페이지 이미지
PDF

accomplishment of the great work you have on hand,-that of consolidatling an honourablelo between two great nations,—but, on the contrary, they came prepared to yield much, to sacrifice much on the part of Maine to the peace of the Union, and the interest of her sister States. If the hopes of the people of Maine and of the United States are to be disappointed, it is believed the fault lies not at the door of the Governor or Legislature of Maine or of her Commissioners. . . . At the date of the earliest maps of that country, the river now called the Madawaska, had not acquired a distinctive name, and consequently the source of that river was regarded as one of the sources, if not the principal source, of the St. John. On looking at the map, it will at once É. seen that the general course of the St. John and Madawaska, from the mouth of the former to the source of the latter, are one and the same. As connected with this fact, we find that, at least, five different maps published in London, in the years 1765, 1769, 1771, 1774, 1775, place the north-west angle of Nova Scotia on the Highlands at the source of that branch of the St. John, then without distinctive appellation, but now known as the Madawaska. One of these five is specially quoted in the Report of the Committee of Congress, of the 16th August, 1782, so often referred to in this controversy. In no map of a date prior to the Treaty of 1783, it is believed, is the north-west angle of Nova Scotia placed on the highlands at the source of any branch whatever of the St. John, but the Madawaska. Hence the proposition of the American Commissioners, in 1782, in discussing the subject of the Boundaries of the United States, to begin at the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, on the highlands at the source of the St. John. Respect for the distinguished men who negotiated the Treaty of Peace of 1783, would induce the Undersigned to renew the proposition, so far as regards adopting the Madawaska as a boundary, were it not that, being prepared to yield all that is needed for the accommodation of Great Britain, they are aware that a strip on the west side of that river is necessary to that object. The P. map quoted in the report above-mentioned, is that of Emanuel Bowen, Geographer to the King, published in 1775, in which the Penobscot, and a line drawn from one of its sources, crossing the St. John, to the source of that branch now called the Madawaska, are distinctly laid down as the western boundary of Nova Scotia. So in all the maps which place the north-west angle of Nova Scotia on the highlands at the source of the St. John, those highlands and that source are on the north side of the Walloostook, which is now known to be the main branch of the St. John. The inference or assumption, then, that it was not the intention of the Commissioners who negotiated the Treaty of Peace, that any portion of the valley or waters of the St. John should be included within the limits of the United States, because the American negotiators of that Treaty proposed the northwest angle of Nova Scotia on the highlands at the source of the St. John, as the place of beginning, in establishing the boundaries of the United States, is, it is believed, wholly unwarranted. The fact, on the contrary, as it seems to the Undersigned, disproves any such intention or supposition on the part of the American Commissioners. . - . . . The British Commissaries, Messrs. Mildmay and Dr. Cosne, in their reply of the 23rd of January, 1753, to the French Commissaries, say, “We have sufficiently proved, first, that Acadia (Nova Scotia) has had an inland limit from the earliest times; and secondly, that that limit has ever, been the River St. Lawrence.” . At that time, then, the British Government contended that the north-west angle of Nova Scotia was formed by the River St. Lawrence as one line, and a line drawn north from the St. Croix to the St. Lawrence as the other; and this is in conformity with the position assigned to it in Mitchell's Map, and some others. By the grant to Sir William Alexander, the north-west angle of Nova Scotia was also placed at the River St. Lawrence, although its precise locality on that river is not determined by the language of the rant. The French Commissaries, on their part, contended that the limits of Canada extended on the south side of the St. Lawrence, so as to embrace the territory watered by the rivers that empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence, “Les pays dont les eaux vont se rendre dans le fleuve Saint Laurent.” The Commissions granted to the Governors of Canada, and all the public doeuments issued by the authority of the French Government, fully sustain their position. There is no ground, say they, for entertaining a doubt that all the Commissions granted by the King, for the Government of Canada, were conceived in the same terms. In the splendid Universal Atlas published at Paris by De Waugondy and Son, in 1757, there is a map dated 1755, and referred to expressly by the author, who was Geographer to the King, as illustrating the dispute between France and Great Britain in regard to the boundaries of their respective territories. On this map, the dividing ridge or highland is placed where the United States have ever contended it is only to be found; and what is deserving of notice is, that the north-west angle of Nova Scotia is there placed on these highlands at the head of the lake there called Metavasta; the line separating Nova Scotia from New England, being drawn through the centre of that lake to the source of the St. Croix. The disputes above referred to having led to a war between France and Great Britain, Franee finally ceded to Great Britain, in February, 1763, Canada, and abandoned all claim to Nova Scotia and the whole territory in controversy between the two Powers. On the 7th October, 1763, His Britannic Majesty issued his Proclamation, defining the southern boundary of Canada, or the Province of Quebec, and establishing it where the French Government always contended that it was. Immediately afterwards, he also defined and established the western limit of Nova Scotia, alleging by way of justification of certain pretensions which had been put forward in opposition to Massachusetts in regard to the Penobscot as a boundary, that although he might have removed the line as far west as the Penobscot, yet he would limit himself to the St. Croix. Aecordingly, the western boundary of Nova Scotia was in November, 1763, defined and established as follows: “By a line,” &c., “across the entrance of the Bay of Fundy to the mouth of the River St. Croix, by the said river to its source, and by a line drawn due north from thence to the southern boundary of our Province of Quebec.” The north-west angle of Nova Seotia was, by these two documents, established in November, 1763, and defined to be the angle formed by the line last described, and the line which “passes along #. highlands which divide the rivers that empty themselves into the said River St. Lawrence from those which fall into the sea, and along the north coast of the Bay des Chaleurs.” We now see wherefore it was that the distinguished men who negotiated the Treaty of Peace were so particular in describing the precise position and giving so exact a definition of the north-west angle of Nova Scotia mentioned in the Treaty. The distinctly and explicitly state that motive to be that “all disputes wo. might arise in future on the subject of the boundaries of the United States, may be prevented.” Their starting bounds, or point of departure, is the north-west angle of Nova Scotia. Here the question presents itself, what north-west angle? They describe it:—not that north-west angle which in several maps is laid down on the highlands, at the Madawaska source of the St. John's;–not that north-west angle on the southern bank of the River St. Lawrence, laid down on Mitchell’s Map, and so strenuously contended for by the British Government and British Commissaries in their dispute with France;—not that north-west angle on the River St. Lawrence, described in the charter or grant by King James to Sir William Alexander; but the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, defined and established in November, 1763, “to wit: that angle which is formed by a line drawn due north from the source of the St. Croix river to the highlands,” &c.; and further, that there might be no ground for reviving the old pretension in regard to the Penobscot, or any other western river being intended as the St. Croix, the River St. Croix intended in the Treaty is declared to have its mouth in the Bay of Fundy. Nor is there any pretence of any doubt or question having been raised, until long after the Treaty of Peace, as to what highlands were intended in the Proclamation of 1763, as constituting the southern boundary of Quebec. So far from it, the Parliament of Great Britain, in 1774, passed the Quebec Act, which was one of the grievances complained of by the Colonies, and which

confirmed the boundaries, so far as the matter under consideration is concerned, defined and established by that proclamation. Of these two public acts the American Commissioners were not ignorant nor misinformed. They are both expressly referred to and mentioned in the Report of August 16, 1782, already mentioned. To find these highlands. the statesman and jurist, who has no other object in view than to expound the Treaty according to its terms and provisions, uninfluenced by any: secret bias or preconceived theory, will, it is believed, begin, not at the mouth or source of the St. Croix, but on the bank of the River St. Lawrence, at a point north of the source of the River St. Croix, and following the due north line so called southward, he will find no difficulty in discovering the line of the “versants,” from which issue the rivers that empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence. The whole and exclusive object and intent of the Proclamation of 1763, so far as relates to this matter of boundary, in that section of country, was not in any way to affect or alter the limits of jurisdiction over the territory lying south of that line of “versants,” but only to cut off from Nova Scotia and Massachusetts, that portion of territory which was watered by the rivers which empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence. Accordingly the due north line, or boundary between Nova Scotia and Massachusetts, is described as extending “from the source of the St. Croix to the southern boundary of our Province of Quebec.” The Commissioners of Maine do not consider themselves as sent here to argue the question of right in regard to the conflicting claims to the Disputed Territory, nor to listen to an argument in opposition to the claim of Maine. Their mission contemplated a far different and more conciliatory object. They have, however, felt themselves compelled, in justice to Maine, to reply to two positions assumed by Lord Ashburton, the soundness of which, with great deference and respect for his Lordship, they cannot admit;-first, that “it was the intention of the parties to the Treaty of Peace of 1783, to leave to Great Britain, by their description of boundaries, the whole waters of the River St. John;” secondly, “that the Treaty of 1783 was not executable according to its strict expression.” His Lordship also speaks of “a volume of additional controversial matter which he has not communicated, but which he has brought with him, and much of which would be of no inconsiderable weight and importance if controversy were our object.” Among the matter referred to in that volume, the Undersigned believe they have reason to conjecture, will be found a map entitled “North America with the new Discoveries,” by William Faden, Geographer to the King, published in the year 1785. That map, a copy of which is now before the Undersigned, communicated by you, extends the British possessions so as to include the waters of the St. John, and dispenses with the due north line of the Treaty altogether. The map referred to is a small one of small pretensions. It is, however, somewhat: remarkable, that the same William Faden published in 1783, a map, prepared with great care, entitled “The United States of North America, with the British and Spanish territories according to the Treaty,” in which he lays down the boundary of Quebec according to the Act of 1774, and the boundary of the United States in precise accordance with the American claim. He was not at that time Geographer to the King. It is well known that difficulties, very soon after the Treaty of Peace, began to spring up between the United States and Great Britain, which became more and more exasperated until the conclusion of the Treaty negotiated by Mr. Jay. During that period, the boundaries of the United States became more restricted on more British maps than the one published by Mr. Faden. How far the new light let in upon him by the feeling of the times, and his new position enlighten the mind of Mr. Faden, in making his new discoveries, it is neither our duty nor our disposition to discuss. Mr. Faden and others were only imitating, in this particular, what had been done some thirty years before, during the controversy between France and Great Britain; and again in the subsequent One, between the Crown and Massachusetts, when the officers of the

Crown were endeavouring to reclaim the territory east of the Penobscot. . As they have been assured that Lord Ashburton is restrained by his instructions from yielding the Island of Grand Manan, or any of the islands in Passamaquoddy Bay, or even any portion of the narrow strip of territory which lies between the due north line from the source of the St. Croix and the St. John River, above Eel River, so called, as an equivalent for any portion of the territory claimed by Maine as within her boundaries, her commissioners, on their part, feel themselves constrained to say, that the portion of territory within the limits of Maine as claimed by her, which they are prepared, in a spirit of peace and good neighbourhood, to yield for the accommodation of Great Britain, must be restrained and confined to such portion only, and in such reasonable extent as is necessary to secure to Great Britain “an unobstructed communication and connection of her colonies with each other.” It appears by his communication to you that his Lordship proposes to yield the Disputed Territory claimed by New Hampshire at the sources of the Connecticut River, the strip of Disputed Territory at the head of Vermont, in the possession of that State, north of the 45th parallel of latitude, and the strip of Disputed Territory, embracing Rouse's Point, on Lake Champlain, north of the same arallel, in the possession of the State of New York, notwithstanding these #. been decided by the arbiter. to belong of right to Great Britain. Now the Undersigned are fully aware of the importance of having all these difficulties with regard to boundaries amicably adjusted, and that it is highly desirable to the United States to have them so adjusted, and to the particular States interested, to be confirmed and quieted in their respective limits and possessions. But it cannot have escaped your attention that all this is proposed to be done, partly at the expense of Massachusetts, but principally at the expense of Maine. ... The only thing in the nature of an equivalent offered to Maine and Massachusetts relates to a concession by Great Britain of the right of transporting the produce of the forests, without duty, down the St. John. It is not the intention of the Undersigned to depreciate or underrate the value of such a concession; but it is contended that it is a privilege as desirable to New Brunswick as it is to Maine and Massachusetts. It is to the territory of Maine, watered by the St. John and its tributary streams, that the city of St. John must look for the principal material to sustain her external commerce, for her means to pay for the supplies she receives from the mother-country. The unobstructed navigation of the St. John’s for the transportation of the products of the forest, free of toll or duty of any kind whatever, would be a concession mutually advantageous to Maine and Massachusetts on the one part, and to Great Britain and New Brunswick on the other; but being mutually advantageous, it ought not, perhaps, to be treated exactly in the character of an equivalent. Yielding, however, to the force of the considerations which have been referred to, considerations which affect materially the interests of Maine and Massachusetts as members of the Union,-and assuming it for granted, and as a ocndition that the United States themselves will furnish to the two States such an equivalent as in justice and equity they ought to do, the Undersigned, with the consent and concurrence of the Commissioners of Massachusetts, propose the following as a conventional line, or line by agreement, between the United States and the State of Maine on the one part, and Great Britain and the territories of Her Britannic Majesty on the other, viz.: beginning at the middle of the main channel of the River St. John. where the due north line from the source of the River St. Croix crosses the St. John ; thence westerly by the middle of the main channel of the St. John, to a point three miles westerly of the mouth of the River Madawaska; thence by a straight line to the outlet of Long Lake; thence westerly by a direct line to the point where the River St. Francis empties itself into Lake Pohenagamook; thence continuing in the same direct line to the highlands which divide the waters emptying themselves into the River Du Loup, from those which empty themselves into the River St. Francis. In proposing this line the following reasons have presented themselves to the Undersigned, for adopting it as a conventional line, or line by agreement, in preference to any other. 1st. It yields to Great Britain all she needs to secure to her “an unobtructed communication and connection of the colonies with each other,” and, connected with the unobstructed and free navigation of the St. John, seems to meet the legitimate wants of all parties. - . . 2nd. The most natural boundary from the due north line to the highlands of the treaty would be the St. John and the Madawaska to its source as first proposed by the American Commissioners who negotiated the Peace of 1783. But as that boundary, taken in its whole extent, would cut off the communication between the British Colonies at the Grand Port;e, the line here proposed removes that difficulty. At or near the point. where the proposed line leaves the St. John, which, from the due north. line to the St. Croix, pursues a north-westerly course upward, the river suddenly turns and trends for a distance of about five miles nearly south, and thence for its whole course upward to its source trends southerly of west. To pursue the line of the St. John further west than the point indicated, which is about three miles above the mouth of the Madawaska, would be to adopt an angular line projecting itself into the American territory. - - - The outlet of Long Lake is proposed as a natural and permanent: bound which cannot be mistaken. And for the same reason the inlet of: Lake Pohenagamook is also proposed; and the line being continued to the highlands removes all possible ground of misapprehension and controversy. . - - - - - - * ... " 3rd. As Great Britain has restrained her Minister Plenipotentiary from granting any territorial equivalent to be incorporated into the territorial limits of Maine, any further concession of territory on the part of Maine could hardly, it is apprehended, be expected from her. * : . In making the proposition above submitted on their part, in connection with a concession on the part of Great Britain of the unobstructed navigation of the St. John and all its branches and tributaries, which, in any part, flow from the territory of the United States, for the transportation of the timber and products of the forest, free of toll or duty, the . Undersigned had supposed it quite possible that they had misapprehended the meaning intended to be conveyed by the expression of Lord Ashburton, where he speaks of “some one of the sources of the St. John.” But they have now just learned informally, that the expression was used by him advisedly, meaning thereby some one of the sources of that river situated in the vicinity of the sources of the Penobscot and Chaudière. His proposition, therefore, extends to a yielding, on the part of Maine, of the whole territory on the north side of the St. John, from the due north line to its source; and this, too, without any territorial equivalent to Maine. With this explanation the language of . Lord Ashburton in calling the • southern border of the St. John, from the due north line to the mouth of Fish River, an “inconsiderable extent” is more readily understood. To this part of the proposition there is only one reply. Whatever may be the solicitude of the Undersigned that the difficulties which have arisen in regard to the boundaries of Maine may be amicably and definitively arranged; the proposition as now explained and understood cannot be acceded to. - In making the offer they have submitted the Undersigned are sensible their proposition involves a sacrifice of no inconsiderable portion of the just claims and expectations of Maine. It is made in the spirit of peace,—of conciliation. It is made to satisfy her sister States that Maine is not pertinacious or unreasonable, but is desirous of peace, and ready to make large sacrifices for the general good. Before closing this communication the Undersigned feel it their duty

to say something by way of explanation of their views, in regard to the

French settlers at Madawaska. In any treaty which may be made with Great Britain affecting these people, the grants which have been made to them by New Brunswick, may and ought to be confirmed to them in fee simple, with such provision in regard to the possessory rights acquired by other actual settlers there as may be just and equitable, and also the right may be reserved to the settlers on both banks of the river, to elect, within some reasonable period, and determine of which Government the individuals, signifying their election, will remain or become citizens or subjects. If, then, they should have any preference they will have it in

« 이전계속 »