it was the intention of the commissioners to do any thing more, than to provide for the survey and marking of the lines, and to guard against any possible difficulties of a minor character, such as the variation of the needle, or the precise spot, where the corner, to wit, the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, should be fixed, on the range of highlands, limiting the sources of those rivers which empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, or some other possible difficulties of a similar character, none of which would vary the lines materially, or in any important degree, to either government? When the whole is fairly and candidly examined, such must be the conclusion. No other conclusion can be made, unless it be on the ground that the American commissioners undertook to exercise a power, which they so often and explicitly declared to the British, they did not possess, and if they did exercise a power which they did not possess, their acts were not obligatory upon the government

A careful examination of the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, does not involve a conclusion, that the commissioners departed from the powers given them, and their repeated and reiterated declarations. The part of the article relating to the point under discussion, is as follows: "Whereas neither that point of the highlands, lying due north from the source of the river St. Croix, and designated in a former treaty of peace between the two powers, as the north west angle of Nova Scotia, nor the north westernmost head of Connecticut river, has yet been ascertained, and whereas that boundary line between the dominions of the two powers, which extends from the source of the river St. Croix, directly north, to the above-mentioned angle of Nova Scotia, thence along the said highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the north westernmost head of Connecticut river, thence down along that river to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude, until it strikes the river Iroquois or Cataraguy, has not yet been surveyed; it is agreed for these several purposes, two Commissioners shall be appointed, sworn and authorized to act exactly in the manner directed with respect to those mentioned in the next preceding article, unless otherwise specified in the present article. The said Commissioners shall have power to ascertain the points abovementioned, in conformity with the provisions of the said treaty of peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty three, and shall cause the boundary aforesaid to be surveyed and marked according to the said provisions. The said Commissioners shall make a map of said boundary, and annex it to a declaration under their

hands and seals, certifying it to be a true map of said boundary, and particularizing the latitude of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, and of the north westernmost head of Connecticut river, and of such other points of said boundary as they may deem proper

Here the question may be repeated, has Nova Scotia two northwest angies? or an ideal one, placed where the "cupidity" or the interested views of either party may dictate? or is the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, the north west angle of Nova Scotia as established by the Crown and Government of Great Britain, adopted by the treaty of 1783, and recognized in the discussions by the Agents under the fifth article of the treaty of 1794, and also recognized by all subsequent discussions between the United States and Great Britain? It cannot be reasonably supposed, that the Commissioners had any other angle in view, especially as the article seems to recognize and place the location of the angle on the construction of the treaty of 1783, explained as it was by the treaty of 1794, and the discussions under that treaty. It cannot be supposed that the British Commissioners expected to gain, that which they had requested as a cession, or the American Commissioners expected to lose any thing which they had denied, from the lan-? guage used and references made in the article above quoted; but it is to be supposed, that both parties, in agreeing to the article, limited to the description in the treaty of 1783, as the same had been defined and the rights of the parties under it had been explained by direct and implied acknowledgments of its true construction, from the time of its adoption, intended simply to provide for the survey and marking of the line. No other conclusion can follow, unless it be supposed, that the high minded and honorable men, who negotiated the treaty, did on the one part resort to the most despicable chicanery, and the other to a gross and palpable violation of the power and authority to them delegated; neither of which can be true. It follows then, that to fulfil this article, nothing more was required, than to survey and mark the lines, and that the difficulties which could arise, if any, were of minor consequence, not involving in any event, but a trifling extent of territory, and of little importance to either government, and by no means involving the title to the intervening territory between New Brunswick and Quebec, which had often been sought as a cession, to secure a direct communication, and as often denied.

If the Agents and Commissioners of the two governments have departed from this plain and natural interpretation of the treaty, they must have erred from causes which are credita

ble to neither. If a line were to be established, contrary to this obvious construction, it is to be foreseen, that the party thus deprived of its rights, would imbibe a spirit not to be subdued, and which would seek its redress whenever it could, at any sacrifice. If the British colonists were to be governed by their true interests, they would not endeavor to acquire any thing by construction, against the true and common sense interpretation of all the treaties, because in that they would discover the germs of eternal hostility.

If, in the prosecution of the duties under this article, the Agent of the United States has misconstrued and extended its application beyond its plain and obvious construction, or had not a clear and distinct view of the meaning of the terms "highlands, which divide the waters," in the treaty of 1783, or was bewildered by mountains, or mountain ranges, when even mole hills answer the description precisely, if they do "divide the waters which flow into the river St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the Atlantic," and if the British Agent, in the prosecution of his duties, under the same article, has pretended that the northwest angle of Nova Scotia is at Mars hill, and that the line of the United States runs south westwardly from that point, when the territory extending north, northwest, west and southwestwardly, is claimed as a part of the ancient province of Nova Scotia, thereby destroying the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, which had been established by a series of acts of the British government, and acknowledged by them to this time, and substituting therefor, a southwest angle, and, if from the course so absurd and preposterous in itself, ingenuity should obtain a temporary triumph over right, a question will arise, growing out of the nature of, and the organization of the State and National governments; has the United States any constitutional authority to cede any part of an independent sovereignty composing one of its members?

The Commissioners of the United States who negotiated the treaty of Ghent, uniformly denied the right of cession, but whether they founded their denial on the want of authority in the instructions given them, or upon the Constitution of the United States, is not perfectly clear; if upon the first, they adopted a right course; if upon the last, their course was also right, and there must be perfect harmony of opinion, because either principle preserves the rights of the individual States. On this subject it may be important to consider the object and nature of the association of the States, which led to the adoption of the Constitution."

The general government, which had originated in the oppression of Great Britain and been sustained by the pressure

of an external enemy, and had carried the country through the Revolution, when peace was restored, was found to be too Its inherent feeble for any valuable purpose to the States.

defects had, by a few years experience, been shewn, and the States for want of general union were in danger of degenerating and falling into anarchy, and of becoming a prey to each other, or any foreign nation. The independent sovereignties saw the necessity of associating anew, which they did, and in that association mutually delegated limited parts of their sovereign power for the greater security of those retained.

As in the first confederation mutual defence and protection was a primary object, so it was, in the last confederation; a mutual protection, not limited to the personal rights of individuals, but extended to the full and free exercise of the whole sovereign power, not delegated, to the extent of the territorial With this view of the object of the jurisdiction of the State. confederation, composed as it was of independent sovereignties, it cannot be supposed that they ever intended to give to the general government any power by which they might be destroyed and consolidated, or by which even their rights of sovereignty and jurisdiction might be abridged. It has never been pretended that Congress has the power of taking from one State and giving to another,or to incorporate new States within the limits of old ones; nor has it ever claimed to exercise such a power. The most it has ever done, or has a constitutional right to do, has been, to give its consent to the compact made between the parties immediately interested, and to admit the new State into the Union.

If Congress do possess the power of ceding any portion of an independent State, they possess a power to break down the State sovereignties by which they were created, and at their pleasure to produce a consolidation of those sovereignties; a power which was never delegated or intended. If, therefore, the Congress of the United States attempt to exercise such a power, the State thus deprived of, or limited in its rights of sovereignty, must submit, or enforce its rights.

The rights of protection in the exercise of the sovereign power of the State are equal, whether it is an exterior or interior State, and Congress can have no more constitutional right to take from Maine and cede to New Brunswick, than they have to take from Virginia a part of her territory, and cede it to North Carolina. Congress has not claimed to exercise such a power, for the construction of the treaty of Ghent herein before given does not involve such a power, unless from a misconstruction of its provisions, limiting as it does the whole power of the commission to the surveying and marking of the

1

lines, and erecting its monuments, according to the treaty of 1783.

But, it will at once be seen, if the government of the United States yield to the misconstructions of the agents, so far as to be endangered by the result, that by the misconstructions of the one and the ingenuity of the other, arising from a strong desire to acquire for his country the territory which had been so often but unsuccessfully sought as a cession, and by its final result the lines of the State of Maine are materially changed, she will be as much dispossessed of her territory and sovereignty, as she would have been by a direct exercise of the power of cession. The one mode equally with the other involves an assumption of power which was never delegated. If such an unfortunate occurrence ever arises, from any cause, the duty which the State owes herself and her sister republics is plain.

While it is the duty, as well as the interest, of individu als, as well as States, to yield a peaceable and quiet obedience to every exercise of constitutional power on the part of the government of the United States, it is equally their duty, and their interest to resist all encroachments on the rights which they have reserved. If a part of the State of Maine should be surrendered by the government of the United States, either by a direct or indirect exercise of the power of cession, it will then be a duty which she owes herself, to consider, whether she has, by such an invasion of her rights, lost her right of sovereignty and jurisdiction. Such an exercise of power can have no obligatory force, and unless Maine quietly and peaceably submits, it will be the duty of the States; a duty imposed by the Federal Government, to afford her aid and protection, and to aid her in regaining her rights.

From the provisional treaty of peace in 1782 to the treaty of Ghent, for a period of more than thirty-two years, the British always conceded our title and our rights, whenever the subject was presented in the discussions between them and the United States. Even in the argument of the British Agent under the fourth article of the treaty of Ghent, delivered before the Commissioners in September 1817, after the Board under the fifth article of the same treaty, and the agents had made their agreement for a survey, he unequivocally admits and shows our title. He says, "That the northwest angle of Nova Scotia mentioned in the treaty as the commencing point in the boundary of the United States is the northwest angle of the said Province of Nova Scotia, designated in the grant to Sir William Alexander in 1621, subject only to such alteration as was occasioned by the erection of the Province of Quebec, 1763."