llarford, Nathaniel Bartlett, Augustin Webster, and 
 Amos Mattocks, to fulfil, perfect, and bring to effect, their most wicked, de- 
 testable ufid seditious intentions aforesaid, on the twentieth day of August, in 
 the second year of the reign of His Majesty the now King, William the Fourth, 
 by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, 
 King, Defender of the Faith, &c. ; and at divers other days and times, as well 
 before as after, with force and arms, &c., at the Parish of Kent, in the said 
 County of York, iiulawfuliv', u'ljustly, maliciouily and seditiously did assemble, 
 
xxn. ArrcNDix. 
 
 roeef, conspire «nJ confeJtrtte ihemiflve* logetbir, ■tid with dirert olhrr 
 eril di»po»ecl «uhjfct« of our laid Lord ilic Kmj, to the Juror* «fore««id un- 
 known, and with the same did treat of an<i conrernini; the executinjf, perfccf- 
 in|;, and brin(;in(r to effect their wicked and seditious compas»ing<i, imasiiia- 
 lion*, and purpo<:ei aforeuid. 
 
 2d. And the Juror* aforesaid, on their oath aforesaid, do further present 
 that the aaid Uarnabaa Hannawcll, John Baker, Walter P.iwer*, Jcsse NVhec- 
 lock, Daniel Savage, Randal ilarford, John Harford, Nathaniel Bartletf, An- 
 (fuitin NVebiter, and Amo* Mattock*, further to fulfil and hrinar into efffCt their 
 moit wicked, detettable, and seditious dcviro*, practices and intention* afore- 
 said, then and there, to-wit, on the twentieth day of Aueust aforesaid, in the 
 a«cond rear of the rrijjn of our said Lord the now Kinjf af orcsnid, and at dirert 
 Other days and limes, a« well before as after, at the Parish afiircsaid, in the 
 County aforesaid, with force and arnos, &c., unlawfully, maliciously, and aedi- 
 (iously, did consult, counsel, conspire, and confederate to disturb the public 
 tranquillity of the Prorince, then and thereunder the pretended authority of a 
 certain instrument or paper, purportinjf, as thev declared, to be nn net of tha 
 Legislature of a foreign jtoTernment called ilie Stale of Maine, and one of iho 
 United Stales of America, and of a certain other instrument or paper, in wri- 
 tinjf, purporting to be as they deciarrd, a warrant under the hand and seal of a 
 person by the name of William l). Willinmson, ns n Justice of the Peace for 
 the said foreign government of the said Slate of .M«ine, did elect and choo«o 
 from amoni; themselrei the said Barnabas Mannnwell, John Baker, Walter 
 Powera, Jesse Wheelock, Daniel Savage, Rand;il Harford, John ilarford, Na- 
 thaniel Bartlett, Augu^tin Webster, and Amos Mnllock', so being then amj 
 there unlawfully, imju^ily, mal:ciou*!y,Bnil sediiioinly akseinbled together, cer- 
 tain persons to be and act as officers under the said foreign governmcnf, and 
 to execute and perform ilic duties ihrreof as such officers under the said foreign 
 government of the said State of Maine, there to-wit : in the said Pitrish of 
 Kent, in the said County of York, to-wit : the said Barnabas llannawell to a 
 certain ofTice under the title or denomination of Moderator; the said Jesse 
 Wheelock to a certain office under the title or denomination of Town Clerk ; 
 the said Amos Mattocks, Daniel Savage, and John Unrford respectively, to 
 oflices under the title and denomination of Silcct Mm ; nnd the said Handal 
 Harford and Barnabas Hannawell, respectively, to office under the till" and 
 denomination of Consfablec ; nnd did then and there unlawfully, unjustly, ma- 
 hcioiisly. and seditiously administer or cnuse to be administered to the siiifl 
 Amos Mdttocki, D.miel Savage, and John Harford, as such Select Men, n cer- 
 tain oath of olFice ; which same oulh of office was then and there by the said 
 Amos Mattocks, Daniel Savage, and John Harford, received and taken. 
 
 3d. And the Jurors aforesaid, on their OHih aforesaid, do further present 
 that the said Barnabas Hnnnawell, John Baker, Waller Powers, Jesse Whee- 
 lock, Daniel Savage, Randal Harford, John Harford, Nathaniel Bartlett, Au- 
 gustin Webster, and Amos Mattocks, further to fulfil nnd bring into efl'ect 
 their most wicked, detcsialile and seditious devices, practices nnd intentions 
 aforesaid, then nnd there to-wit, on the twentieih duy of August aforesaid, in 
 the second year of the Reign of our said Lord the now King, and at divers 
 other days and times, as well before as after, at the Parish aforesnid, in the 
 County aforesaid, with foice nnd arms, ^c, unlawfully, maliciously and sedi- 
 tiously did consult, counsel, conspire and confederate, to disturb the public 
 tranquillity of the Province, and then and there giving out nnd pretending to 
 act by authority of a foreign government, to-wit: the State of Maine, one of 
 the United States of America, and of one William I). Williamson, ns a Justice 
 of the Peace of and for the said forci>;n government, did elect and choose from 
 among themselves, the said Barnabas Hannawell, John Baker, Waller Powers, 
 Jesse Wheelock, Daniel Savage, Randal Harford, John Harford, Nathaniel 
 Bartlett, Augustin Webster, and Amos Mattocks, so being then and thera 
 unlawfully, unjustly, maliciously and seditiously asicinblcd together, certain 
 
APPENDIX. XXni. 
 
 persons to be and act as officers, under the said foreign government, and to 
 exercise and perform the duties thereof under the said foreign government, 
 there, to-vvit : in the said Parish of Kent, in the said County of York, to-wit : 
 —the said Barnabas Hannavveii, to be a certain officer under the said foreign 
 government, by the title of Moderator; the said Jesse Wheelock, to be a cer- 
 tain officer under the said foreign government, by the title of Town Clerk ; 
 the said Amos Mattocks, Daniel Savage, and John Harford, respectively, to 
 be officers under the said foreign government, by the title of Select-Men; and 
 the said Randal Harford and Barnabas Hannavveii to be officers under the said 
 foreign goverment, by the title of Constables ; and did then and there unlaw- 
 fully, unjustly, maliciously and seditiously administer or cause to be adminis- 
 tered to the said Amos Mattocks, Daniel Savage, and John Harford, as such 
 Select-Men, an oath of office, v\'hich same oath of office was then and there by 
 the said Amos Mattocks, Daniel Savage, and John Harford, received and 
 taken. 
 
 4th. And the Jurors aforesaid, on their oath aforesaid, do further present, 
 that the said Barnabas Hannawell, John Baker, Walter Powers, Jesse Whee- 
 lock, Daniel Savage, Randal Harford, John Harford, Nathaniel Bartlett, Au- 
 gustin Webster, and Amos Mattocks, further to fulfil and bring into effect 
 their most wicked and seditious devices, practices, and intentions aforesaid, 
 then and there, to-wit, on the twentieth day of August aforesaid, in the said 
 Becond yeur of the reign of our said Lord the now King, and at divers other 
 days and times, as well before as after, at the Parish aforesaid, in the County 
 aforesaid, with force and arms, &e., unlawfully, maliciously and seditiously con- 
 sult, conspire and confederate to make disturbance, and did incite, iiivile, and 
 endeavour to persuade and induce the liege subjects of our said Lord the King, 
 then and there being, to take part with and join them the said Barnabas Han- 
 nawell, John Baker, Walter Powers, Jesse W^heelock, Daniel Savage, Randal 
 Harford, John Harford, Nathaniel Bartlett, Augustin W^ebster, and Amos 
 Mattocks, in electing and choosing certain persons to be and act as certain 
 officers, under the authority of the said foreign government of the State of 
 Maine, thereat the said Parish of Kent, in the said County of York. 
 
 5th. And the Jurors aforesaid, on their oath aforesaid, do further present, 
 that the said Barnabas Hannawell, John Baker, Walter Powers, Jesse Whee- 
 lock, Daniel Savage, Randal Harford, John Harford, Nathaniel Bartlett, Au- 
 gustin Webster, Amos Mattocks, further to fulfil and bring into effect their 
 most witked and seditious devices, practices and instructions aforesaid, then 
 and there, to-wit, on the twentieth day of August aforesaid, in the second year 
 of the reign of our said Lord the now King, and on divers days and times as 
 well before as after, at the Parish aforesaid, in the County aforesaid, with forca 
 and arms, &c., did unlawfully, maliciously and seditiously consult, conspire and 
 confederate to make disturbance, and did endeavour to persuade and induce 
 divers of the liege subjects of our said Lord the now King, then and there 
 being, to depart from and violate the allegiance which they the said liege sub- 
 jects owed to our said Lord the King, and to acknowledge themselves to bo 
 citizens and subjects of a foreign Government, to-wit : the Government of 
 the State of Maine, one of the United States of America. 
 
 6th. And the Jurors aforesaid, on their oath aforesaid, do further present, 
 that the said Barnabas Hannawell, John Baker, Walter Powers, Jesse Whee- 
 lock, Daniel Savage, Randal Harford, John Harford, Nathaniel Bartlett, Au- 
 gustin Webster, and Amos Mattocks, further to fulfil and bring into effect 
 their most wicked and seditious devices, practices and intentions aforesaid, then 
 and there, to-wit, on the twentieth day of August aforesaid, in the said second 
 year of the Reign of our said Lord the now King, and at divers other days 
 and times, as well before as after, at the Parish aforesaid, in the County afore- 
 said, with force and arms, &c., unlawfully, maliciously and seditiously, did as- 
 semble, meet, conspire, and confederate themselves together, to molest and 
 disturb the peace and common tranquillity of this Province, and to bring into 
 
XXIT. APPENDIX. 
 
 hatred iind contempt our laid Lord the Kin(; and Hit Goremmrnf, nrtd create 
 fiiUe opinions and kutpiciont in the mindi of the fultjecls of nur v.iiil Lord tlie 
 Kinp, of and concerninjj the Government of our suid Lord the King", and of 
 the Royal Power, I'reropaliro and Sorereignly of our »»ij Lord the Kintr, 
 within ihii Province, in very preal contempt (o our «aid Lord ilie Kinjj hiuI 
 to Hit Lnwt, the evil example of all oihert in the like cate olTending, and 
 ■gainst the peace of our taid Lord the Kin|;, Hit Crown and di(;nity. 
 
 CHARLES J. PETERS, Attorney General. 
 
 On the moiion of the Attorney General, the Defendants, Ilfirnahas Hanna- 
 well, Jetse Wherlork, and Diiniel Savage, who liad been nrrcsltil and were 
 then in confinement in the Gaol at Fredericton, for want of Hail, were bron;jlit 
 into Court, ard arraigned on the Indictment: to which ihcy tcverully p!ea<led 
 not pulify, and taid they were ready for their trial. The expeilirncy of etiferifijj 
 into recognizance to appear at the next Term and trnveree the Indirtment, lieiri){ 
 atated to the Drfendanti, they retireil for a few minutes into on oiljoining room 
 to connul: together, and on tlieir return, tlie defendant Barnabnn Hannnwi-ll 
 taid, that as he did not think tliat it would he in llieir power to prorure bail, 
 they were desirous the Iritl should proceed without delay. The ('ourt there- 
 upon appointed the ensuing Saturday for llie trial, at the same time intimating 
 that if the Dcfendunft were dctiroui to have the trial postponeil, it would be 
 quite open to them to do to at any time before the .lury were impannelled. 
 They then asked what security would lie required, and the Court determined 
 that the recognizance aliould be lli«mtclvet in .£100 each, ar.d two luretiei in 
 £50 each. 
 
 .(^Attiril*}-, 15(h October, 1S31. 
 
 PRKSHNT. 
 
 Hi* Honor The Chikf .Fusticb, 
 Mr. Juitice Bl.iss, 
 
 Mr. Justice RoTsrono, 
 Mr. Justice Cm I'M a"*. 
 
 On moiion of the Attorney General, the said Defendants, Darnnbai Hanna> 
 well, Jt-ise Whceiock, and Daniel Savage, were brought into Court by the 
 Sheriff — and being asked by the Court whether they were ready for their trial, 
 replied in the aflirmativp. 
 
 The Attorney General said that the Defendants being indicted for o mit- 
 demennor only, it was not according to the ordinary practice that their trials 
 should take place at the same Term ; and that for many reasons he thought it 
 desirable that the present case should stand over until the next Term ; that it 
 was the wish of the Crown Ofhcers to postpone it, but, that as the Defendants 
 were in custody, he was willing to comply with their request and proceed im- 
 mediately if they persisted in desiring it. 
 
 The Defendants again said, that as they did not think they could procure 
 the requisite security, they wished the trial to proceed. 
 
 The Attorney General then moved for trial, and intimated to the Defendants, 
 who conducted iheir own defence without the aid of ("ounsel, thot they might 
 challenirc any of the Jurors as they were called, for cause. 
 
 Donald M'Leod, one of the Jurors called, was objected to, and thereupon 
 sat aside. 
 
 No other objection was made, and the following Jurors were called and 
 sworn : — 
 
 George Nevcrs, .Tohn Russell, Robert Gownn, 
 
 James Tibbits, Holland Esty, William J. Etty, 
 
 James ("ameron, Asa Coy, Thomas Stewart, 
 
 William Miller, Thomas Gardiner, John Payson. 
 
 The Clerk of the Crown rend the Indiclmeut and tinted the pleat atid iitues 
 joioed thereon. 
 
 J 
 
1?PENDIK. Sxr. 
 
 The Attorxey Gexkh ai. opened the case on the part of the prosecution, and 
 stated luiefly and generally the 8ul)«tai)ce of the imiiotment and nature of tha 
 charge, and the evidence ijetiuisite to support it, that tlie main allegation was 
 that of conspiring and confederating together to subvert His Majesty's Go- 
 vernment in this Province. The defendants and others, in pursuance of this 
 design, had been guilty of various acts of sedition, particularly detailed in the 
 indictment, which would be fully proved by the witnesses he should call. 
 This was an ordinary indictment found by the Gratid Jury ; he should not 
 anticipate the grounds of defence, but leave the defendants to show, if they 
 could, any suffic'ent justification for their conduct. It would be thu duty of 
 the Jury to decide on the facts under the law, which would be stated to them 
 by the Court. 
 
 The Attorney General theft proceeded to call the wicnesses. 
 
 Leonard R. Coomhes, sworn and examined. — I know the defendants ; have 
 known defendant Wheelock ten or twelve years; have seen Hannawell some 
 years ago, but had no particular acquaintance with him till I went to Mada- 
 waska ; never saw Savage till I went there. Hannawell lives near John 
 Baker's mill, in tlie Madawaska settlement; Wheelock lives near the mouth of 
 the river St. Francis; Savage lives on the Fish River, which is a large stream 
 making in from the west side of the main river; I reside in the Madawaskti 
 settlement, on the east side of the river St. John, about 12 miles al»ove the 
 Grand Falls ; have lived there nearly two years, and am a Captain in tlie Militia 
 of this Province. H.aving heard that there was a notice posted up in the set- 
 tlement of a meeting to be held at Captain Peter Lizotte's on the 20th August 
 last, I set off on the morning of that day to go there : went up by water, 
 and stopped at Firman Thibideau's on the way, where I saw John Baker, 
 Amos Mattocks, John Haiford, and Randal Harford, and went in company 
 withj^hem to Captain Lizotte's. The three defendants were there, also Wal- 
 ter Powers and several other persons, among them Mr. Rice arid Mr. Beckwith, 
 and some of the French inhabitants. The intent of the meeting, as I under- 
 stood, and as was declared by some of the persons present, was to elect town 
 officers for Madawaska, under an act of the State of Maine. Captain Lizottw 
 called the Frenchmen out of the door, and spoke to them in French, which I 
 do not understand ; on his return i heard Walter Powers say, let us go into 
 the field and see what we can do thtre : he then went out to a cart which 
 stood in a field near the house^ and the defendants and the other Americans 
 went with him ; Mr. Rice and I also went. Walter Powers commenced l)y 
 taking out a book ; he said he had not his spectacles, and requested one of tlie 
 others, I think it was Webster, to read the corporation act. 1 asked Power* 
 by what authority he was going to read that act ; he replied under the autho- 
 rity of a warrant he had : I asked him to show me the warrant ; he said ha 
 would when lie hail read the act ; I replied, that he should not read the act 
 until he had shewn me the warrant; he hesitated about producing it, but did 
 so on my pltdfjing my honor (o return it ; he then shewed it to me, and I read 
 it and handed it to Mr. Rice to look at it. After seeing the contents of the 
 warrant, I told Powers that this was a part of the Province of New Brunswick, 
 and that, at all events, the British law was in force there; that the laws of 
 New Brunswick were those we depeiided on far our rights in any case; that 
 if he jiiould proceed, I should take the earliest opportunity of reporting if, and 
 have them dealt with according to law; that they might depend upon it the 
 British Government would not allow such acts to be carried on in that part of 
 the country ; that we were British subjects, and could not allow such proceed- 
 ings. They went on to read the act, and theii the warrant ; I think Webster 
 read them ; they were read under Powers' order. They then proceeded to 
 elect a Moderator; the election was l)y ballot, each writing on a piece of 
 paper, folding it up, and ihrovving ii into a hat ; the defendant, Barnabas Han- 
 tihwell, was declared by Pawers to be chosen Moderator, and then took charge 
 
 4 
 
XXVI. APPF.SDIX. 
 
 of ih^ meeting ill that capirily. I (hen rolJ Hannawe'.l he haJ better d(>tf<r, 
 ■« itie Uriliah (invernm<>nt would ptoceril a^jairist him; his rrply wan, I hiq 
 willipf; trery man should be pcrtuadctl in hit own mind : he then xaid l)f wna 
 tipclvd into an office, and his (Jovernroent would tupport him in it. Thfy 
 neit elected a Town (Merk, Select-men, and Constables : John Harfon), 
 Danirl Sarnge and Amos Maltork* were chosen «elect-men ; Jesse \\'heelock, 
 lown cleik ; lUnddl liMrford and Udrnabas Ilannnwell, constable*. Paul 
 Crock, otherwise called Paul Cere, one of the French, was the 6rsc chosen a 
 arlect-man ; I advited him not to act, and he thereupon declined. Homaine 
 Micheau, another Frencliman, was chosen a csnstalile, but he also, bv m^ ad- 
 vice declined. Thejr then proceeded to swear in the select •men. The same 
 peifons beinf; appointed Attcssars, I cannot say wbetlur theoaih was as asset- 
 aors or silect-men ; the oath was tend from a book, or a paper in a book ; the 
 form wa«, huldini; up iheir rijjht hands nnd bowing their heads. A roiivcrsa- 
 lion then took place between John lUker and myself, in the presence of the 
 parly, about the Oorernmrnis; Baker said their government had taken a stand 
 ■fid were not (jninjj to deviate from it ; I understood he meant tl)e State of 
 Mitine. He expressly denieil the authority of the British Gorernmrnt, and 
 said (hey considered themselres in the County of Penobscot, in the Slate of 
 Maine, one of the United Slates of America. Baker seemed iho most realout 
 of the whole; it is the same Hak< r wlio was tried here before; he was the 
 ehief spokesman, hut refufed at that time to take any office ; (he other Ame- 
 ricana seemed to acquiesce, but taid little; Baker and Poweis were the warm- 
 est; thedefendant H^nnawell said little or notbing till ho was chosen modera- 
 tor; he siiid he would tnke no part till he was put into ofTire ihnt would 
 indemnify him. About half the number present were of the rrcncli itihabi- 
 lanu: BAer tried litrd to persuade them to vote, and I tried hard to dissuade 
 them; I think it was the interference of iMr. Ilice and myself that prevented 
 the French from vot'ng. Peter Lizottc's house is on the western side of the 
 rifer, about two mile* below the chapel, and about 30 miles above the (JroHt 
 Falls : he is a Captain of the Militia of this Province : I have done duty with 
 him : he is an old man, to appearance upwards of 70. Baker lives on a point 
 of Innd called Baker's Point, near the junction of another rivci, on which ho 
 has a mill ; he is on the east side of ihe Iliver St. .lohn. 
 
 The wi/nett was then crott-exa mined by Ihe defendant Hannnwcll — He 
 was a^ked what Mr. Madauchlan, the British Accnt, had told him about the 
 line. [The question was objected to by the Attorney General, who stated 
 that he intended calling Mr. Madauchlan as a witness, nnd the defendants 
 would have on opportunity of examining him, and mijjhl, if they pleased, re-call 
 Mr. Coomhes ufrer Mr. Madauchlan was examined.] To other questioiia 
 put by ihe dtfendonf, the witness slated that lie ne»er knew of nny of the 
 defendants present ever m^ddlinp or interfering^ with the difFiciillies existing 
 before this; did not h»-ar them using any solicitations to the French, neither 
 did they inietferc with his protestine np:iinst the meeting: witness said he 
 did not address himself to ihcm ; Wnlter Powers was the only person who 
 opposed his making n protest ; he was the only one who spoke till IlannaweH 
 was chosen moderator: H.inna\ve!l never opposed witness in saying what he 
 likei to the French or English, neither did the other two defendants; never 
 knew any of the defendants resisting the execution of the British or Provincial 
 laws, except in this inslonce. 
 
 To a question from the Court, witness said he did not read the act till after 
 the meeting was over : to one put by a Juror, he said it was H..nnawell who 
 called them In come forward and tike the oath, which was adiiiinislcred by 
 Hannawell or Wheelock, but which of the two witness caimot say. 
 
 Francis Rice, Esq. sworn. — I know the defendants; have known Savage 
 four or five years ; Hani.awell better than three ; Whcelock about three years. 
 — About lv!(i) August, received information from .Mr. Obert that there was 
 to be a meeting at Ciptain Lizoile's hou»e on the 20(h : was told there was a 
 
APPENDIX. XXVll. 
 
 notice posted up at the house of Baptist Sousse, and went there and saw it. 
 1 went to the meeting at Peter Lizotte'a on the 20th August : the defendants 
 were all there; also Bartlett, John Baker, John Harford, Webster, and Mat- 
 tocks; also a number of French, about half. I understood the object was to 
 appoint town officers for Madawaska, as belonging to the State of Maine, one 
 of the United States of America. Walter Powers declared the object of the 
 meeting, and took the most active part. Captain Lizotte asked me, in tha 
 presence of the defendants, whether I thought there could be any harm in his 
 allowing the town meeting to be held in his house ? I replied, that as a Bri- 
 tish subject I should not allow it in my house; but that he was master there, 
 and might do as he thought proper. Captain Lizotte then left the room, and 
 I concluded, from what afterwards took place, that he had objected to the 
 meeting : they then assembled in a field near the house. Capt. Coombes, who 
 was present, asked Powers fur his authority: Powers banded him a paper, 
 which he read and handed to me. I asked Powers for a copy of the warrant 
 so shewn ; he said he did not know what right I had to demand a copy : I 
 fold him I would keep the original and send it on : he then concluded to let 
 me have a copy, which Igor, and sent to Mr. Maclauchlan. I am a Justice of 
 the Peace for the County of York, and in that capacity protested against the 
 meeting in the King's name, and required them to desist. Finding that the 
 Americans were determined to go on, I left them and went home. The place 
 where they met is in the Parish of Kent, in the County of York c Lizotte ia a 
 Captain of the Militia of the Province : I am a Captain and Adjutant, and have 
 acted with him. John Baker is the same who was tried here two or three 
 years ago ; he now lives on the same land lie then did. The Americans all 
 appeared to be acting in concert with the same purpose. The French settlers 
 attend the Militia trainings, and turn out as regularly qs the other inhabitants 
 of the Province. 
 
 Cross-examined by defendant Hannaivell. — I never knew of any of the 
 defendants to interfere with me as a magistrate, or take part in any of the dif- 
 ficulties which occurred previous to this time : have heard you say you were 
 in opposition to Baker and his proceedings; this was before the last meeting; 
 I never have been molested since the meetings, never knew or heard of any of 
 the defendants molesting any of the officers or magistrates of the Province 
 before or since the meetings. 
 
 Re-examined. — I speak of two meetings; there was a second meeting: at 
 their second meeting, Hannawell resisted me and bid me defiance, I think at 
 this meeting he endeavoured to influence the French. 
 
 Michael 7'ighe sworn. — I know the defendants, have known Wheelock and 
 Savage three or four years, and Hannawell two or three years, was present at 
 the meeting spoken of by Mr. Rice — the first meeting, I understood the object 
 of the meeting was to choose Town Officers under the Government of the State 
 of Maine ; Powers took the lead in the first instance, all three defendants were 
 present ; I have been in Court and heard the evidence of the other two witnesses, 
 believe what they have stated to be correct, can say nothing in addition. 
 
 Cross-examined by defendant Hannawell. — I did not hear of any of tho 
 defendants at the first meeting endeavour to influence the French. 
 
 Romaine Micheau called, but not speaking English, Francis Rice was 
 sworn as Interpreter, the witness was then sworn and examined. I know tha 
 defendants, have known them over three years, I have lived about throe 
 years and a half in Madawaska, on the west side of the River, near Green 
 River below the Chapel ; a paper was posted np at my door by John Baker; 
 a paper was then shown to the witness which he said was the same one so 
 put up; the paper was then read and was as follows : 
 
 NOTICE. 
 
 J^" By a Warrant to me directed, from W. D. Williamson, Esquire, in 
 the Counfy of Penobscot, and St^ite of Maine— This is to notify to the ii.hn^ 
 
xxviu. Arri.NDix. 
 
 hitaoik of ih* Town of ^Itddtrttk*, (jaalififd to vots in Town n(li\t», ro R«ten>- 
 lilr It (h« Hwelling hoiMC of Mr. Wier I. zoitr, nn Sanirdiiy 20(h itny of All|{ut^, 
 1831, at one o'clock in the uHernoon, to act on the following articles, viz : 
 
 1. To rhooie a Moderator of laid meciinj. 
 
 2. To choo«e a Clerk of (aid Town. 
 
 3. To choose Select-Men. 
 
 i. 'I'o chooja Cuniiablet and other Officcri. 
 
 WALTER POWERS. 
 
 Uy order of the aaid Juilice*. 
 I attended the meelinf; aitd waa chosen Conitable, liut declined to act. 
 
 Edward M'. MJJer, E*q. aworn. — I atn High Sheriff of (he ('ounty of 
 York, have been to tinre 1814, have lived in ihe Province over 40 year*, hare 
 nlway* confidercd the Madawaika ccttlemenC in my bailiwick, hftve contiantlj 
 executed the King's Process there, hav« taken the Toirs of the Inhabitania 
 there at Election*, have never met with any resistance or obstruction in iha 
 (•xecurion of my duty at all there, 1 know Capl. Ijz:;tte*s house, have always 
 considered it in the MaJawatka setiUmcnt, and within my bailiwick. 
 
 The Attornkv Genehai. here put in an Ksemplificniion, nndcr the Greni 
 Seal of the Province of Loiters Patent, dated Isl October, \~'.>0, grantinp to 
 Joseph Muzeroll and 48 others, bl several Lots in the district of Mmlawaska , 
 m the County of York, being IP>,~0'J acres, which was read. In this Grant 
 Lot No Ub IS (granted to Pierre Lizotte. 
 
 John Rebfrtt sworn. — Staled that he was a Clerk in the Surveyor General' 
 Office of llii» Province, in the drnftinjj drpuriroeiii ; that ii was within his de* 
 partment to have charjfe of the Papers, lie prodnceil u Hook containing the 
 original record of the plan of survey of the Land mentioned in the Grant to 
 .'o*eph Muzeroll and others, which he said came from among the Uecords m 
 the oflire. The plan wa^ put in. 
 
 Francis liurc recalled, the plan exhibited to him. Peter Lizotte lives on the 
 Lot called No. 1 5 granted to John Martin, bis house is within the limits of the 
 grant to Muzcrnll and other*, 1 am fjuife sure of it, Simon Aubcar, Junr. lives 
 on the Lot which wn* granted to Pierre L'zolle. 
 
 Peter Fratcr, Esq. sworn. I have lived in the Province since the year 
 1784, and nm acquainted with the Madawaska settlement, have been there 
 frequently, hove known some of the settler* «ince 1787 or 1788, have always 
 considered them under the Government of thi<i Province. I am Lieut. Col. of 
 the Mililia in the district of Madnwaska, and a Justice of the Peace for tho 
 County of York, and have been <o nearly '24 years, I was a member of the As- 
 sembly for the County from Ib09 to I8"27, the inhabitants of Madawneka have 
 voted at every election at which I was chosen, there was formerly a difficulty 
 in their voting on account of the Elertor's onth, as ihey were Catholics, this 
 M-BS removed by the Legislature, they lisve done Militia duty in the settlement, 
 Tarish Ofliucrs have been appointed there by the Sessions constantly, I have 
 known Captain Peter Lizotte since 17y'J or 3, he was a half brother of 
 Captain Duperrc, the founder of the Settlement, I know Captain Lizotte's 
 liouie, have been there, he has lived 14 or 15 years where he now lives to my 
 knowledge. 
 
 Jamrs A. Maclattchlan, Esq. sworn. — I liavo known the defendant llanna- 
 M-ell 7 or 8 years, he lived at the Oromocto when I fiist knew him, have known 
 the other two defendants two or three years, was not present at the meetings; 
 knows nothing of them except from correspondence. 
 
 Crostexntmncd bt/ defendant Hannawcll.—l have no recollection of talking 
 to the Mndawaska settlers and telling them I had orders not to interfere if the 
 Americans confined their proceedings to one side of the river. 
 
 Queitiiin hy dt-jendanl \Vheclock.—YS\^ you not tell Captain Coombes that 
 you had insiruilions from the Chief Justice of the Piovince, that if the Ame- 
 
APPENDIX. XXIX. 
 
 ricans eonfiiied their proceedings to one lida of the rirer, not to interfere 
 with them ? 
 
 The witness hesitated to answer the question, as he considered it improper 
 to mention the instructions he received while acting as an officer of the Go- 
 vernment, but on being informed that the question was a proper one, be must 
 nnswer it, said I do not recollect saying this to Captain Coombes, what I did 
 say was, that if the American agents conSned their proceedings to the western 
 side of the river I was to protest, and \ did protest ; this was before the 20tk 
 August ; by the American agents I meant Messrs. Dean and Kavanagh. 
 
 Re-examined. I saw Messrs. Dean and Kavanagh, they told me they had 
 instructions to take an account of the inhabitants, the property, houses and 
 other local information, but they had no authority and did not intend to use 
 any compulsory proceedings, all the information was to be given voluntarily, 
 I told them if they came on the east side of the river, I should take other 
 steps, meaning thereby I should prevent them by force, I conceive they under- 
 stood it in that sense also; with respect to the west side I protested against 
 their proceedings ; this was before any town meeting. I had no allusion to a?iy 
 euch meetings when I spoke of protesting only. I remained with Dean and 
 Kavanagh three days. 
 
 Henry G. Clapper, Esquire, sworn. I am Register of Deeds and Clerk of 
 the Peace for the County of York, have been so several years ; there have 
 been parish officers appointed for the district of Madawaska, as being in the 
 Parish of Kent, sometimes separately for the Madawaska, sometimes not, 
 there are a great many deeds registered in the Register's Office, of lands in 
 the Madawaska settlement, some as much as thirty or thirty-five years back, 
 the inhabitants of Madawaska have constantly applied for and received grain 
 bounty, and still receive it; John Baker received it for the year 1822. 
 
 The cau5e was here closed on the part of the prosecution, and the defendants 
 were informed they were at liberty to address the Court or Jury, and produce 
 evidence. 
 
 The defendant Wheelock, addressed a fewr words to the Court, the purport 
 of which was, that they were misled by the acts of the two officers, meaning 
 Messrs. Maclauchlan and Coombes, and concluded they were not doing wrong 
 80 long as they confined themselves to the west side of the river. 
 
 The defendants then recalled the witness Leonard R. Coombes — Examined 
 by defendant Hannawell. I had a conversation with Captain Maclauchlan at 
 the time that Messrs. Dean and Kavanagh came; he was at my house, and 
 said he was going in pursuit of Dean and Kavanagh ; he afterwards told me 
 that he said to these agents, that so long as they confined themselves to the 
 west side of the river in taking their assessment and account of the inhabitants, 
 and the like, he should not interfere with them, further than to protest against 
 their acts, except they e.\ercised an act of sovereignty ; I remember the defen- 
 dant Hannawell asking me what conversation Dean and Kavanagh had with 
 Mr. Maclauchlan; also that I told the said defendant that Mr. iVIaclauchlan 
 had said to me that he had called at the Chief Justice's on his way up, and 
 that the Chief Justice had recommended him, that as the matter was so near 
 a settlement,* not to interfere with them if they confined themselves to the 
 west side of the river, unless they exercised any act of sovereignty, and that 
 it was better to take no rash steps. I mentioned this to the defendants Savage 
 and Wheelock, before the first town meeting. 
 
 The defendants then put in evidence a book as containing the act of the 
 State of Maine, which was read at the first town meeting, and the original 
 warrant which had been also read ; no objection being made to their admission, 
 the act and the warrant were read, and are as follows : 
 
 » Tills was very toon after the promulgation of the decision of the Kins of tli« N«- 
 thcrlandi. 
 
XXX. ArrcNDix. 
 
 HIAPTKR 151. 
 
 An Act to incorporate tlie Town of MaJH\v«»kii, and fur otlii-r purpote*. 
 
 Approved March \5th, I S3 1. 
 
 Sec. 1. Be it cnactod by the Senate and House of HepreaentBtivct, in I.e. 
 gidature assembled, THhi the Territory known and called by the name of 
 Madawaska, in the Countifs of Madawaika and Penobscot, bounded a* foU 
 lows: — Ileginninjj on the boundary line Leiwpcn this Slate and the Province 
 of New Urutitwick, at the north east corner of the towiiship E. on (>reenleaf's 
 map, thence to and aoulh of the rirer St. John ; thence \reet by the north 
 !ine of Township F. and township K. to (he cast line of township numbered 
 tixteen, in the then range of town«.hip«, west of the east line of the Stale ; 
 thence north by :hc eait line of said Township nunnbered sixteen, to the north 
 east corner thereof; ihrnce west by the north line of Township* numbered 
 ftixteen in the third, fourth, fifth, sixih and seventh niii|;es, wist of die eait 
 line of the State, thence coniiiiuin^; the tame course until il intersects the Iliver 
 St. John; thence north until the line of it intersects the Iliver Saint Francis; 
 thence by the centre of said river to the Grand PiKtage, to the line of Cunid.t 
 and this State ; thence by the line of Canada as established by the Proclaroa- 
 lion of seventeen hundred and iixiy-thrce, by the Commissions to Ctovcrnors 
 Murray, Carleton, and Hdldimand, from seventeen hundred and tixty-lhrec to 
 ■evpMtecii hundred and ei|{hty-t:x, the act of the British P.irliameiit of seventeen 
 hundred and seventy-four, and by the Treaty of Peace in seventeen liuiidreil 
 nnd ei(;hty-threc, to tlie north-west anjle of Nova Scotia, now the north-west 
 sngle of the Province of New-Brunswick : thence south by the line established 
 by the Commissions to Governors Wilmoi, Cnmpbell, Lejrpe, Hu|;hes, llam- 
 wond nnd Parr, from seventeen hundred and sixty-three to seventeen hundred 
 and eifjhty-two, by the Treaty of Ptace of seventeen hundred and eijjh'.y-thrce, 
 and by the Commissions to Sir Thomas Carleton the first Governor of New 
 Brunswick in seventeen bundled and ei(;hty-four. to the first mentioned boundf» 
 beinjf tlie cast line of the State, on the true meridian nortli from tljc monument 
 at the head of the Iliver Saint Croix, be, and the same is incorporated into n 
 town by the name of Madawaska, and the inhabitania of the same Town are 
 hereby subject to tlic same duties and liabilities, and vested with the privileges 
 and immunities which other incorporate towns arc witiiin this State. 
 
 Sec. 'J. Be it further enacted. That all that first part of the County of Waiih- 
 ington which lies within the limits of Madawaska, as described iri tiie first 
 ■ection of this Act, be and hereby it set off from the County of Washington, 
 and annexed to the County of Penobscot. 
 
 Sec. 3. Be it furtiier enacted, That any Justice of the Peace within the 
 County of Penobscot, or any Justice whose Commission runs throughout 
 the State, is hereby empowered to issue his warrant to some inhabitant of 
 aaid town, directing him to notify the inhabitants thereof to meet at such time 
 and place as he shall appoint, to choose such officers as towns are empowered 
 to choose at their annual Town Meetings. 
 
 STATE OF MALKK. 
 
 Penobscot, ss. 
 
 To Walter Powers, of Madawaska, in said County, greeting . 
 
 (I.. S.) You are hereby required, in the name of tlie State of Maine, to notify 
 and warn the inhabitants of said town of Madawaska, qualified to vote in town 
 officers, to meet at Peter Lirotte's dwelling house in said town, on Saiurday 
 the twentieth day of August, 18.31, then and there to act on the following 
 articles, and to transact such other business as may be done btfoie them. 
 
 1st. To choose a moderator to govern such meeting. 
 
 2d. To choose a town clerk. 
 
 3d. To choose sclcct-mcii. 
 
 4tb. To choose constables and all other town ofliccri. 
 
APPENUIX. XXXl. 
 
 And you are hereby further required, in the name of said State, to make re- 
 turn of this warrant with your doings thereon at said meeting, at which you 
 will preside until a moderator he chosen. 
 
 Given under my hand and seal at Bangor, in said County, this eleventh 
 day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 
 thirty-one. W. D. WILLIAMSON, 
 
 Justice of the Peace and Quorum. 
 
 Pursuant to the within warrant, I have notified the inhabitants of said 
 Town to meet at the time and place for the purposes within mentioned. 
 
 Walter Powers, s^ «"'''or!»;d 
 I to notify. 
 
 The defendant, Jesse Wheelock, addressed the Jury and said, that after what 
 had now come out it could be seen, that the defendants were under an impres- 
 Bion from what the two ofticers had said, that they were justified in what they 
 were doing, so long as they confined themselves to the west side of the fiver. 
 
 The defendant, Barnabas Ilannawell, in his defence said, that having received 
 the warrant, they were obliged under the law of the State of Maine to act, 
 they would have been liable to punishment under their laws if they had declined. 
 That in the situation of the country there was a difficulty on both sides, and of 
 the two evils they thought they had chosen the least, they were led to suppose 
 from what the two officers, Messrs. Maclauchlan and Coombes, had said, they 
 would not be interfered with so long as they confined themselves to the west 
 side of the river. 
 
 The other defendants declined saying any ihinfr. 
 
 The Attorney General in his reply, said, that a? the case was so clearly 
 and distinctly made out by the evidence, he should make but few observations, 
 as he conceived the Jury could have no doubt on their minds ; the fact of the 
 conspiring and confederating together for the purposes and with the intention 
 alleged in the indictment, was fully proved by the witnesses who could speak 
 to that part of the case; indeed the defendants had themselves produced this 
 very act and warrant which were read at the meeting, and which shewed 
 distinctly that the intention of the meeting was to subvert the King's authority, 
 and establish that of a foreign government ; they had not confined themselves 
 to the American settlers, but they had used their efforts to induce the 
 French inhabitants to depart from their allegiance to the government, under 
 which they had been settled and always lived, and that but for the influence 
 and exertion of Mr. Rice and Mr. Coombes these poor deluded people would 
 probably have been seduced to join with them; that the French inhabitants, 
 though possessed of many excellent qualities, were well known to be a quiet 
 inoffensive set, hating contention, fond of peace, and easily wrought upon by 
 the persuasion of artful men; that however it might operate on the Court in 
 deciding on the punishment, the excuse alleged by the defendants could not 
 have any weifjht with the Jury, if they were satisfied that the allegations had 
 beeii substantiated by the witnesses. The act was one of the most deliberate 
 kind, the warrant produced bearing date in July last. There could not be a 
 higher offence committed against the peace of society ; the acts amounted to 
 treason, and the defer.dants, if not British subjects, still owed a temporary al- 
 legiance, so long as they remained in the Province under the protection of 
 its laws. 
 
 It is not disputed that the territory is claimed by the United States, and it 
 is clear if entitled to it they will get it, the matter has been under a course 
 of investigation by the Governments of the two countries, but until the pos- 
 session of the country is actually surrendered, the old sovereignty must remain. 
 The doctrine of law as to the cession of countries, is quite clear: even when 
 one nation has actually stipulated by treaty to cede o country to another, tLera 
 
atxii. AP*»E?«Dix. 
 
 it no clianj;!! in the old (orcreignty and juriidiction, until iotne formal act of 
 cr«io(i, and octuai (ranifer Htid rccrivin); of po*»ri»ion. 
 
 The Altorr.oy Genrrul llien cited the ruse of the Fam»', 5 Rob. lUtJ, and 
 alfo read an c&trart from Chancellor Kent'a Commentariet on AmericHn Law, 
 p. lOG, wherein (hat eminent lawjer expreialy confirmi the doctrine of law a* 
 «et forth by Sir ^^'l!iiam Scott, and )aya it down aa a clear principle of jurii- 
 pnidencf, that the lovereijfniy of the ceding country must continue in force, 
 (•II an actual lurrender of posiesiion. 
 
 He then, in a few word*, called (he attention of the Jury to the fMCt, that 
 the Mtdawaska (elllemrnt had, erer kince the eCablikhmeni of the I'rovince, 
 been considered ai forming; an inte^jral part of it, and our lawt and no o'.hrr 
 were in force there ; there wai no act of the Government ai yet which made 
 any chanj^r, though it wat potaible tuch change mi({ht take place, and if lo, those 
 ictllert who chose to remain mi(;ht become f(ood citizent of (he I'nited Stated, 
 Bi they now are |;ood tubjectt of the Km^;; the defendnntt ir.iy be the initru- 
 ineiita of (heir (rovernment, if lo, it was exceeiiiufjly to be roi;rette(l ; but (heir 
 act* could not be ovcriooked, and have compelled the OtTiccri of the Crown to 
 institute this protecuiion. 
 
 Mr. Jlstk F. Ciiii'MAN charged the Jury. lie utated the aubstance of the 
 indictment and the nature uf the charge ; that the offence wai called in the lan- 
 guage of the law a conspiracy, which may be described iti general ferma, as an 
 agreement between two or more to do an unlawful act; i hat tUf gut of the present 
 chargt wat the criminal intention imputed to the defendnntt to lubvcrt the 
 government of Hit Majesty in the place in qnettion, and introduce that of a 
 foreign power, and thit intention wat charged in the indictment as having been 
 attempted to be carried into effect, by several overt acta specified therein. 
 The learned Judge then iiated tome general points of law relating to offencea 
 of thij nature, and informed the Jury, that when several pertont are proved to 
 have entered into a combination for a common purpose, the act of any one of 
 them, in furtherance of the common design, is evidence ngninst all. 
 
 The learned Judge then proceeded to read over the whole of the testimony 
 of the witncfses, and commented briefly wpon it as he went on. He also reod 
 the documentfi adduced by the defendants, viz. the Acts of the Legislature of 
 the State of Maine, incorporating the whole of the Mrtdawaska settlement, as 
 well on the east as the west side of the River St. John, ond the warruni for 
 holdmg the town meeting also for Madiwaska generally. He then proceeded 
 to remark, that although the defendants might he American cii zent, ytt they 
 owed atemporary allegiance while within our jurisdiction, and as i hey were also 
 entitled to the benefit of our laws, tlic Jury should give the case the i>nme 
 impartiiil consideration, as if they vverc their natural born fellow suhjects. The 
 ease appeared to be fully made out in evidence ; indeed the defendun's them- 
 selves (lul not deny the acts or the intentions with which they are tlmrged ; 
 ihfy admit that it was their intention to set up another government in the 
 Madawaska settlement; and that, in itself, must be a direct subversion of the 
 government of His Majesty. The authority of the governing power in atiy 
 country must of necessity be exclusive and supreme, and cannot admit of* 
 competition. The reasons which the defi:ndant» allege for their conduct, 
 might perhaps be taken into consideration in a future stage of the proceedings, 
 if they should be convicted, but these cannot avuil ihcm on their trial before 
 the Jury. 
 
 As to the national character of the place, the learned Judge staled, that the 
 oidy thing to be enquired into on this occasion is l/ie /'net of the settlement 
 being within the jurisdiction of this Province, or not. He partitul/irly advt rtfd 
 to the testimony of iMesfrs. Krascr, Clopper, Miller, and to the grant of 1700, 
 by the Government of this Province, of the very land on which the seditions 
 meeting was held, and stated that it was too clear to admit of the flightest 
 vJuubf, that, i/i point of fact, th; Mada^-aska settlement had been continually 
 
APPENDIX, XXXUL 
 
 under the jurisdiction of tins Province ever since iti first establishment, and 
 lliat there had beeii no act by which this jurisdiction had been changed, and 
 another introduced. He considered it as clearly established by the authorities 
 cited by the Attorney General, that even when a place is expressly and with- 
 out question ceded by Treaty, the sovereignty of the ceding country does 
 not cease, until the formal act of surrender and transfer takes place ; and he 
 laid it down as the clear rule of public law, applicable to the circumstances of 
 the case now in question, that the existing British sovereignty and jurisdiction 
 can be changed only by a public Act of the King^s Government for that 
 purpose. That it was not for this Court to animadvert upon the acts of the 
 authorities of the State of Maine given in evidence; it was sufficient to say, 
 that the Court cannot regard them. 
 
 The learned Judge then proceeded to notice the evidence given as to the 
 acts and declarations of Mr. Madauclilan, and said, that although this gentle- 
 man might have been employed for a particular purpose with regard to this 
 District, yet no aces [or declarations of his, or of any other individual officer of 
 the Government, could operate to change the sovereignty of the place; that 
 it appeared, however, although Mr. Maclauchlan's instructions were such as 
 not to induce him to use force to prevent the American Agents, with whom 
 he had to deal, from collecting such statistical information from the inhabitants 
 on the western side of the river, as these inhabitants would voluntarily furnish, 
 yet that he was required to protest against any such proc£edings, and that he 
 did accordingly protest; and he told Coombcs that he was directed not to 
 allow any act of sovereignty on the part of the American Government. 
 
 The learned Judge then left the case to the Jury, to consider of their verdict; 
 and if the matters alleged in the Indictment were made out to their eatisfac- 
 lion, to pronounce accordingly. 
 
 The Jury retired from the Bar about i o'clock, and in a short time returned 
 finding the three defendants Guilty, 
 
 Tuesday, October 18, 1831. 
 PRESENT : 
 His Honor The Chief Justice, 
 Mr. Justice Bliss, 
 Mr. Justice Botsford, 
 Mr. Justice Chifman. 
 
 The defendants Barnabas Hannawell, Daniel Savage, and Jesse Wheelock, 
 being present, pursuant to notice, to receive sentence, and being asked whether 
 they had any thing to ofler to the Court, answered in the negative. 
 
 His Honor Mr. Justice Ciiipman addressed them, and observed : — That 
 it was sufficient merely to state the charge of which they had been found 
 guilty, to shew its aggravated character, without adding a word of comment. 
 It was no less than a direct attempt to subvert the authority of the Govern- 
 ment, and to introduce the jurisdiction of a foreign State. That the defend- 
 ants had to say in their extenuation that they were not the original authors of 
 these proceedings; they appeared certainly to be instruments in the hands of 
 others. They also set up in their defence a colour of justification which they 
 contended was given to their proceedings by the acts and declarations of a 
 person in the character of a British O-^icer. These acts and declarations, 
 however, went no further than to abstain from preventing by force proceedings 
 not amounting to acts of sovereignty, of certain American agents on the 
 western side of the river St. John. Tho defendants appeared to be persons 
 not wanting in understanding and discretion, and must have perceived the dif- 
 ference between the proceedings of the American agents alluded to, and their 
 own doings, which although they took place on the western side of the river, 
 were nevertheless expressly founded on an Act of the Legislature of Maine, 
 
XXnV. APPENDIX. 
 
 which extended (o (be whole territory on both (idci of the river, to the ex- 
 trcoic line, wliich it wai notorious the Americans claimed as thiir boiindury, 
 and which would, doubtless, have been taken advuntaije of a<i being nets of 
 jurisdiction to the whole extent of such claim. The learned Jud^je lure re- 
 peated what he had stated to the Jury on the trial, that nu such proceedings 
 Ml those he had alluded to, cither on the part of ihe I)riti!>h or American 
 ■ uthoriiies, could be admitted to c'lani^e ihe soverciijniy atiJ nnlionnl rituracltr 
 vf the place. That it had now, for the second time, been most latnfaclorily 
 proved in th'u Court, (once before in tlic case of John Baker,) that this PrO' 
 vince had exercised an uninterrupted jurisdiction, ever since its first erection, 
 over the Madawasha scttUnicnt. That if Ihe tune should arrive when this 
 territory or any part -jf it teas to be given up to the United States or any 
 forcif^n country, this rircumstancc must, and wouli be announced by some 
 public Act of the Bi-itith (ioocrnment, which would niakc known to the iidia- 
 bilanls the transfer of the country, and the change of their allef^iancc. That 
 vntil such public act came, this Court must and would maintain the jurisdic- 
 tion it had been aectatonud to exercise. The learned Judge fuither stated, 
 that there was another coniideralion which should have been well weighed 
 by the defendants. The defendants, although profis&ing to be American 
 citizens, and therefore not supposed to feel the tame attachment to the 
 liritish Crown, even while living within the limits of its juriediclion, as 
 to the country of their birth, yet should have abstained from bringing into 
 jeopardy the numerous French inhabitants of the Mii<lnwa»ka setllcment, 
 by seducing them from their natural allegiance; these irihubitunts were nulurai 
 born Uriiish subjects, and so far as the duties of allegiance were concerned, 
 •lood in the same relation to the Crown, os the Judges on this Bench, or any 
 person in this Court. He further said, that the doctrine which the Court now 
 asserted with respect to maintaining the actual jurisdiction of the Provincial 
 authorities, was the same which it had acted tipoii in the case of John Baker. 
 The correctness of it he conceived was unquestionable, and to his knowledge 
 had never been denied by any authority, British or American. The defend- 
 ants, in the face of that case, had proceeded to attempt a further subversion of 
 that jurisdiction ; and olihough the Court was not disposed to inflict upon 
 them unnecctsury pains and inconvenience, yet tbry must l)c prepared to bear 
 the penal consequences nf their own nets. The Court in awaiding their pun- 
 ishment, aimed at on cfTectual, but at the same time a tempcrute assiriion of 
 the authority of the laws, such as it appeared to them the case, under nil its 
 circumstances, required ; and concluded by pronouncing the icntcncc of lbs 
 Court as follows : 
 
 That each of the Defendants do pay a fine to the King of Fifty Pounds, 
 and be imprisoned in the Common (laol of the County for Three Colendur 
 Months, and stared committed until '.he laid Gncs arc paid. 
 
i 
 
~> 
 
Fold-out 
 Placeholde 
 
 r 
 
 This fold-out is being digitized, and 
 
 future date. 
 
 will be inserted at a 
 
/ 
 
 
 / 
 
\ 
 
LIBRPRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 e 011 895 &34 5 
 
 \