« 이전계속 »
Dr. Franklin is too well known in the United States to make it necessary or expedient to speak of him. His life is a text-book in our schools; and his name, given as it is to steam-boats, and stages, and inns, and banks, and libraries, and societies, has made his history universally and thoroughly known. Mr. Jay was his associate for some time before they were both joined by Mr. Adams. The high honour must be given to him of refusing to negotiate with the Envoy of Great Britain until the independence of the United States was acknowledged, and the commission of the British Minister changed accordingly. . During the time when the question of peace or war remained suspended upon the determination of Great Britain to continue or change the credentials which she had issued, his responsibility was of the heaviest character, because, in this he differed from his usually sagacious and trusted colleague, Dr. Franklin. And the reputation of Mr. Jay for firmness and sagacity cannot be fully appreciated, until we remember that the course which he then pursued, furnished the basis of the argument by which the Honourable John Quincy Adams afterwards vindicated and preserved the American right to the fisheries of Newfoundland. In the present dispute respecting the boundary, we are met with a repetition of the same idea on the part of Great Britain, that the independence of the United States was granted in the Treaty of 1783; and in both cases, we are indebted to the inflexible spirit of Mr. Jay for affording us the same ground of indignant denial which he made amidst responsibilities which would have shaken a less stout heart. - When Mr. Adams arrived in Paris, it must be mentioned to his honour, that he took sides promptly with Mr. Jay. But Mr. Adams brought also to the negotiation an intimate acquaintance with the boundaries and history of Massachusetts, derived from his active participation in the affairs of the Province. He has left a record of this in his correspondence. Immediately after his arrival in Paris, (October 31, 1782,) we wrote thus to Robert R. Livington, (Sparks’ “Diplomatic Correspondence,” vol. vi., p. 437)— “Yesterday we met Mr. Oswald at his lodgings; Mr. Jay, Dr. Franklin, and myself, on one side, and Mr. Oswald, assisted by Mr. Strachey, a gentleman whom I had the honour to meet in company with Lord Howe, upon Staten Island, in the year 1776, and assisted also by a Mr. Roberts, a clerk in some of the public offices, with books, maps, and papers, relative to the boundaries. “I arrived in a lucky moment for the boundary of Massachusetts, because I brought with me all the essential documents relative to that object, which are this day to be laid before my colleagues in conference at my house, and afterwards before Mr. Oswald.” And again, page 452:-‘‘The Count [Count de Vergennes] then asked me some questions respecting Sagadehock (now Maine), which I answered by showing him the records, which I had in my pocket, particularly that of Governor Pownall's solemn act of possession in 1750; the grants and settlements of Mount Desert, Machias, and all the other townships east of Penobscot river; the original grant of James the First to Sir William Alexander, of Nova Scotia, in which it is bounded on St. Croix river (this grant I had in Latin, French, and English); the dissertations of Governor Shirley and Governor Hutchinson, and the authority of Governor Bernard, all showing the right of Massachusetts to this tract to be incontestible. I added, that I did not think any British Minister would ever put his hand to a written claim of that tract of land, their own national acts were so numerous and so clear against them.” It is impossible that these men should not have known where the north-west angle of Nova Scotia was. Where they thought it was, the United States say it is now. Great Britain has sometimes said, that it was not to be found anywhere; and at other times has placed it at a point beyond which the Province of New Brunswick (carved out of Nova Scotia) has always exercised jurisdiction, which continues, according to the Report of Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, to the present day; for they say, that the jurisdiction of New Brunswick reaches to the Restigouche River, a hundred miles north of where the north-west angle is said to be. The practice of Great Britain, therefore, always has contradicted her own argument. It is not possible to discard from the Treaty the plain reference to the then existing boundary of Nova Scotia. Wherever its northern and western lines intersected each other, there the boundary of the United States commenced; aud yet we find eminent British statesmen asserting, that the Treaty had no regard to previously existing lines, but that it adopted a new description altogether. *
Even as late as 1838, this idea is again repeated in a letter, from which the following is an extract:—
* Lord Palmerston to Mr. Stevenson.
“Foreign Office, April 16, 1838. “In answer to the argument which is employed by Mr. Stevenson, with respect to the boundaries between the British possessions and the United States, the Undersigned begs leave to observe, that the Treaty of 1783 laid down the boundary between the United States and the British possessions, not by reference to the then existing, or to the previously existing, boundaries of the British provinces, whose independence was then acknowledged, but with reference to a geographical description contained in the Treaty itself, &c., &c.”
Massachusetts and Nova Scotia were contiguous to each other, for there was nothing between them. Of course, the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, and the north-east angle of Massachusetts were the same mathematical point; and the ancient charters clearly demonstrated where that point was to be found. - The charter of Nova Scotia, granted by James the First to Sir William Alexander, in 1621, with which Mr. Adams was so familiar as to carry in his pocket a copy of it in Latin, French, and English, run thus;— “Beginning at Cape Sable, &c., &c., to the river, commonly called St. Croix, and to the most remote spring or source, which, from the western part thereof, first mingles with the river aforesaid; from thence, by an imaginary direct line, which may be conceived to stretch through the land, or to run towards the north to the nearest road, river, or spring, emptying itself into the great river of Canada, &c.” Upon a comparison of this line with that, which, in the Treaty, is declared to be the Eastern Boundary of the United States, it will be found to differ only in the following three points:— 1. It adopts the “western source” of the St. Croix, whereas the Treaty merely says “source,” as the point from which to run the northern line. 2. It runs the line towards the north, and the Treaty uses two expressions, “due north” and “directly north.” 3. It extends the line to the St. Lawrence, and the Treaty stops it at the intermediate highlands. The two first of these differences are of little consequence. In fact, they may more properly be considered as different descriptions of the same line, the latter in date correcting, by subsequent geographical knowledge, the error of the former, than as the adoption of different lines. The third difference followed as a necessary consequence, from the excision of the northern portion of the line by the annexation of that part of the country to Canada, in 1763, after its conquest. The Report of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge advances the extravagant proposition, that the original grant of Nova Scotia was from the source of the St. Croix to the River Chaudière, thus running a north-westerly direction, instead of “towards the north.” It may be proper to bestow a passing notice upon this pretension. The idea is not original with these Commissioners. It was alluded to in the British argument before the King of the Netherlands, as a position which might be taken, but they did not assume it. Availing themselves of this hint, and desirous of destroying the identity of the present American claim with the original chartered boundary of Nova Scotia, the Commissioners boldly advance the doctrime for the three following reason :1. That the translation of the Latin grant justifies the ground. 2. That the grant calls to run “ad proximam navium stationem,” which must mean Quebec. 3. That an ancient map so places the line. It is alleged by these Commissioners that the words “versus Septentrionem,” in the original Latin grant, are not to be strictly construed “towards the north,” because in a preceding passage of the grant, the same words are found as applying to the line from Cape Sable to St. Mary's Bay, which line, it is admitted, is in a course nearly west; and the argument is, that if these words describe a line nearly west in one part of the grant, they may do so in another. To furnish a basis for this argument, the same liberties are taken with the rules of the Latin Grammar, that are brought to bear upon ranges of mountains; both are unceremoniously moved out of their established position, in order that the theory of the Commissioners may have room to stand. It may possibly be the case that the translation which they give, was inconsistent with the rules of the Latin tongue, when the “abraded mountains,” which they put upon their line stood erect; but it finds no sanction in the genius of that language as it was understood by Horace, and Virgil, and Cicero. The following is the extract which they give from the grant: “Omnes et singulas terras Continentis ac insulas situates et jacentes in America intra caput sen promontorium communiter Cap de Sable appellat. Jacen prope latitudinem quadraginta trium graduum ant eo circa ab equinoctiali linea versus Septentrionem, a quo promontoris versus littus maris tenden ad occidentem ad tationem Sanctae Mariae navium vulgo Sanctmareis Bay.” Their literal translation:—All and each of the lands of the continent, and the islands situated and lying in America, within the headland or promontory, commonly called Cape Sable, lying near the forty-third degree of latitude from the equinoctial line or thereabouts. From which promontory stretching westwardly towards the north, by the sea shore, to the naval station of St. Mary, commonly called St. Mary's Bay.”—Report, pages 24 and 25. To separate the words “versus septentriomem" from “ab equinoctiali linea,” to which they properly belong, and thrust them into the middle of the succeeding paragraph, is to do violence to all the rules of grammar. The plain meaning of the phrase is, “from the equinoctial line towards the north,” that is, “northern latitude.” 2. The second reason is, that the termination of the line from the source of the St. Croix, must be, by the grant of 1621, at some “navium statio,” which the Commissioners translate “naval station,” or a place where ships are accustomed to ride. Quebec, they say, was the only naval station on the St. Lawrence, and therefore to Quebec the line must go. But they omit to state that these same words are twice used in the preceding part of the grant, and applied successively to “St. Mary's Bay” and the Bay of Fundy. To neither of these places can, or could ever be applied the epithet of “naval station,” in the sense of the Commissioners. Quebec was not then in a situation to be called a naval station in the modern acceptance of the term. Selected as a site about 1603, it was not begun until 1608, and then some “rude cottages were framed, a few fields cleared, and one or two gardens planted.”—l Bancroft, p. 23. “In 1620, Champlain began a fort, and in a few years (1624) the castle of St. Louis, so long the place of council against the Iroquois and against New England, was durably founded on a commanding cliff.”—l Bancroft, p. 29. It belonged to France; and whatever inducement there might have been to make a boundary line terminate at a “naval station ” of the same country, there could have been no possible motive for its striking the St. Lawrence opposite to a post occupied as such by another nation. 3. The third reason is the existence of an old map made in 1689, by Coronelli, a Venetian, which places the boundary line of Nova Scotia from the St. Croix to the mouth of the Chaudière opposite to Quebec. Where this map was found does not appear. It was not used in the argument before the arbiter, but it is manifestly entitled to no confidence, because it places Nova Scotia on the south instead of the north side of the line. The reasons against this position of the Boundary Line of Nova Scotia, are as follows:— 1. In 1663, Charles the Second granted to his brother James, Duke of York, the following land, viz.: beginning at a certain place, called or known by the name of St. Croix, adjoining to New Scotland, in America, to the river of Kennebec, and so up by the shortest course to the river of Canada, northwards. This grant would divide Nova Scotia into two separate parts, according to the location of the latter by the Commissioners; but if the American line be adopted, the two grants are in harmony with each other, lying on opposite sides of a line running from the source of the St. Croix, north. - 2. The line is contradictory to all the official acts of the British Government anterior to the American Revolution, and to the maps which were recognized as authority. Mitchell's map, for example, made in 1755, was held in such high esteem, that the negotiators of the Treaty of 1783 were governed entirely by it. It has been already stated that “Mr. Roberts, a clerk in some of the public offices” in London, crossed the channel with “books, maps, and papers relative to the boundaries,” which were used by the Ministers. If then, Mitchell's map was selected from all these as the most orthodox, and the Boundary Line of Nova Scotia was represented upon that map as running due north, it is inconceivable that the true line should have gone to the Chaudière. Mr. Gallatin, after giving a list of nineteen different maps published in England between 1763 and 1783, “being all the maps that could be found after a diligent search both in England and America,” says, “in every instance the course of the line from the source of the River St. Croix is northward; in every instance that line crosses the River St. John and terminates at the highlands in which the rivers that fall into the St. Lawrence have their sources; in every instance, the north-west angle of Nova Scotia is laid down on those highlands and where the north line terminates; in every instance, the highlands, from that point to the Connecticut River, divide the rivers that fall into the River St. Lawrence from the tributary streams of the River St. John and from the other rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean.” - Mr. Gallatin also enumerates four maps published in England between the preliminary and definitive Treaties, (November, 1782, and September, 1783,) in all of which “the boundaries of the United States are laid down as now claimed by the United States, and are the same with those delineated in the preceding maps, as the boundaries of the Provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia.” Assuming then that the Boundary Line of Nova Scotia, by its original, charter, ran due north as it is laid down in Mitchell's map, we have reached one very important stage of the investigation; because this original line was never
changed by the British Government, and we are thus enabled to see very clearly
what is the Western Boundary of Nova Scotia. To find the north-west angle, where the American Boundary is made to begin by the Treaty of 1783, we have only to ascertain where the Northern Boundary is; and the solution of the problem must be ascertained. If Nova Scotia had a circular boundary like the northern part of the State of Delaware, it might have no angle. But as its boundaries are straight lines, its north-west angle can be found with as much certainty as one of the corners of a square chamber. Where then is or was the northern limit of Nova Scotia? By the original charter, the province was bounded on the north by the River St. Lawrence, and the north-west angle was, of course, at the point where the Boundary Line from the St. Croix insected the St. Lawrence. It so remained until the termination of the war of 1756. Canada having been wrested from France, the King of England, in 1763, chose to re-model his American dominions. In doing this there was much political sagacity exhibited. Natural boundaries are the best between separate jurisdictions. Where the laws of trade lead men to go, it is best that civil regulations should encourage them to go." From an inspection of Mitchell's map, it will be seen that the basin of the St. Lawrence is not extensive on the southern side. The streams which flow into it are short in their course, and must be rapid, because long rivers, flowing in an opposite direction, take their rise near their heads; these short and rapid streams were even then occupied by saw-mills, the lumber from which found its market at Quebec. It was, therefore, highly expedient that the country which traded with Quebec, should be placed under the jurisdiction of Canada, and a
Royal Proclamation of October, 1763, wisely enlarged Canada, by describing
its southern boundary as follows. viz:—
“Passing along the highlands which divide the rivers that empty them-"
selves into the said River St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the sea, and
also along the north coast of the Bay of Chaleurs and the coast of the Gulf of
St. Lawrence to Cape Rosiers.”
In the ensuing month, the boundary of Nova Scotia was for the first time
changed; for in November, 1763, Montague Wilmot was appointed Governor
of Nova Scotia, whose boundaries were altered, to correspond with the Procla-
“To the mouth of the River St. Croix, by the said river to its source, and
by a line drawn north from thence to the southern boundary of our Colony of Quebec.” -
And in the Commissions issued in 1767, to William Campbell, and in
1761, to Francis Leggee, Nova Scotia is described as above.
In 1774, an Act of Parliament (14th George IIIrd) was passed, describing the boundary of the Province of Quebec, as follows:– “Bounded on the south by a line from the Bay of Chaleurs, along the highlands which divide the rivers which empty themselves into the St. Lawrence from those which fall into the sea.” The American claim is now, that the Boundary is precisely where the original charter of Nova Scotia, and the above-mentioned Proclamation and Act of Parliament put it. If the southern boundary of Canada is not to be found in those documents, where is it to be found? No subsequent legislation of Great Britain has designated it, and it must, of necessity, exist there only. If the present American and British claims be tested by these papers, the following will be the result: The American line runs from the north coast of the Bay of Chaleurs, along highlands which divide rivers which empty themselves into the St. Lawrence, from those which unite with the St. John's River, and then fall into the sea through the Bay of Fundy. The British line requires to be noticed as it was claimed before the arbiter and by Featherstonhaugh and Mudge. These lines vary considerably, as an inspection of the maps annexed hereto will show. As it was claimed before the King of the Netherlands, it winds around the heads of the streams which flow upon one hand into the Aroostook and the Allegash (tributaries to the St. John's) and the St. John's, and upon the other into the Kennebec and the Penobscot. But from the eastern termination of the line to the Bay of Chaleurs there is no attempt to trace it on the map, or reconcile it with the description of it in the Proclamation of 1763. That this cannot be the line meant by the Proclamation and subsequent Act of Parliament is manifest from the following reasons: That the Proclamation calls for a range of highlands from the Bay of Chaleurs, whereas in the argument before the King of the Netherlands, it was not pretended that any such range existed from the Bay of Chaleurs to Mars Hill, the alleged termination of the Eastern Boundary Line of the United States. That such a line would be contradictory to the undeviating practice of the British Government in maintaining jurisdiction over its own provinces, because if that line be correct, all to the north of it would belong to Canada, and Featherstonhaugh and Mudge say that the jurisdiction of New Brunswick extends northward to the bank of the Restigouche. That such a line divides waters which fall into the St. John's from others which fall into the sea, and does not approach within from 50 to 100 miles, those waters which fall into the St. Lawrence. The line, as proposed to be run by Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, runs along the southern bank of the Aroostook, and leaves Mars’ Hill, for which the British Government has so stoutly contended, about twenty miles within the territory of the United States. Of course, these Commissioners disapprove of the former pretensions of Great Britain. It remains to be seen whether that Government will adhere to its former claim and condemn its Commissioners, or adopt their report and condemn the line which, for so many years and at so much trouble, it has hitherto maintained. The objections to this line are, that when extended it strikes the south, instead of the north, coast of the Bay of Chaleurs, which the Proclamation requires, and that it passes along no highlands at all. The geologist has discovered from sundry stones found there, that a range of highlands once existed which are now abraded. Some of the objections to the other line are also common to this. The map shows that on the east of the St. John's, the range of highlands as projected is coincident with the bed of the Tobique River. That a river should flow along a ridge of highlands, or even across it, is not surprising; but that it should abrade a range of hills for no other purpose than to put its bed there, is a geological phenomenon worthy of all admiration. The Aroostook, too, has taken the superfluous trouble of crossing and recrossing the same range of highlands for no other cause, apparently, than to gratify the guilty and unnatural ambition of flowing along the “axis of maximum elevation.” If either of these lines be taken to be the true one, the consequence is that the north-west angle of Nova Scotia must be at the intersection of it, with