of Maine, to and from the seaport at the mouth of the said river St. John's and to and around the falls of the said river, either by boats, rafts, or other conveyance; that when within the province of New Brunswick, the said produce shall be dealt with as if it were the produce of the said province; that, in like manner, the inhabitants of the territory of the upper St. John, determined by this treaty to belong to Her Britannic Majesty, shall have free access to and through the river, for their produce, in those parts where the said river runs wholly through the State of Maine; Provided, always, that this agreement shall give no right to either party to interfere with any regulations not inconsistent with the terms of this treaty which the governments, respectively, of Maine or of New Brunswick may make respecting the navigation of the said river, where both banks thereof shall belong to the same party."

By the fourth article provision was made for the confirmation of grants of land previously made by either party in territory which by the treaty falls within the dominion of the other, as well as for the confirmation of all equitable possessory claims, arising from the possession and improvement of any lot or parcel of land by the person actually in possession, or by those under whom he claimed, for more than six years before the date of the treaty.

uce.

1 On May 16, 1844, Mr. Calhoun, who was then Secretary of State, instructed Mr. Everett to bring to the attention of Her Majesty's government the fact that the legislature of New Brunswick had imposed an export duty of a shilling a ton on all timber shipped from any port in the province, the authorities of Maine contending that the duty contravened the provision of Article III. of the treaty of 1812 as to "free access" to the port at the mouth of the St. John for Maine lumber and prodLord Aberdeen on the 9th of December replied that it was no violation of the treaty, as American and Canadian articles were treated alike, the treaty providing that Maine lumber and produce should, “when within the province of New Brunswick, be dealt with as if it were the produce of the said province." Great Britain had, said Lord Aberdeen, given a liberal construction to this article by allowing the produce of Maine, when once brought within the province of New Brunswick, to be exported thence, and imported into England and the British Possessions, on payment of the same duties as the produce of the province itself. (Br. and For. State Papers, LI. 934.) By article XXXI. of the treaty of May 8, 1871. Great Britain engaged "to urge upon the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada and the Legislature of New Brunswick, that no export duty, or other duty, shall be levied on lumber or timber of any kind cut on that portion of American territory in the State of Maine watered by the river St. John and its tributaries, and floated down that river to the sea, when the same is shipped to the United States from the province of New Brunswick."

By the fifth article provision was made for the distribution of the "disputed territory fund," which consisted of moneys received by the authorities of New Brunswick from charges for the cutting of timber in the disputed territory, with a view to prevent depredations on the forests, and the proceeds of which it was agreed should subsequently be paid over to the parties interested, in the proportions to be determined by the final settlement of the boundary. It was stipulated that a correct account of all receipts and payments of this fund should be delivered to the United States, and that the proportion of the amount due thereon to Maine and Massachusetts should be paid to the United States. Of this fund the United States agreed to pay over to those States their respective portions, and further to satisfy their claims for expenses incurred by them in protecting the disputed territory and making a survey thereof in 1838. Beyond this the United States agreed "with the States of Maine and Massachusetts to pay them the further sum of three hundred thousand dollars, in equal moieties, on account of their assent to the line of boundary described in this treaty, and in consideration of the conditions and equivalents received therefor from the Government of Her Britannic Majesty." This last stipulation Lord Ashburton was at first disinclined to admit into the treaty, since it was in fact an agreement between the United States and the States of Maine and Massachusetts. Mr. Webster however convinced him of the propriety of retaining it, at the same time expressly declaring that no responsibility on account of it could be incurred by the British Government.1 By the sixth article of the treaty provision was made for the joint establishment by two commissioners, one to be appointed by each government, of the boundary described in the first

article.2

3

On the 11th of August the treaty was comCriticism of Treaty in municated by President Tyler to the Senate, United States and where its provisions, not only in respect of the boundary but of the slave trade and the

Great Britain.

Webster's Works, VI. 289.

The correspondence between Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton leading up to the conclusion of the treaty may be found in Webster's Works, VI. 270; Br. and For. State Papers, XXX. 136; H. Ex. Doc. 2, 27 Cong. 3 sess. 31. 3 Webster's Works, VI. 347. As to President Tyler's helpful attitude and influence in the negotiation, see Curtis's Life of Webster, II. 105; Mr. Webster to President Tyler, August 24, 1842, Webster's Private Correspondence, II. 146.

extradition of criminals, were severely criticised. But, in spite of this opposition, the Senate on the 20th of August gave its advice and consent to the exchange of the ratifications by a vote of 39 to 9.1 In England the treaty was assailed as the "Ashburton capitulation."" Lord Palmerston even went so far as to make the fact that Ashburton had an American wife a ground of attack on the negotiations.*

3

Provisions of the
Treaty.

Nevertheless, the treaty was duly carried Execution of the into effect. On the 28th of June 1847 Col. J. Bucknall Estcourt and Mr. Albert Smith, respectively the British and American commis sioners to run the line described in the first article of the treaty, signed at Washington their final report, at the conclusion of which they say "that the most perfect harmony has subsisted between the two commissioners from first to last, and that no differences have arisen between the undersigned in the execution of the duties entrusted to them."5

The "Red Line"
Мар.

6

Any history of the settlement of the northeastern boundary dispute would be incomplete which omitted to mention the question that arose as to maps. As has been seen, the map used by the negotiators of 1782-83 was Mitchell's, but no copy with the lines marked on it was annexed to the treaty. When the conclusion of the provisional articles of peace became known, Count Vergennes, the French minister for foreign affairs, sent to Franklin a copy of a map, with the request that he would mark the boundaries of the United States upon it. By whom the map was made does not appear, nor whether the maker

Webster's Private Correspondence, II. 146. After his return to the Senate, Mr. Webster, on April 6 and 7, 1846, made an elaborate defense of the treaty. (Webster's Works, V. 78.)

2 Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster, January 2, 1843, Webster's Private Correspondence, II. 162.

3 Lord Ashburton married a Miss Bingham, of Philadelphia.

4 Sanders's Life of Lord Palmerston, 91; Francis's Opinions and Policy of Lord Palmerston, 443; Lord Palmerston on the Treaty of Washington (a collection of articles published in the London Morning Chronicle from Sept. 19, to Oct. 3, 1842, the authorship of which was popularly ascribed to Lord Palmerston). See Bulwer's Life of Lord Palmerston, III. 61, 113, 118. See, also, as to the reception of the treaty in England, Curtis's Life of Webster, II. 147, 150-152, 155–162.

5 Br. and For. State Papers, LVII. 823, 832; XXXIII. 763-806; Curtis's Life of Webster, II. 204-205.

6 Wharton's Dip. Cor. Am. Rev. VI. 131, 133.

was of English, French, or other nationality. On the 6th of December 1782 Franklin returned the map after having, as he said, marked the limits of the United States "with a strong red line." Early in 1842 Jared Sparks, while pursuing his researches among the papers relating to the American Revolution in the archives of the French department of foreign affairs, discovered Franklin's letter to Vergennes. Immediately instituting a search, he found among the 60,000 maps in the archives a small map of North America by D'Anville dated 1746, with a red line upon it apparently drawn with a hair pencil or a pen with a blunt point, and apparently intended to indicate the boundaries of the United States.2 Besides this line there was nothing whatever to identify the map with the map marked by Franklin. In reality, it made the northeastern boundary run even below the line claimed by Great Britain westward from Mars Hill.3 Sparks however at once sent a copy of the map to Mr. Webster, who, after inspecting it, instructed Mr. Everett to "forbear to press the search after maps in England or elsewhere." Mr. Webster retained the copy in his possession, but exhibited it only to the Maine. commissioners and later to the Senate. That it bore any relation to the negotiations of 1782 and 1783 is more than doubtful. This was strongly intimated by Benton in the debates on the treaty. But when, through the publication of the debates in the Senate, the use made by Mr. Webster of the map became known he was vigorously assailed for not having exhibited it to Lord Ashburton, whom he was charged with having overreached. Mr. Webster very appropriately replied that he did not think it a very urgent duty on his part to go to Lord Ashburton and say that a doubtful bit of evidence had been found in Paris, out of which he might perhaps make something to the prejudice of the United States, or from which he might set up higher claims for himself, or obscure the whole matter still further. But it must have been known, at least to some of

Wharton's Dip. Cor. Am. Rev. VI. 120.

4

2 Sparks, North American Review (1843), LVI. 470–471.

3 North American Review (1843), LVI. 468.

4 Curtis's Life of Webster, II. 103.

5 Winsor's Narrative and Critical History of America, VII. 180, et seq.

6 Benton's Thirty Years' View, II. 422.

7 Curtis's Life of Webster, II. 132, 134, 149, 154, 155, 159–162, 167.

*Proceedings of the New York Historical Society, April 15, 1843, p. 67; Webster's Works, II. 145.

Mr. Webster's and Lord Ashburton's detractors in England, that there then existed in the foreign office, to which it had been removed from the British Museum,' the veritable copy of Mitchell's map used in the negotiations of 1782 with Oswald's line, and also the line finally agreed on marked upon it. This map was exhibited by Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Everett at the foreign office in March 1843.2 It was subsequently restored to the British Mu eum, where it is now preserved. A copy of Mitchell's map, with Oswald's first line marked upon it, was found in 1843 among the papers of Mr. Jay. This line runs along the St. John from its mouth and follows the north branch to the head of Lake Medousa, where it turns westward, and, on its course to the head of Connecticut River, skirts the sources of the streams that empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence.

ican Commissioners in 1782.

It has been seen that Egbert Benson, in his Map used by Amer- report under Article V. of the treaty of 1794, said that the commissioners under that article had before them the copy of Mitchell's map used by the negotiators of the treaty of peace, with the lines of the boundary marked upon it. This map, he said, was obtained from the Department of State. It probably was the one referred to by a writer in 1826, who said: "We have ourselves seen the very copy of the map which was used at the conference at Paris, with the lines in pencil yet hardly obliter

1 Benton's Thirty Years' View, II. 422.

2 Mr. Everett, in a dispatch of March 31, 1843, describes the map thus: "It is a copy of Mitchell in fine preservation. The boundaries between the British and French Possessions, as fixed by the treaty of Utretch,' are marked upon it in a very full distinct line, at least a tenth of an inch broad, and those words written in several places. In like manner the line giving our boundary as we have always claimed it, that is, carrying the northwestern angle of Nova Scotia far to the north of the St. Johns, is drawn very carefully in a bold red line, full a tenth of an inch broad; and in four different places along the line distinctly written the boundary described by Mr Oswald.' What is very noticeable is, that a line narrower, but drawn with care with an instrument, from the lower end of Lake Nipissing to the source of the Mississippi, as far as the map permits such a line to run, had once been drawn on the map, and has since been partially erased, though still distinctly visible." (Benton's Thirty Years' View, II. 671.)

3

4

Fitzmaurice's Life of Shelburne, III. 205, 324, note.

'Proceedings of the New York Historical Society, April 18, 1843, with a "Memoir on the Northeastern Boundary," by Mr. Gallatin, and a speech by Mr. Webster.