ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

United States have always brought into every contest in which they have hitherto been involved.

The report was read.

On motion of Mr. HOLMES,

[SENATE.

Ordered, That it be printed in confidence for the use of the Senate.

MONDAY, APRIL 2.

These considerations have induced this committee to think that the policy of the United States will be best consulted by announcing to Great Britain their willingness to assent to this award. But as the boundary which it establishes will probably be found not less inconvenient to Great Britain than to the United States, and as under the of the United States, by Mr. Donelson, his Secretary: The following message was received from the President award the navigation of the river St. John and its tributary streams is not made free and common to both parties, this committee are of opinion that it will be advisable for the President, in communicating to Great Britain his determination to abide by the award, to signify to that Power his desire to open a new negotiation, for the purpose of settling a more convenient boundary between the territories of the two empires, than that which is so established; and, also, for securing to each party the free navigation of the river St. John and its tributary streams, from its mouth to their respective sources. Should Great Britain accede to this overture, if, in the course of the negotiation, it is found practicable so to do, the President will of course avail himself of any and every occasion to obtain a boundary more acceptable to the State of Maine than that which is established by the determination of his Majesty the King of the Netherlands.

pro

WASHINGTON, March 29, 1832. To the Senate: In compliance with the resolution requesting the "President to inform the Senate whether any, and, if any, what communications have passed between the Executive Department of the United States and the Executive or Legislative Department of the State of Maine, relative to the Northeastern boundary; and whether any proposition has been made by either, that the boundary designated by the King of the Netherlands shall be established for a consideration to be paid to Maine; and, if so, what consideration was proposed, so far as the same may not be inconsistent with the public interest," I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State.

ANDREW JACKSON.

The message and the accompanying documents were
On motion of Mr. HOLMES,

read.

Ordered, That they be printed in confidence for the use of the Senate.

TUESDAY, JUNE 12.

In regard to the objections urged to this award in the resolutions which have also been referred to this committee, they deem it only necessary to say, that, as the visions of the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent admit the fact that the true boundary of the United States, thereby referred to, was not then settled, and establish a mode whereby this boundary might thereafter be ascertained ported by the Committee on Foreign Relations, on the The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution reand determined, it cannot be admitted that the subsequent 21st of March, on the subject of the Northeastern bounsettlement of this matter by the mode then agreed upon can properly be considered as a cession or transfer to a foreign nation of any portion of the territory or inhabitants of any one of the United States.

in

dary.

same, by inserting after the word "Resolved" the words
A motion was made by Mr. HOLMES to amend the
"two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein."
And after debate, on motion of Mr. HOLMES,
The Senate adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13.

And, after debate, on motion of Mr. HOLMES,
The Senate adjourned.

THURSDAY, JUNE 14.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution

reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations on the subject of the Northeastern boundary, together with the amendment proposed thereto.

If the commissioners appointed to determine this matter had concurred in opinion as they did in 1795, although the determination might have been, as it then was, opposition to the pretensions set up by each of the disagreeing parties, none can believe that their award would not have been held as conclusive as was that referred to, al-reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations on the The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution though both these awards would have been subject to pre- subject of the Northeastern boundary, together with the cisely the same objections which are now urged. And so amendment proposed thereto. far as the question of authority is concerned, it would be impossible to show that the umpire had less authority over the subject than the disagreeing commissioners possessed. In no case can the adjustment of any controversy be properly regarded as an abandonment of right in the subject, the title to which is contested. In all such cases, the decision does nothing more than to determine in which of the two disagreeing parties the right originally was; and neither can properly be said to yield to the other that which the decision affirms to have always belonged to that other. So that the question recurs-Will the United States adopt this award as determining what was their original and true boundary? Once admit the award to be binding on our faith, and the question of right ceases; and even if the award be set aside, the determination not to abide by it must never be rested upon the ground that it deprives us of rights which we believe to be ours, but upon the ground that it decides matter which was never submitted to arbitrament. Ifthe authority to decide the question is admitted, the correctness of the decision can never be questioned, except by impugning the integrity of the judge, a charge which none can prefer or sustain in this case. The committee therefore recommend to the Senate to adopt the following resolution:

And, after debate, on motion of Mr. SILSBEE,
The Senate adjourned.

FRIDAY, JUNE 15.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations on the subject of the Northeastern boundary.

And, after debate, on motion of Mr. FORSYTH,
The Senate adjourned.

SATURDAY, JUNE 16.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations on the subject of the Northeastern boundary, together with the amendment proposed thereto.

Resolved, That the Senate advise the President to express to his Majesty the King of the Netherlands the as-ter "Resolved," insert "two-thirds of the Senators preOn the question to agree to the amendment, to wit, afsent of the United States to the determination made by sent concurring"him, and consent to the execution of the same.

VOL. VIII.-88

It was determined in the affirmative, as follows:

[blocks in formation]

YEAS.-Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Buckner, Clay, Clayton,
Dickerson, Dudley, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hendricks, Hill,
Holmes, Kane, Knight, Miller, Naudain, Poindexter,
Prentiss, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee,
Sprague, Tomlinson, Webster, Wilkins.-27.

NAYS.-Messrs. Benton, Brown, Chambers, Ellis, For-
syth, Grundy, Hayne, King, Mangum, Marcy, Moore,
Smith, Tazewell, Tipton, Troup, Tyler, White.-17.
So the amendment was concurred in.

[JUNE 21, 1832.

Mangum, Marcy, Moore, Naudain, Robbins, Robinson,
Seymour, Smith, Sprague, Tazewell, Tipton, Troup,
Tyler, Waggaman, White, Wilkins.--33.
On motion of Mr.WEBSTER,

To amend the proposed amendment by striking out the first clause thereof, and inserting the following:

"That, having respectfully considered the message of the President of the United States, of December 7, 1831, transmitting the opinion of the King of the Netherlands, A motion was made by Mr. MANGUM to amend the in relation to the Northeastern boundary of the United resolution by striking out all after the word "Resolved," States, for the consideration of the Senate, whether it will and inserting "That the Senate advise the President to advise a submission to that opinion, and consent to its execommunicate to his Majesty the King of the Netherlands cution, the Senate is not of opinion that this is a case in which that the United States decline to adopt' the boundary the Senate is called on to express any opinion, or give any recommended by his Majesty as being suitable' between advice to the President:" the dominions of his Britannic Majesty and the United States.

"Resolved, That the Senate advise the President to open a new negotiation with his Britannic Majesty's Government for the ascertainment of the boundary between the possessions of the United States and those of the King of Great Britain on the Northeastern frontier."

Mr. CLAYTON called for a division of the question. And being taken on striking out, it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 35, nays 8, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Benton, Brown, Buckner, Chambers, Clay, Clayton, Dickerson, Ellis, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Grundy, Hayne, Hill, Holmes, Kane, King, Knight, Mangum, Marcy, Moore, Naudain, Poindexter, Prentiss, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee, Smith, Sprague, Tomlinson, Waggaman, Webster, Wilkins.-35. NAYS. Messrs. Bibb, Dudley, Forsyth, Miller, Tazewell, Tipton, Tyler, White.-8.

The question then recurring on inserting the proposed amendment,

On motion of Mr. HOLMES,
The Senate adjourned.

THURSDAY, JUNE 21.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations on the subject of the Northeastern boundary, together with the amendments proposed by Mr. MANGUM.

A motion was made by Mr. EWING to amend the proposed amendment by striking out the words, "That the Senate advise the President to communicate to his Majesty the King of the Netherlands that the United States decline to adopt' the boundary recommended by his Majesty as being suitable' between the dominions of his Britannic Majesty and the United States;" and, in lieu thereof, to insert, "That the Senate do not advise a submission to the award of the King of the Netherlands, or consent to the execution thereof."

[ocr errors]

And it was determined in the negative--yeas 20, nays 23, as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Chambers, Clay, Clayton, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hayne, Johnston, Knight, Miller, Moore, Naudain, Prentiss, Robbins, Seymour, Silsbee, Tomlinson, Webster.-20.

NAYS.-Messrs. Benton, Brown, Dallas, Dickerson, Ellis, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Holmes, Kane, King, Mangum, Marcy, Robinson, Smith, Sprague, Tazewell, Tipton, Troup, Tyler, Waggaman, White, Wilkins.-23.

On motion of Mr. MILLER, that the original resolution lie on the table,

It was determined in the negative--yeas 11, nays 33, as

follows:

It was determined in the negative-yeas 17, nays 26, as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Bell, Clay, Clayton, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hayne, Johnston, Knight, Moore, Naudain, Prentiss, Robbins, Seymour, Silsbee, Tomlinson, Waggaman, Webster.-17.

NAYS.-Messrs. Benton, Bibb, Brown, Chambers, Dallas, Dickerson, Ellis, Ewing, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Holmes, Kane, King, Mangum, Marcy, Miller, Robinson, Smith, Sprague, Tazewell, Tipton, Troup, Tyler, White, Wilkins.--26.

On motion of Mr. CLAYTON,

To amend the proposed amendment by inserting, at the end of the first clause thereof, the following words: "Because, in the opinion of the Senate, the King of the Netherlands has not decided the question submitted to him, touching the Northern and Northeastern boundary of the

United States:"

It was determined in the affirmative—yeas 24, nays 14. YEAS.-Messrs. Chambers, Clay, Clayton, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Holmes, Kane, Mangum, Marcy, Naudain, Poindexter, Robbins, Robinson, Seymour, Silsbee, Sprague, Tipton, Tomlinson, Webster, Wilkins.--24.

NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Bibb, Brown, Dallas, Dickerson, Ellis, Hayne, Johnston, King, Miller, Moore, Tazewell, Tyler, White.-14.

On motion of Mr. CHAMBERS,

The proposed amendment was further amended, by striking out the words, "his Majesty the King of the Netherlands," where they first occur, and inserting, in lieu thereof, "the British Government;" and by inserting in the 4th line, after "his Majesty," the words "the King of the Netherlands."

On motion of Mr. MILLER, to postpone the resolution indefinitely,

It was determined in the negative-yeas 16, nays 25. YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Clay, Clayton, Foot, Hayne, Johnston, Knight, Miller, Moore, Naudain, Poindexter, Robbins, Silsbee, Tomlinson, Waggaman, Webster.-16.

NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Bibb, Brown, Chambers, Dallas, Dickerson, Ellis, Ewing, Frelinghuysen, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Holmes, Kane, King, Mangum, Marcy, Robinson, Smith, Sprague, Tazewell, Tipton, Tyler, White, Wilkins.-25.

A division of the question on the proposed amendment having been called for,

The question was taken on inserting the first clause of the amendment, amended as follows:

"That the Senate advise the President to communicate to the British Government that the United States decline to adopt the boundary recommended by his Majesty the King of the Netherlands as being suitable' between YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Clay, Clayton, Foot, Johnston, the dominions of his Britannic Majesty and the United Knight, Miller, Prentiss, Silsbee, Tomlinson, Webster.--11. States; because, in the opinion of the Senate, the King of NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Bibb, Brown, Chambers, the Netherlands has not decided the question submitted to Dallas, Dickerson, Ellis, Ewing, Forsyth, Frelinghuysen, him touching the Northern and Northeastern boundary of Grundy, Hayne, Hendricks, Hill, Holmes, Kane, King, the United States."

[blocks in formation]

It was determined in the affirmative--yeas 21, nays 20. YEAS.-Messrs. Benton, Brown, Chambers, Clay, Dallas, Dickerson, Ellis, Frelinghuysen, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Holmes, Kane, King, Mangum, Marcy, Robinson, Smith, Sprague, Tipton, Wilkins.-21.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Clayton, Ewing, Foot, Hayne, Johnston, Knight, Miller, Moore, Naudain, Poindexter, Robbins, Seymour, Tazewell, Tomlinson, Tyler, Waggaman, Webster, White.-20.

On motion of Mr. WAGGA MAN,
The Senate adjourned.

SATURDAY, JUNE 23.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations on the subject of the Northeastern boundary, together with the amendment proposed thereto; the second member thereof being under consideration;

On motion of Mr. GRUNDY, The amendment was amended by inserting at the end thereof, "of the United States."

On motion of Mr. SPRAGUE,

The amendment was further amended by inserting at the close thereof, "according to the treaty of peace of 1783." On the question to insert the following member of the proposed amendment:

"That the Senate advise the President to open a new negotiation with his Britannic Majesty's Government for the ascertainment of the boundary between the possessions of the United States and those of the King of Great Britain, on the Northeastern frontier of the United States, according to the treaty of peace of 1783:"

[SENATE.

"Resolved, That the Senate advise the President to communicate to the British Government that the United States decline to adopt the boundary recommended by his Majesty the King of the Netherlands as being suitable' between the dominions of his Britannic Majesty and those of the United States; because, in the opinion of the Senate, the King of the Netherlands has not decided the question submitted to him, touching the Northern and Northeastern boundary of the United States:"

It was determined in the negative--yeas 14, nays 30. YEAS.--Messrs. Dickerson, Ellis, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Holmes, Kane, Marcy, Moore, Robinson, Ruggles, Sprague, Tipton, Troup.--14.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bell, Benton, Bibb, Brown, Chambers, Clay, Clayton, Dallas, Dudley, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hayne, Johnston, King, Knight, Mangum, Miller, Naudain, Poindexter, Prentiss, Robbins, Seymour, Smith, Tazewell, Tomlinson, Tyler, Webster, White,

Wilkins.--30.

So the first member was rejected.

On the question to agree to the second member, as follows:

66

Resolved, That the Senate advise the President to open a new negotiation with his Britannic Majesty's Government, for the ascertainment of the boundary between the possessions of the United States and those of the King of Great Britain, on the Northeastern frontier of the United States, according to the treaty of peace of 1783:"

It was determined in the affirmative-yeas 23, nays 22. YEAS.-Messrs. Benton, Brown, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Ellis, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Holmes, Kane, King, Mangum, Marcy, Robinson, Ruggles, Smith, Sprague, Tazewell, Tipton, Troup, White, Wilkins.-23.

NAYS.-Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Chambers, Clay, Clayton,

It was determined in the affirmative-yeas 26, nays 16. YEAS.-Messrs. Benton, Brown, Clay, Dallas, Dicker-Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hayne, Johnston, Knight, son, Dudley, Ellis, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Holmes, Kane, King, Mangum, Marcy, Moore, Robinson, Ruggles, Smith, Sprague, Tazewell, Tipton, Troup, Tyler, White, Wilkins.-26.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Chambers, Clayton, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hayne, Johnston, Miller, Naudain, Poindexter, Robbins, Seymour, Tomlinson, Webster.--16, The question recurring on the original resolution, as amended,

A motion was made by Mr. MOORE to postpone the same indefinitely; and

It was determined in the negative--yeas 16, nays 29. YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Clay, Clayton, Foot, FrelingHuysen, Hayne, Johnston, Knight, Miller, Moore, Naudain, Poindexter, Prentiss, Silsbee, Tomlinson, Webster.--16. NAYS.-Messrs. Benton, Bibb, Brown, Chambers, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Ellis, Ewing, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Holmes, Kane, King, Mangum, Marcy, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Seymour, Smith, Sprague, Tazewell, Tipton, Troup, Tyler, White, Wilkins.--29.

On motion of Mr. MILLER,

To amend the resolution by inserting after "Resolved," the words "two-thirds of the Senators present concurring,

It was determined in the negative--yeas 11, nays 30. YEAS.-Messrs. Bibb, Clay, Clayton, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Miller, Naudain, Robbins, Tomlinson, Webster.-11.

NAYS.-Messrs. Benton, Brown, Chambers, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Ellis, Grundy, Hayne, Hendricks, Hill, Holmes, Johnston, Kane, King, Knight, Mangum, Marcy, Moore, Poindexter, Robinson, Ruggles, Smith, Sprague, Tazewell, Tipton, Troup, Tyler, White, Wilkins.-30.

On the question to agree to the resolution, reported by the committee, as amended,

Miller, Moore, Naudain, Poindexter, Prentiss, Robbins,
Seymour, Silsbee, Tomlinson, Tyler, Webster.--22.
So the second member was agreed to.
Ordered, That the Secretary lay this resolution before
the President of the United States.

Mr. SPRAGUE submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent:

Resolved, That the Senate do not advise a submission to the opinion of the sovereign arbiter, in relation to our Northern and Eastern boundary, and do not consent to

its execution.

A motion was made by Mr. BIBB to amend the same, by striking out all after the word "Resolved," and inserting "That, in the opinion of the Senate, good faith and sound policy require the execution of the award made by the King of the Netherlands, between the Government of the United States and the Government of Great Britain." And it was determined in the negative-yeas 8, nays 34. YEAS.--Messrs. Bibb, Dallas, Dudley, Hayne, Miller, Tazewell, Tyler, White.-8.

NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Brown, Chambers, Clay, Clayton, Dickerson, Ellis, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Holmes, Johnston, Kane, King, Mangum, Marcy, Moore, Naudain, Poindexter, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee, Smith, Sprague, Tipton, Tomlinson, Troup, Webster, Wilkins.--34.

A further amendment having been proposed by Mr. MANGUM, Mr. SPRAGUE withdrew the resolution.

TUESDAY, JUNE 26.

The following motion, submitted by Mr. HOLMES, was considered:

Resolved, That the injunction of secrecy be removed from the journal, proceedings, and debates of the Senate A division of the question was called for; and being in relation to the Northeastern boundary of the United taken on agreeing to the first member, as follows:

States.

SENATE.]

TUESDAY, JULY 10.

[blocks in formation]

On motion of Mr. HOLMES, The Senate resumed the consideration of his motion of same requisition, and by the same proportional numbers? the 26th of June, to remove the injunction of secrecy from the journal, proceedings, and debates of the Senate in relation to the Northeastern boundary of the United

States.

On the question to agree thereto,

It was determined in the affirmative--yeas 28, nays 17. YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Benton, Bibb, Buckner, Clay, Clayton, Dickerson, Ellis, Ewing, Foot, Grundy, Hayne, Holmes, Kane, King, Mangum, Marcy, Miller, Moore, Naudain, Poindexter, Robinson, Silsbee, Sprague, Tomlinson, Troup, Waggaman, Wilkins.--28.

should be consulted both before and after the formation of a treaty. If so, do they not act in both cases under the Would it not be preposterous that the Senate, by a majority, should advise the making of a compact, and when the same is subsequently submitted for their approval, it should be rejected for the want of two-thirds-the same members voting in the same manner, without the change of a yea or a nay? What a disjointed spectacle of incongruity would that present to foreign nations!

The Senator adverted to the early practice of the Executive in the halcyon days of the first President, but it did not show a single precedent of a resolution of advice by a simple majority; while my colleague cited yesterday two NAYS.-Messrs. Brown, Chambers, Dallas, Dudley, instances of such action by the requisite two-thirds, and I Hendricks, Johnston, Knight, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles,tion to an increase of annuity to the Seneca tribe of Innow add another, on the 20th of January, 1792, in relaSeymour, Smith, Tazewell, Tipton, Tyler, Webster, White.--17. dians. Principle and precedent, therefore, both demand So the motion was agreed to. that the proposed amendment should be adopted. The chairman of the committee [Mr. TAZEWELL says [The injunction of secrecy having been removed from that his first opinion was that the Senate had no power to the debates, as well as the proceedings on the above sub-act upon the subject, but that the reference of the reso ject, the remarks which follow were reported and furnish-lutions which I had the honor to introduce conferred aued for publication by the respective speakers.] thority to give an advisory opinion. Although such a consequence could not have been anticipated by any one, and The following resolution, reported by the Committee few possess ingenuity enough to deduce it; yet, had it on Foreign Relations, being under consideration on the been foreseen, so far from constituting an objection, it would, in the state of the question and opinions of the SeResolved, That the Senate advise the President to ex-nate as then existing, have presented an additional inducepress to his Majesty the King of the Netherlands the as- ment to their introduction, as the most probable means of sent of the United States to the determination made by preventing a catastrophe which I deprecate-the accepthim, and consent to the execution of the sameance of, and submission to, this miscalled award.

2d of June:

Mr. SPRAGUE addressed the Senate as follows:

How the offering a resolution, not adopted, but referMr. President: Notwithstanding the rights and the inte- red to a committee for inquiry, should give to the Senate rests of Maine are so deeply involved, and my own solici-jurisdiction on a subject not otherwise within the scope of tude is so intensely excited upon this subject, I shall, ne- its legitimate powers, is not easily comprehended. Can vertheless, yield to the admonitions to brevity which are the Senate, by such a process, by simply raising a compresented by the period of the session, and the hour of mittee of inquiry, extend its powers, and bring every thing the day. Suppressing a strong desire thoroughly to im-within the range of its constitutional action? prove the whole wide field of discussion, I shall compress But I hasten directly to the paramount question. Is this my remarks, even upon the topics introduced by the award or opinion binding upon the United States? And is report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the their faith plighted to adopt the boundary therein desigspeech of its chairman. And I do this the more cheer-nated? And here I cannot withhold my cordial thanks to fully, since I have, heretofore, fully availed myself of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] for the able and opportunities to communicate my views and arguments in convincing argument which he yesterday addressed to the detail to the individual members of the Senate. The im- Senate, against the acceptance of this award, and in demediate question is, shall a majority of two-thirds be re- fence of the rights, the soil, and the citizens of Maine. quired to pass the advisory resolution reported by the The objection arising from the essential changes in the committee? The President has asked our advice upon sovereign character of the arbiter-the disruption and loss the question of submission to the opinion of the arbiter. of more than half of his empire, being thrown by political Why did he come to this body? Only because we, by the convulsions a dependent upon Great Britain, not only for constitution, are his advisers in relation to the formation the demarcation of the boundaries of his own kingdom, of compacts with foreign nations; and as such treaty- but even for the preservation of the remnant of his power, making power, acting by a majority of two-thirds. In any has been, together with other topies, so ably discussed by other character or capacity he might as well demand the him, that I may well, in the discharge of my duty, abstain opinion of the House of Representatives, or any other ag- from attempting to strengthen the impression which he gregation of individuals. If, then, we are to respond has produced. But there is one point-and that the prinas a part of the treaty-making power, must we not cipal, leading, decisive objection-to which I feel myself do it by the requisite constitutional majority? The ho- bound to solicit your further and indulgent attention. K norable and able member from Virginia [Mr. TAZE- is, that there has been no decision of the question referWELL] tells us that, when the conjoint action of the other red; the award, if such it is to be called-the advice, is not House was requisite, as in legislation, a mere majority of within the submission. the Senate only was necessary; but when acting without That this, if found to be true, would exonerate the the check of the other branch, the majority of two-thirds United States from all obligation of submission, must be was substituted as a restraint upon ourselves. He had re- universally conceded. No independent nation can be reference, I presume, not to Executive nominations to office, quired to adopt the recommendation of any sovereign, exbut to all opinions in relation to our foreign intercourse. cept so far as bound by compact; and if it be agreed to Upon his own principles, then, should not two-thirds be submit to arbitrament a distinct specific question, and the now required in reference to a public treaty, when there arbiter, from inability or disinclination, makes no decision, is to be no concurrence of the other House--no check or but gratuitously assumes the office of an adviser, with restraint by them upon the action of the Senate? which he was never invested, and volunteers a recommendation upon a subject in relation to which his opinion was never asked, surely the parties, if they do not repel the

The gentleman also declares his opinion that the spirit and design of the constitution demand that the Senate

JULY 10, 1832.]

Executive Proceedings.

[SENATE.

assumption as offensive, may well decline receiving it as due north from the source of the river St. Croix, and deobligatory. signated in the former treaty of peace between the two Powers as the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, nor, &c. * has yet been ascertained; and

Is the award within the terms or meaning of the submission? No one has yet insisted that it is. But, on the contrary, the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, in effect, concedes that it is not. Declining to discuss the question distinctly, the committee say that they are aware that there are many reasons which, to the minds of our own citizens, at least, may appear strong to induce the opinion that it is no decision, and may therefore be legitimately disregarded. And again, toward the conclusion, they remark: "Although it may, perhaps, be truly said that the United States are not bound by this award, as such, yet it will be considered by all the civilized world," &c. &c.

The chairman of the committee, in his speech yesterday, did not undertake to say directly that there had been any decision of the matter referred; but, following the track of the report, rather conceded that there had not-insisting, however, that we ought to acquiesce from motives of public policy, and to conciliate the favorable opinion of other nations.

Sir, it is susceptible of demonstration that there has been no decision of the question referred. The arbitrament was more immediately governed by the convention of 1827, made between the United States and Great Britain, for the sole purpose of executing the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, which article was designed merely to carry into effect the treaty of peace of 1783, by ascertaining where upon the surface of the earth was that point of the highlands, due north from the source of the St. Croix river, designated in that original treaty as the northwest angle of Nova Scotia; and by surveying and marking two lines from that point, to fixed monuments. To begin at the fountain, then, we must recur to the description of boundary in the original treaty which acknowledges the independence of the United States. Its language, so far as pertinent to the present investigation, is:

[ocr errors]

whereas that part of the boundary line from the source of the river St. Croix, directly north, to the abovementioned northwest angle of Nova Scotia, thence along the said highlands which divide, &c. &c., has not yet been surveyed."

Therefore provision is made for ascertaining that single point and surveying those lines, by commissioners. They were appointed accordingly; but, differing in opinion, made their several reports to their respective Governments. Pursuant to the fifth article in the treaty of Ghent, a reference to an arbiter then became necessary, and the convention of 1827 succeeded, regulating and defining the manner of executing this requisition. The first article provided that the points of difference which had arisen should be submitted to an arbiter, to decide on such points of difference, in accordance to the treaty of Ghent, and that the parties should make their several and separate statements of the case to be laid before the arbiter. This was done, and there was no discrepancy between them as to the matters in dispute which had arisen, and upon which a decision was required. The American statement presents the point in difference, so far as relates to the present controversy, thus:

"1st. The northwest angle of Nova Scotia, and the boundary line contemplated by the treaty of 1783, extending from that angle, along certain highlands, to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut river."

And in the British statement it is expressed in the following language:

1st. The parties differ respecting the point designated in the treaties as the northwest angle of Nova Scotia; and respecting the highlands along which the line of boundary is to be carried, which is destined to divide the rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean."

"The following are, and shall be, their (the United States) boundaries, viz. From the northwest angle of Here, then, we have the question to be decided, clearNova Scotia, viz. that angle which is formed by a line ly, distinctly, and unequivocally defined and described drawn due north from the source of the St. Croix river by both parties, in the official statements upon which, by to the highlands; along the said highlands which divide the express provisions of the treaty, the award was to be those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Law-rendered. rence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut river; east, by a line to be drawn along the middle of the river St. Croix, from its mouth, in the Bay of Fundy, to its source; and from its source, directly north, to the aforesaid highlands, which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those that fall into the river St. Lawrence."

*

The source of the St. Croix river was ascertained in the year 1798, and has ever since been designated by a monument, then established and marked by the mutual agreement of both nations.

Where is the northwest angle of Nova Scotia? Has that question been answered by the award? So far from it, that the arbiter not only does not profess to determine, but unequivocally declines it.

After some reasoning upon the subject, he says-"Consequently the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, here alluded to, having been unknown in 1783, is to be considered as a petition of principle, (petition de principe,) affording no basis for a decision," &c. &c.

The inquiry respecting that angle has with him no basis of a decision, although that was the precise question propounded. And subsequently he says that he considers From that spot the boundary was to be "due north;" the question "divested of the inconclusive arguments and the only question which could arise was, where is drawn from the nature, more or less hilly, of the ground, the termination of that north line? Which point being from the ancient delimitation of the provinces, from the ascertained, all that would remain was the mere mecha-northwest angle of Nova Scotia, and," &c. &c. nical and mathematical process of surveying and marking In conclusion, he declares that "the arguments adduced lines between fixed monuments. The location of that on either side, and the documents exhibited in respect of point is described and defined, with the utmost clearness them, cannot be considered as sufficiently preponderating and precision, in the treaty of 1783. It is at "the high-to determine a preference in favor of one of the two lines lands;" the due north line is to be drawn to the high-respectively claimed by the high interested parties as the lands," and there stop. And of that terminus is the north-boundaries of their possessions, from the source of the west angle of Nova Scotia; and thence another line was river St. Croix to the northwesternmost head of Connecto be drawn along those highlands to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut river.

Now what question does the treaty of Ghent mention or suppose to exist? What was to be ascertained? The fifth article states it with great perspicuity: "Whereas neither that point of the highlands lying

ticut river; and that the nature of the difference, and the vague and not sufficiently determinate stipulations of the treaty of 1783, do not permit to adjudge either of those lines to one of the said parties, without wounding the principles of law and equity with regard to the other." And he therefore tenders the following advisory opi

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »