The right of the United States of America to the North-Eastern boundary claimed by them. Principally extracted from the Statements laid before the King of the Netherlands, and revised by A. G, with an appendix and eight maps

Appendix

AND EIGHT MAPS. NEWYORK: SAMUEL ADAMS, PRINTER. 1840. TABLE OF CONTENTS. T- - PaSe Preface, ...... v Introduction, ....... 1 Terms of the Treaty, ...... 13 § 1. Americau Line, . . . . .13 § 2. British Line, ..... 19 § 3. Signification of the expression, " Highlands which divide Rivers," . .... 31 § 4. The term " Atlantic Ocean," how far contradistinguished from the Bay of Fundy, and from the Gulf of St. Lawrence, . . . . .39 Intention of the Parties, ..... 61 § 5. Negotiations of 1782, . . . .61 § 6. Former Boundaries, . . . .72 § 7. Topographical Knowledge of the Negotiators, . 83 § 8. Recapitulation ..... 96 Appendix, ....... 105 No. I. Acts of Jurisdiction and Opinions entertained subsequent to the year 1783, .... 107 No. II. Notes on an essay in the Westminster Review, for June, 1840, signed C. B., . . .127 No. III.

Observations on the Report of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge .... 136 No IV. Extracts from the " " " 165 No. V. Extracts from the Argument of the British Agent under the Ghent Commission, . . . ]74 Note Explanatory of Maps, ..... 178 Maps, ....... 1. Reduced from Map A, agreed to by both Powers, 1827. 2. Part of Mitchell's Map, 1775, which regulated the official proceedings of the fratners of the treaty of 17S3. CONTENTS. 3. i Reduced from the Map annexed to the Report os Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, 1840. Sketch of the Highlands claimed by Great Britain by Messrs. Odell and Campbell, 1821. . Part of Governor Pownall's Map, London, 1776. " Em. Bowen's Map, London, 1775. " Map of Province of Quebec, London, 1776. " Map of Northern British Colonies in America, from American Military Atlas, London, 1776.

Preface

. The British Government appointed Commissioners, in the year 1839, for the pnrpose of surveying, 1st, the line heretofore considered, on the part of Great Britain, as the north eastern boundary of the United States, namely, that which extends from the source of the Chandiere to Mars Hill ; 2dly, the line from the source of the Chandiere to the point at which a line drawn from that source to the western extremity of the Bay of Chaleurs, intercepts the due north line ; 3dly, the line claimed by the Americans from the source ofthe Chandiere to the point at which they make the due north line end. The Commissioners have performed the duties imposed on them par. tially and as far as the short time employed iu the exploration permitted. And the Government ofthe United States has lately appointed Commis sioners for the same purpose, the result of whose proceedings can hardly be expected before the year 1841.

It was principally, if not exclusively, the " nature and configuration ofthe territory in dispute," that the British Commissioners were direct ed to investigate. It is well known, that the LTuited States contend that the term "highlands which divide rivers," used in the treaty, does not imply either a mountainous character or an absolute but only a relative elevation. But Great Britain has an undoubted right to ascertain all the facts concerning the topography ofthe country, the knowledge of which is, in her opinion, important, or may be of any use for a correct decision of the question. And had the Report of the British Commissioners been confined to that object, nothing more would at most have been ne cessary, on the part ofthe United States, than the exploration which the Government has lately ordered.

But the Appendix and a few pages only of the Report of the Commissioners relate to that investigation. The bulk ofthe Report is devoted to a discussion apparently ofthe me rits of the case; and its conclusions are of the most general nature; pronouncing in decisive terms, that the claims of Great Britain to the whole ofthe disputed territory are founded in justice, and are in plain accordance with the 2d Article is the Treaty of 1783, and with the phy eical geography of the country ; and that the line which is claimed on the VI

PREFACE.

. part ofthe United States, (a) as the line of Highlauds ofthe Treaty of 1783, does not pass nearer than from 40 to 50 miles ofthe north-westernmost head of Connecticut River, and therefore has no pretension to be put forward as the line intended by the Treaty of 1783. It might be inferred, from the general tone of the Report, and from the manner in which they are announced, that those conclusions, which declare, that the British line does in every respect, and that the Ameri can line does not fulfil the conditions ofthe Treaty, were deduced from the argumentative part ofthe Report. The inference would be altogether erroneous. The fundamental objection against the British line is that, for one hundred and twenty miles or about three fifths of its whole length, it di vides or can divide no other rivers but the waters ofthe Penobscot from those ofthe St. John, neither of which empties itself into the River St. Lawrence ; whilst the treaty expressly describes the boundary as be ing from its beginning on the due north line, to the source ofthe Con necticut, along the highlands which divide the rivers that empty them selves into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean.

There is not in the Report even an allusion to that main question on which the two Governments are at issue. The only reason heretofore assigned why, if the boundary claim ed by Great Britain was that which the negotiators of the treaty contemplated, they described it in terms contradictory of their presumed intention, is their supposed ignorance of the topography of the country. The United States contend that the knowledge which the negotiators had of that topography was amply sufficient to enable them to describe without difficulty, and with the utmost precision, the boundary now claimed by Great Btitain, had such been their intention ; and that the boundary actually described in the treaty corresponds precisely with that claimed by America. This is another ofthe great questions at is sue ; and in that respect, as applied to the British line, the United States cannot complain much of the Report.

For although the Com missioners say in conclusion, that they have found a line of highlands agreeing with the treaty, yet they strenuously assert in the body of the Report, that those very highlands were well known, not only at the date of the treaty, but more than twenty years before : which renders the language of the treaty still more inexplicable. However that mav be, the Report does not disprove the assertion, on the part of the United (a) It is well known, that the line, from the source of the Connecticut to the north-western sources ofthe Penobscot, is common to the United States and to Great Britain, being on highlands acknowledged by both parties. The line here alluded to, which passes 50 miles ofthe source of the Connecticut, and is called, the line claimed on the part ofthe United States, is not and has never been claimed by them.

PREFACE.

. VII States, that the negotiators might have described with precision, if so intended, the boundary claimed by Great Britain ; nor is there any satisfactory reason assigned, why it was not done. On the part of Great Britain, two principal objections are raised against the American line. The first is, that the Rivers Ristigouche and St. John are not, in that clause of the Treaty which relates to the division of Rivers, to be taken as Rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean. That im portant question is not alluded to in the Report. The other objection is, that the " highlands which divide Rivers" im plies a considerable and conspicuous elevation and a mountainous char acter ; and that the British line unites and that the American line wants those properties. The question of fact, which was the proper object of the investigation committed to the care of the Commissioners, is the subject of the Appendix to the Report, and is treated in the Report it self.

But it is silent on the previous question, viz : whether the term above mentioned does, as is contended for on the part of Great Britain, or does not, as the United States maintain, imply such elevation and mountainous character. (6) It is manifest, from the silence preserved in the Report, on all the true questions at issue between the two Governments, and on which de pends the final decision, that the Commissioners considered those questions as having been definitively settled in favour of Great Britain by her former agents ; and that the general conclusions annexed to the Report are deduced from the arguments of those agents, and not from those contained in the Report. Independent ofthe Barometric observations and other facts actually ascertained by the Commissioners in the course of their exploration, the Report, divested of its incautious and re prehensive passages, and viewed under its most favourable aspect, is at most but a subsidiary document.

In the argumentative part of it, it treats only of subordinate topics, many altogether irrelevant, and none that could, even if proved, afiect the ultimate decision of the difference between the two Countries, (c) Nor has the Report even the merit of originality with respect to those subjects which it does discuss, as will clearly appear by reference to the British statements laid before the King ofthe Netherlands, (d) Those statements of the case, on the part of both Great Britain and the United States, two on each side, though printed, have never been (b) Those four main questions are respectively discussed in the2d, 7th, 4th, and 3d Sections of the following essay. (c) See Nos. Ill and IV ofthe Appendix to this essay. (d) The reader cannot refer to those statements; but the substance will be found in the 5th and 6th Sections, and in No. I ofthe Appendix to this essay ; which con tain hardly any thing more than had been written and laid before the King ofthe Ne therlands more than ten years ago.

PREFACE.

. published. It would seem as if both Governments, subsequent to the award, had, from mutual forbearance, thought it wiser not to commit themselves further than had been done, not to agitate the public mind by a publication of those documents, and rather to apply their endeavours to the preservation of peace, and to devise some new mode of amicably settling the difference. However well disposed in both respects and successful iu attaining the first object, they had made but little progress towards the other. The case is now altered. A document has been brought forth, laid before Parliament and published, which, notwithstanding its high pretensions, gives but a very imperfect view of the subject, treats only of subordinate points, does not discuss any of the great questions at issue, and yet which from the boldness of its conclusions and the sanction under which it has appeared, was calculated to produce and has made, in England at least, an impression unfavorable to the rig'.its and to the acts of the United States.

It appears just and necessary that something should be done that may counteract that effect, and show at least, that the grounds on which they rest their claim are neither light and frivolous, nor certainly to be shaken by either the discoveries or the arguments of the Report. Having been, jointly with Mr. Preble, one of the agents who prepar ed the Statements laid before the King of the Netherlands, the subject was familiar to me. I have had little more to do, than to blend the two Statements into one, to alter accordingly the arrangement, to abridge as much as was consistent with an examination of all the arguments ad duced by the other Party, and to revise the whole, with such additions only, as new suggestions however singular and some unsounded imputa tions seemed to require. I have tried to indicate at least all the arguments and objections of the British agents ; and if I have omitted any, the omission is quite involuntary : for one of my objects was to make the people of the United States acquainted with the substance of all that had been suggested in opposition to the American claim.

Yet, this paper is what it purports to be, an argument in behalf of the United States : and in order to have a fair and complete view of the subject, either the former British Statements should be published, or some other document be substituted, which should discuss the true questions at issue, and exhibit the British claim with perspicuity and in the most favorable view of which it is susceptible. I am sensible lhat nothing coming from me will alter the opinions adverse to the American claim, which may be entertained in England. The utmost that can be expected is that those into whose hands this es say may fall, may be induced to investigate the subject and to jud-j-e for themselves. But if the claim of the United States is, according to our convictions, founded in strict justice, it is to the British Cabinet itself,

PREFACE.

. IX and without any intermediary, that the appeal must be made. In all in ternational differences, the people almost always take it for granted that the foreign Government is in the wrong, and follow the impulse given by their own. The feeling is quite natural, generally proper, and in this instance, common to both countries. The fact, that the Secretary of State for foreign affairs did lay before the Parliament of Great Britain the report of the late commissioners, affords strong evidence, that that distinguished statesman, amidst his more important and overwhelming avocations, had not found time thoroughly to investigate the merits ofthe case and to judge for himself. This is not at all surprising: I could quote the instance of an intelli gent and enlightened Secretary of State ofthe United States, much less burthened with official duties than a British Minister, who, on this very question, did, subsequent to the award, propose to substitute, for the due north line, another which would have given to Great Britain the greater part, if not the whole of the disputed territory.

Why the proposal was made, and why it was not at once accepted, cannot be otherwise ac counted for, so far at least as regards the offer, than by a complete igno rance ofthe whole subject. In the various negotiations with Great Britain in which I have been employed, there was always an earnest desire to remove subjects of con tention, and to promote friendly relations ; on almost all questions a con ciliatory disposition ; nothing at any time, that could shake my confi dence in the sincerity and good faith of that government. And I do believe that it would do justice, if it was once satisfied that justice was due. It is earnestly to be wished, that some one of the members of the en lightened British Cabinet would take the trouble, to examine thoroughly and in all its tedious details that vexed question, not omitting a search in the archives ofthe state office, of the instructions and actual inten tions ofthe British negotiators in 1782 and 1783.

It seems to me al most impossible that, in a case in which, as I believe, there is no British jury or British chancellor who would not decide in favor of America, the result of an attentive ministerial inquiry after truth should not be the same. Yet we may mistake our convictions for a demonstration of truth : to such error both parties are equally liable ; and should the govern ment of Great Britain still remain unsatisfied, the investigation might at least lead to a nearer approximation towards a settlement, and could under no circumstance place the two countries in a worse situation than they now are. But under any circumstances whatever, the question must be settled. It would be the height of madness and of wickedness to come to a rup- X

PREFACE.

. ture, and for such an object. Both governments are animated by a sin cere and earnest desire to preserve peace. It is not believed that the English nation wishes a war with the United States. It may be confi dently asserted that, with an entire conviction of their right to the terri tory in question, there is not a more universal feeling amongst the peo ple of America, every where and without distinction of political parties, than that of the preservation of peace, above all of peace with Great Britain. It is the duty of the two governments speedily to devise and to adopt the means necessary for effecting the object ; and I believe that means may be found. The government of the United States has not been consulted on the subject of this publication. And it is hoped that this full exposition of the claim ofthe United States was not only proper at this time, but may not be without its use in promoting a satisfactory settlement of the question.