86

in a letter to Fox, the British minister, renewed the offer of a joint commission of exploration and survey; but as Fox had no power to negotiate a convention, he sent the note to London on May 1. A year then passed and finally the Aroostook War broke out, nearly involving the two countries in war. Charges and countercharges were made by the American and British factions of aggressions by the other, and notes and protests were exchanged between the two governments.*

In the summer of 1841 Webster notified Fox that he was ready to begin negotiations for a conventional line. Fox so informed Lord Aberdeen, the British foreign secretary, who then sent Lord Ashburton (Alexander Baring) as special minister to settle all questions in dispute between the two countries. While awaiting his arrival Webster had sought the consent of Maine and Massachusetts to a conventional line. On February 2, 1842, he wrote to Reuel Williams, a Maine Senator, requesting that he sound the governor and leading men of the State as to the willingness of the legislature to send commissioners to Washington empowered to agree to such a line, with the understanding that it should not be adopted without their consent. In reply, February 12, 1842, Williams said that the governor and legislature

*Niles' Register, vol. lvii., pp. 389-391, 401402, and vol. lviii., p. 67 et seq.

Tefft, Life of Webster, p. 335.

seemed disposed to accept a conventional line, if privileges of navigation and other benefits were given in lieu of territory that might be ceded. At this stage of the correspondence Jared Sparks sent to Webster a letter and a copy of a map, which greatly aided him in his negotiations. While searching in Paris for papers relating to the Revolution, Sparks had unearthed a letter from Franklin to Vergennes dated December 6, 1782. Accompanying the note was a map on which Franklin had marked "with a strong red line the limits of the United States as settled by the preliminaries between the British and American plenipotentiaries." Realizing the importance of this map, Sparks had sent a copy to Webster.* As regards the Maine boundary, the line drawn was almost exactly the line contended for by Great Britain. Should this map prove beyond a doubt to be the map mentioned by Franklin, Maine's claim was groundless.† Not caring whether the map was authentic or not, Webster determined to use it to force Maine to modify her demands and accept a conventional line, and therefore sent Sparks to Augusta to show it to the Governor of Maine, who immediately declared for a conventional line and induced the legislature to appoint four commissioners. Massa

* Webster's Works, vol. ii., p. 143. Cf. Sparks' letter to Buchanan in Curtis, Life of Buchanan, vol. i., p. 505.

+ Curtis, Life of Webster, vol. ii., p. 132.

H. B. Adams, Life and Writings of Jared Sparks, vol. ii., pp. 394–401.

88

carry in all not less than eighty guns, to enforce, separately and respectively, the laws, rights and obligations of each of the two countries for the suppression of the slave trade," and to act in concert when exigencies arose.*

The disorders along the Canadian border and the fact that the offenders against the laws of each country had found refuge in the territory of the other, led to the incorporation of an article whereby it was agreed that, upon mutual requisition, the two countries would deliver up to justice all persons found within the territories of the other charged with murder, attempted murder, piracy, arson, robbery, or forgery committed within the jurisdiction of the one power. The expense of apprehending and delivering such criminals should be borne and defrayed by the party making the requisition and receiving the fugitive.

Lord Ashburton was not empowered to enter into a similar stipulation regarding the treatment of slavers driven by storms into British ports or carried there by force in cases similar to that of the Creole. Webster said that though the English laws positively forbade the existence. of slavery, this did not mean that the British authorities could enter the jurisdiction of another nation and destroy rights and obligations lawfully existing under that nation's authority. But Ashburton would go no further than to say that there would

*Schuyler, American Diplomacy, pp. 253-255; Tefft, Life of Webster, pp. 342-348.

be no officious interference with American vessels driven by accident or violence into West Indian ports. He urged that the whole matter be dealt with by a separate correspondence; and so it was left.* It was not until ten years had passed, however, that the Creole case was finally arbitrated, at which time Great Britain paid an indemnity of $110,000.

Another issue omitted from the treaty was the impressment of American sailors. Ashburton had no authority to discuss this, but Webster wrote a letter to him on August 8, 1842, the day before the treaty was signed, reviewing the history of previous attempts to settle the issue and closing with the statements that the United States would not allow seamen to be impressed from American vessels, and that in future "in every regularly documented American merchant vessel the crew who navigated it [would] find their protection in the flag which [was] over them."†

On August 9, 1842, four months after the arrival of Ashburton, the labors of the negotiators were brought to a successful conclusion and the treaty was signed. On August 11 Tyler submitted to the Senate the treaty together with a long message.||

* Curtis, Life of Webster, vol. ii., pp. 120-123. Curtis, Life of Webster, vol. ii., p. 123. See also McMaster, Life of Webster, pp. 272274; Tefft, Life of Webster, pp. 352–356.

Foster, Century of American Diplomacy, pp. 282-286.

|| Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. iv., pp. 162-169; Benton, Abridgment, vol. xiv., pp. 530-533; Niles' Register, vol. Ixiii., pp. 23-24.

In the debate Rives brought to light the existence of the red-line map. After the injunction of secrecy had been removed and the speeches were published, a long and bitter discussion took place. Many believed that Webster should in honor have shown the map to Lord Ashburton, while others claimed that it was no more the duty of a negotiator than of a lawyer to give his opponent evidence. damaging to his case. There was also a dispute as to whether the map was authentic or not. On August 20 the treaty was ratified by the Senate by a vote of 39 to 9;† on October 13 ratifications were exchanged at London, and on November 10 the treaty was proclaimed. On March 3, 1843, an act was passed for carrying the treaty into effect, and it was adversely

For discussions of the red line map see Webster's Works, vol. ii., p. 153; W. F. Coffin, How Treaty-Making Unmade Canada, in Canadian Monthly Magazine (1876), a violent Canadian view; J. C. Dent, Last Forty Years of Canada, chap. x.; Sir Francis Hincks, The Boundaries Formerly in Dispute between Great Britain and The United States (Montreal, 1885); articles in the North American Review by Hale (vols. xxvi., p. 421, xxxiii., p. 262, and xliii., p. 415), C. S. Davies (vol. xxxiv., p. 514), C. F. Adams (vol. lii., p. 424), J. G. Palfrey (vol. liii, p. 439), and Sparks (vol. lvi., p. 542); Winsor, Cartographical History of the Northeastern Boundary, in Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society (October, 1887), and Narrative and Critical History of America, vol. vii., pp. 180-182; Curtis, Life of Webster, vol. ii., pp. 133-137; Foster, Century of American Diplomacy, pp. 284-286. † Benton, p. 533. The principal speeches are in Benton, pp. 534–599.

For text of the treaty see Revised Statutes relating to the District of Columbia (ed. 1875), pp. 315-320; Niles' Register, vol. lxiii., pp. 187189. Excerpts will be found in McDonald, Select Documents, pp. 335-343, and in Snow,

89

criticised in Congress in 1846, during the discussions over the treaty of Washington.

One of the defects of the treaty in the eyes of many was the fact that the Oregon question had been ignored. This was a serious matter, for emigration to the West had begun and demands had been made that Congress confirm to the emigrants the land on which they had settled and establish military posts to protect them against the oppression and insults of the British Hudson's Bay Company.† Senator Lewis F. Linn introduced a bill providing that one square mile of land be granted to

Treaties and Topics in American Diplomacy, pp. 82-84, and the most important parts in app. I. at end of the present chapter. The diplomatic correspondence, including that with Maine and New Hampshire, is in Senate Ex. Doc. 2, 27th Congress, 3d session; also the Congressional Globe, pp. 4-21. Some is in Niles' Register, vol. Ixiii., pp. 41-47, 53–63. The act of March 3, 1843, carrying the treaty into effect is in United States Statutes-at-Large, vol. v., p. 623.

*Webster's speech of April 6 and 7 of that year gives a full account of the negotiations and will be found in Congressional Globe, 29th Congress, 1st session, and in Webster's Works (ed. 1857), vol. v., pp. 78-147. Calhoun's speech on the treaty is in his Works (ed. 1854), vol. iv., pp. 212-237. On the treaty of 1842 see also Benton, Thirty Years' View, vol. ii., chaps. ci.cvi.; Tyler, Letters and Times of the Tylers, vol. ii., chaps. vii.-viii.; Senate Doc. 502, 25th Congress, 2d session; Curtis, Life of Webster, vol. ii., chap. xxviii.; Wharton, Digest of International Law (ed. 1887), vol. ii., pp. 175-183. The report of the commissioners appointed by the President to survey the boundary line will be found in Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. iv., pp. 234-255; and the report of the joint commission, June 28, 1847, in ibid, vol. iv., pp. 170177.

+ Congressional Globe, 27th Congress, 2d session, p. 361.

90

each male settler 18 years of age or over who should cultivate the tract for five years, and to each married man, in addition, 160 acres for his wife and 160 acres for each child born in the territory during the first five years of residence therein. But as it was believed that the Oregon question would be discussed by Ashburton and Webster, consideration of the bill was postponed.

Though Ashburton had been fully instructed regarding the Oregon boundary, Webster feared that the discussion of the issue might hinder and perchance render fruitless the negotiation, and he declined to discuss the issue. After the ratification of the treaty by Great Britain, Fox invited Webster to take the matter under consideration, but again he declined, saying that the President would refer to it in his message and that our minister would be duly instructed. But when Tyler sent in his second annual message on December 6, 1842, he ignored the offer to negotiate and dismissed the Oregon question with this paragraph:

"It would have furnished additional cause for congratulation if the treaty could have embraced all subjects calculated in future to lead to a misunderstanding between the two Governments. The territory of the United States, commonly called the Oregon Territory, lying on the Pacific Ocean north of the forty-second degree of latitude, to a portion of which Great Britain lays claim, begins to attract the attention of our fellow-citizens; and the tide of population, which has reclaimed what was so lately an unbroken wilderness in more contiguous regions, is preparing to flow over those vast districts which stretch from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. In advance of the acquirement of in

dividual rights to these lands, sound policy dic tates that every effort should be resorted to by the two Governments to settle their respective claims. It became manifest, at an early hour of the late negotiations, that any attempt for the time being satisfactorily to determine those rights, would lead to a protracted discussion, which might embrace in its failure other more pressing matters; and the Executive did not regard it as proper to waive all the advantages of an hon orable adjustment of other difficulties of great magnitude and importance because this, not so immediately pressing, stood in the way. Although the difficulty referred to may not for several years to come involve the peace of the two countries, yet I shall not delay to urge on Great Britain the importance of its early settlement." *

Deceived as to the true state of the

issue, Senator Linn again introduced his bill on December 21, 1842. Many objections were raised against the bill. Choate, of Massachusetts, thought

that it broke the convention of 1827 by which the United States had agreed that Oregon should be free and open to the subjects of England. He therefore questioned whether the American government could pass an act which would tend to exclude British subjects, in whole or in part, from Oregon.† He said that, unless Great Britain broke the terms of the convention, Congress certainly had no right to pass a bill, but he could see no proof that Great Britain had violated the convention. If the United States wished to secure the territory to her citizens, two courses were open: we could serve a year's notice at once, end the convention, and at the close of the year plant a colony in Oregon; or

* Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. iv., p. 196; Benton, Abridgment, vol. xiv., p. 603; Niles' Register, vol. lxiii., p. 236.

Benton, Abridgment, vol. xiv., p. 640.