information as to their extent and situation, and could not doubt that at the proper time they would both be assigned to the United States. to Lac la Pluie. The second point of difference between the Line from Isle Royale commissioners related to the boundary from a point near Isle Royale in Lake Superior to the Chaudière Falls in Lac la Pluie, which is situated between Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods. Mr. Porter claimed that the line should be drawn from the point named, northward of Isle Paté, to and through the Kamanistiquia River, Dog Lake, and Dog River, keeping the most continuous chain of water communication to the Chaudière Falls; while Mr. Barclay claimed that the line should run north and west of Isle Royale, thence southwestwardly to and through Fond du Lac to the St. Louis River, and thence up that river and over its grand portage by the most continuous water communication to the falls in question. the Long Lake. By the treaty of 1783 the boundary is deIsles Philipeaux and scribed as passing through Lake Superior northward of the Isles Royale and Phelipeaux, to the Long Lake; thence through the middle of said Long Lake, and the water communication between it and the Lake of the Woods, to the said Lake of the Woods." The commissioners agreed as to Isle Royale, which they located near the northwestern coast of Lake Superior, but they were unable to find any places known as the Isles Philipeaux and the Long Lake. Mr. Porter however was of opinion that the Isles Philipeaux were a cluster or rather a succession of small islands, of which the Isle Paté was the most considerable, extending along the lake coast from northeast to southwest, and situated between Isle Royale and the main shore, and by consequence that the boundary must pass to the northward" of them also. And he was further of opinion that the Long Lake of the treaty was a sheet of water called by the inhab itants and traders of the country Dog Lake, lying in the interior and forming part of the River Kamanistiquia, through which it discharges into Lake Superior a little to the northward of Isles Royale and Paté. The first objection to the boundary claimed Kamanistiquia by the British commissioner was, said Mr. River: Claim of Porter, that, after passing to the northward of Isle Royale, it returned southwardly and westwardly through Lake Superior, in order to reach the River St. Louis, and thus made it appear that the American Commissioner. framers of the treaty of 1783 twice traversed the whole breadth of the lake for no other conceivable purpose than to place the inconsiderable territory of the Isle Royale within the limits of the United States. If, on the other hand, the Kamanistiquia route were adopted, the description of the treaty would be consistent and harmonious. A straight line through Lake Superior, from St. Mary's River to the mouth of the Kamanistiquia, would intersect the Isle Royale, while the most direct water route between the two points would be to the north rather than to the south of Isle Royale and of Isle Paté and and its consorts. This argument would also apply with nearly equal force in favor of the Kamanistiquia route as contrasted with the mouth of Pigeon River and the beginning of the Grand Portage, the most direct water route from which to the St. Mary's River would pass to the south rather than to the north of Isle Royale. Moreover, the route from the mouth of the Kamanistiquia to the Lake of the Woods by Dog Lake or Long Lake and Lac la Pluie was probably the best, and afforded a more continuous water communication than any other in the country. It was probably the route of the French traders, and was still used by the English. Commissioner. The only evidence, said Mr. Porter, adduced St. Louis River: in support of the St. Louis River route was Views of American comprised in ancient maps and in two letters addressed to Mr. Hale, the British agent, in 1824, by Mr. McGillivray, a very respectable and intelligent British subject. The maps however seemed to militate against the claim. They all represented the St. Louis as emptying itself into the extreme southwestern bay or projection of the lake called Fond du Lac, and as much the longest stream discharging itself into Lake Superior; and they all concurred in giving it the name St. Louis. If the framers of the treaty had intended this river, would they not have so expressed themselves? On the other hand, the Kamanistiquia was a small stream in reference to the quantity of water it discharged, and in shape partook as much of the character of a lake as of a river, sometimes spreading into a broad, still sheet of water and at others contracting into a narrow river or rapid, and rendering appropriate the name of lake or river. The letters of Mr. McGillivray, who was long at the head of the British Northwest Company, trading with the Indians, Mr. Porter considered decisive against the St. Louis River, since they indicated that the writer believed the boundary intended by the treaty to be identified with the "Grand Portage route," a route well-known to northwestern traders as commencing at a point on Lake Superior near the mouth of Pigeon River, called by Mr. McGillivray Rivière aux Tourtres, which empties into Lake Superior abreast of the Isle Royale, and about eighty leagues northeast of the St. Louis or Fond du Lac. Pigeon River. On Mitchell's map, which was used by the negotiators of the treaty of 1783, Long Lake is located at the mouth of Pigeon River, and partly for this reason Mr. Porter proposed to abandon his claim to the mouth of the Kamanistiquia, where most of the early geographers placed the Long Lake, and where a lake actually exists, provided the British commissioner would consent to run the line from the mouth of the Pigeon River or Revière aux Tourtres up the middle of that river, and thence through the most continuous water communication to Lac la Pluie. The British commissioner, on the other hand, offered to aban don the St. Louis River if Mr. Porter would accept the Grand Portage route, commencing on Lake Superior about six miles southwest of the mouth of Pigeon River, and thence up that river by the Portage route, alternately by land and water to Lac la Pluie. This was the route assumed by Mr. McGillivray. But though the difference between the commissioners was thus greatly narrowed, and rendered of small consequence territorially, Mr. Porter declined the offer on the ground that the treaty required a water communication wherever one could be found. He also declined a subsequent proposition of his British colleague to take a water line commencing in the mouth of Pigeon River, and thence proceeding to Rainy Lake, with a stipulation that the Grand Portage route should be made free and common for the use of both parties, on the ground that such a stipulation would involve the exercise of powers not confided to him by his commission. Claim of British As to the St. Louis River route, Mr. Barclay St. Louis River: said that as the Isles Philipeaux laid down on Mitchell's map and mentioned in the treaty did not exist, the next point to search for after leaving Isle Royale was the Long Lake. At the meeting of the commissioners at Montreal on October 25, 1824, the agent of the United States presented a memorial praying the board to proceed at once to determine what was meant by the Long Lake, and submitted an argument and documents to |