SPECIAL MESSAGES.
WASHINGTON, December 7, 1841.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of War, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 3d of March last, calling for a comparative statement of the condition of the public defenses, of all the preparations and means of defense, and of the actual and authorized strength of the Army on the 1st of January, 1829, and the 1st of January, 1841.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, December 7, 1841.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith a report from the War Department, in compliance with so much of the resolution of the Senate of March 3, 1841, respecting the military and naval defenses of the country, as relates to the defenses under the superintendence of that Department.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, December 8, 1841.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 4th of September last, requesting information touching the relations between the United States and the Republic of Texas, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, to whom the resolution was referred.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, December 8, 1841.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of the Treasury, exhibiting certain transfers of appropriations which have been made in that Department in pursuance of the power vested in the President of the United States by the act of Congress of the 3d of March, 1809, entitled "An act further to amend the several acts for the establishment and regulation of the Treasury, War, and Navy Departments."
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, December 29, 1841.
To the Senate of the United States:
I herewith transmit to the Senate a report[15] from the Secretary of State, in answer to their resolution of the 27th instant.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, January 4, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
I herewith communicate a report and statement from the Secretary of State, in answer to a resolution of the House of the 19th of June, 1841, requesting the aggregate amount of each description of persons within the several districts of the United States by counties and principal towns.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, January 10, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to ratification, a convention between the United States and the Republic of Peru, signed at Lima on the 17th of March last, providing for the adjustment and satisfaction of certain claims of citizens of the United States against the Government of that Republic.
For the purpose of acquainting the Senate with the nature and amount of those demands and with the course of the negotiation, I also communicate a copy of such parts of the correspondence of the agents of the two Governments as relate thereto.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, January 17, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit to the Senate a report from the Secretary of State, relative to the proceedings and final decision of the commissioners under the convention with the Republic of Texas upon the subject of the boundary between the United States and that Republic.
JOHN TYLER.
[The same message was sent to the House of Representatives.]
WASHINGTON, January 18, 1842.
To the House of Representatives:
I transmit to the House of Representatives, in answer to the resolution of the 14th instant, a report[16] from the Secretary of State and the papers by which it was accompanied.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, January 19, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit to the Senate herewith a report[17] from the Secretary of State, with accompanying papers, in answer to their resolution of the 11th instant.
JOHN TYLER.
JANUARY 27, 1842.
To the House of Representatives:
I transmit herewith a report[18] of the Secretary of War, in answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 9th August, 1841.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, February 5, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith to the Senate copies of a report and letter from the commissioners appointed by the President for the exploration and survey of the boundary line between the States of Maine and New Hampshire and the conterminous British Provinces, showing the progress made in that work during the past season, and submitting an estimate, to which I invite the attention of Congress, of the funds that will be requisite for completing the surveys yet to be made on the boundary, and the office work consequent thereon, and for completing the maps of surveys already made.
JOHN TYLER.
[The same message was sent to the House of Representatives.]
NEW YORK, January 4, 1842.
Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER,
Secretary of State:
The undersigned, commissioners appointed by the President of the United States for the purpose of exploring and surveying the boundary line between the States of Maine and New Hampshire and the British Provinces in North America, respectfully report—
That in pursuance of the duties of their appointment they have in the course of the late season performed the following surveys and explorations:
1. The meridian line of the monument at the source of the St. Croix has, under the direction of J.D. Graham, been carefully and accurately traced from the station in the vicinity of Houlton where the labors of the year 1840 terminated to a point 4 miles north of the St. John River in the vicinity of the Grand Falls, being a distance of 81 miles from the monument. The timber has been removed along this line to a width necessary for its accurate prolongation and for the requisite astronomical observations at various points upon it, and a correct profile, or vertical section, has also been obtained by means of the spirit level the whole of the distance above mentioned.
Besides the astronomical observations necessary to obtain and continue the due north direction upon this line, numerous magnetic observations have also been made at a number of points upon it, in order to show the physical causes which must operate to produce serious discrepancies between a meridian line properly traced and such a one as has actually separated the jurisdiction of the two Governments since the attempt in the years 1817 and 1818 to define and mark this portion of the boundary under the provisions of the treaty of Ghent, although no portion of that line was ever ratified or made binding upon the parties to the treaty.
Upon this portion of the survey there have been chained, including measured offsets to the old line and to other important points, 85 miles.
Four hundred and fifty-two transit observations of heavenly bodies have been made, aided by three excellent chronometers, for the determination of the true meridian direction, most of which also served for the computation of the correct time.
For the determination of the longitude of this meridian west of the Royal Observatory of Greenwich and the latitudes of four important points upon it there were made eighty-five complete sets of astronomical observations, including altitudes of the sun and stars and the meridian transits of the moon and moon-culminating stars.
The number of barometric observations made upon the line and in its vicinity is 5,767; besides which there were made at Calais, for comparison with the level of mean tide on the St. Croix, 1,336 similar observations.
There have been determined in altitude above or below the level of the monument, by means of the spirit level, 1,716 points, and the altitudes of 1,816 other points have been similarly observed in order to verify the altitude of the monument above the level of mean tide at Calais.
For the determination of the magnetic variation at a number of points on the meridian line, more than 200 observations have been made upon four different needles, and for the determination of the magnetic dip at four principal stations on the same meridian 300 observations have been made upon two different needles.
Under the directions of the same commissioner the line claimed by Great Britain from Mars Hill and that recently chosen by Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh have been surveyed westward from the meridian line to the highlands near the head waters of the Aroostook, and the necessary data obtained for the construction of a correct map of that portion of country.
Upon this survey, without reckoning the distances traveled for approaching many important points of observation, there have been actually measured with the chain and coursed with proper instruments 267 miles, including the Aroostook River from its mouth to the point where it receives the Lapawmpeag Stream, a profile of the country from the head waters of the Moluncus to the St. John at Fish River, and such other important lines as were necessary for obtaining the correct topography of the country, and the altitudes of many points upon the line claimed by Great Britain as the boundary, in the vicinity of the Aroostook, have been obtained.
Ten principal points have been determined in latitude and longitude by means of 115 sets of astronomical observations, aided by three good chronometers, and seventeen other points have been determined by triangulation with a portable theodolite. Two hundred and five points have been determined in altitude by means of 1,319 barometric observations, and seventeen by means of the theodolite and spirit level. One hundred and ninety-two observations have been made for determining the variation of the magnetic needle at three important points.
The field duties above mentioned are considered to furnish sufficient data for a correct map of the line reported upon by the late British commissioners, Colonel Mudge and Mr. Featherstonhaugh, between the St. John River and the head of the Aroostook, besides some lateral explorations of considerable extent that will have an important bearing upon this branch of the subject. The work accomplished is full as much as could have been properly done in a single season, marked, as the last was, by an unusual drought of long continuance, which rendered it impossible to ascend, even with light canoes, some of the smaller streams, especially those forming the northwesternmost sources of the Aroostook. These might be profitably explored another season.
2. The division under the direction of A. Talcott has, besides verifying a part of the line of 1840 and tracing the course of Indian Stream (a branch of the Connecticut) to its source, explored and surveyed the line of highlands which extends from the Kennebec road to the Temiscouata portage, and so much of the line claimed by Great Britain as extends from the Kennebec road to the eastward as far as the head of the Aroostook River.
In the course of this survey, without counting the lines of approach or ground traveled over more than once, 703 miles have been passed over and such notes taken as will form the basis of a map. Of these 703 miles, 335 are upon the lines respectively claimed as boundaries by the Governments of the United States and Great Britain. In the course of these surveys, in order to the geographical determination of the position of the line, the latitudes of 54 points have been determined by means of 114 sets of altitudes of heavenly bodies, and the sets of subsidiary observations for time and for the determination of longitude by chronometers amount to 245. The number of points at which observations have been made by barometers for the purpose of determining their altitudes is 930, of which 669 are upon the boundaries respectively claimed by the two countries. The number of separate sets of barometric readings made at these points amounts to 1,981, while those made at the fixed stations, with which the former are to be compared, amount to 1,671.
3. The division under the direction of J. Renwick has explored or surveyed the line of highlands from the southeastern extremity of Lake Matapediac to the vicinity of the river Du Loup, where the line of survey has been connected with that of A. Talcott. In this survey a gap is yet left of a few miles on the western side of the valley of the Rimouski near its source.
In the course of the operations of this division 586 miles have been passed over and such notes taken as will form the basis of a map. Of these 586 miles, 275 have been actually measured, 209 are upon the boundary claimed by the United States, and about 30 upon the line pointed out by the proclamation of the King of Great Britain of the 7th of October, 1763, as the southern boundary of the Province of Quebec, making in all 239 miles of the height of land.
In the course of these surveys, in order to the geographical determination of the position of the line, the latitudes of 47 points have been determined by means of 85 sets of altitudes of heavenly bodies, and the sets of subsidiary observations for time and for the determination of longitude by chronometers amount to 130. The number of points at which observations have been made by barometers for the purpose of determining their altitudes is 407, of which 267 are upon the boundary claimed by the United States. The number of separate sets of barometric readings made at these points amounts to 1,153, while those made at the fixed stations amount to 837.
The division of Major Graham not having returned from the field until within a few days, neither the reduction of the astronomical observations nor any of the office work preparatory to a general map has yet been commenced by his division.
The office work of the divisions of A. Talcott and J. Renwick has been steadily carried on since the return of those commissioners from the field in the month of October, and great progress has been made in the calculations and plotting preparatory to the construction of maps, and necessary as materials for a general report.
In this state of the work of the several divisions the undersigned find themselves under the necessity of communicating to the State Department that the further progress of their operations is about to be arrested by the exhaustion of the appropriation, and of stating that unless speedy provision be made for the supply of the necessary funds the report of their operations can not be made up in time to be laid before Congress at its present session.
The position of the finances of the commission may be seen by the following statement:
| Of the appropriation of $75,000 there have been drawn— | |
| By J. Renwick | $21,000 |
| By A. Talcott | 24,200 |
| By J.D. Graham | 25,000 |
| Total drawn | 70,200 |
| Leaving in the Treasury of the United States $4,800. | |
By a careful estimate it is found that to finish the office work of the several divisions there will be required over and above any balances in the hands of the several commissioners— | |
| For the division of J. Renwick | $3,000 |
| For the division of A. Talcott | 5,800 |
| For the division of J.D. Graham, including some arrearages due for instruments and to assistant engineers attached to this division | 6,500 |
| Making in all $15,300, and leaving to be provided for the completion of the work of the late season | $10,500. |
The undersigned can not refrain from stating that the necessity of applying for further funds was unexpected by each of them individually, as it is painful to them collectively. There are, however, reasons that in their opinion are incontrovertible which have led to an expenditure thus exceeding their estimate submitted to the Secretary of State the 11th of January, 1841:
1. The estimate for the expenses of the division under the direction of Major Graham amounted to $22,500. This referred only, however, to the continuation of the survey of the meridian line; and as the country had been represented by the most authentic maps as generally rising from the monument to the north, it was inferred that the timber to be cut away in opening this line through a dense forest would be of the description generally found upon elevated and dry lands, and the labor supposed to be requisite was estimated accordingly. So far, however, from this being the case, 26 miles out of the 32 between the base of Parks Ridge, near Houlton, and the river Des Chutes (6 miles north of the latitude of Mars Hill) have actually been found to be below the level of the monument and intersected by swamps covered with a thick growth of cedar and other timber common to such land, extremely difficult to cut away. More than double the labor estimated had therefore to be performed in accomplishing this and all similar portions of the work, and a corresponding increase of expense was unavoidable.
In addition to this increased labor upon the meridian line, the division of Major Graham has executed the surveys between that line and the head waters of the Aroostook, already given in detail, the expenses for which were not estimated or included in the sum above mentioned.
The cost of this survey, including the instruments that were required for it, has amounted to $5,500, and while this sum should be added to the original estimate for this division, the expenses of the divisions of the other two commissioners have not in any manner been thereby diminished, for the actual quantity of work performed by them has exceeded what was supposed from the best maps extant to be necessary upon the whole of the lines claimed by the two Governments, respectively, exclusive of the meridian line, as will hereafter be shown.
There was another cause which tended in a great degree to augment the expenses of this division in proportion to the progress of the work, which it was not within the power of human agency to control, and which we should not omit to mention here.
The severe drought which prevailed throughout this region of country during the month of August and the greater part of September caused the fires which are annually set to the fallen timber upon newly cleared lands to spread far and wide into the growing forest, and so rapid was its progress and so serious its ravages as to compel the inhabitants in many cases to fly for the preservation of life. Some check was experienced in the duties along the meridian line from the flames that actually embraced it, but a far more serious one from the dense smoke which filled the atmosphere almost incessantly for six weeks, and so obstructed the view as to render it impossible to fix the stations in advance with the requisite precision.
While the party charged with the astronomical operations was thus deprived of the opportunity of making scarcely any progress for six weeks, the expense of maintaining it could not in any way be diminished, because there was a daily hope that such a change in the weather might occur as would have removed this difficulty.
In order to make amends as far as practicable for so much time unavoidably lost, this division continued to prosecute its field duties north of the forty-seventh degree of latitude until several weeks after the severities of winter had commenced, with no other protection than their tents, the commissioner in charge of it believing that the expectations of the Government and of the country generally would but be fulfilled by the investigations in relation to this important line being pushed to the utmost attainable point. But for this it would have been impossible to have reached the St. John River the late season.
There remains to be surveyed along this meridian line, in order to reach the northwest angle of Nova Scotia as claimed by the United States, about 64 miles, to accomplish which will require another season of active field duty.
2. In the estimate for the work of the divisions of A. Talcott and J. Renwick it was assumed that the length of the boundary remaining on the line claimed by the United States was 320 miles, and upon the lines claimed by Great Britain 170 miles.
Of the latter, about one-half was undertaken by Major Graham's division,[19] leaving for the estimated distance to be surveyed by the divisions of A. Talcott and J. Renwick 450 miles.
It will appear by the statement hereinbefore given that the joint surveys of these two divisions upon the lines of highlands have actually amounted to 574 miles. Upon the principle of their estimate, the probable cost of this would have amounted to $49,746.37, and with the addition for instruments and for the additional cost of the more remote parts of the line to $57,079.70.
The actual cost, including the foregoing estimate for the completion of the work, is $54,000.
It will appear, therefore, that when the increased extent of the work performed over that made the basis of the estimate is considered, the cost of performing it, so far from having exceeded the estimate, has fallen short of it by $3,000.
The reason of the discrepancy between the real extent of the line, as actually measured, and that which formed the basis of the calculation is that the latter was made by reference to the best existing maps, which were considered to be entitled to a certain degree of credit. Upon the close examination which the operations of the late season have afforded, these maps have been ascertained to be exceedingly erroneous. Well-known streams have been found to extend in either direction many miles beyond the points at which their sources have been laid down on the maps, and great rivers and lakes have, as it were, been discovered, of which no delineation had ever been given by geographers. The extent of these errors in remote and difficultly accessible points may be inferred from what has been found to occur in the part of the region which is most accessible, best known, and most frequently traversed.
On the Temiscouata portage, a road traveled weekly by the mail of Her Britannic Majesty, continually passed by the officers of her various services, which had been carefully surveyed by civil engineers preparatory to its reconstruction, and which has been traveled by the surveyors of both countries under the joint commission, it had hitherto been believed, and it was so represented on all maps, both English and American, that the line dividing the waters crossed the road three times. The surveys of the late season show that the boundary claimed by the United States crosses this road five times, and it became necessary to explore the culminating points of the valleys of four streams, instead of two, as had been anticipated. Instances of the same sort, but which do not admit of verbal description, have occurred on every part of the lines of highlands.
The two commissioners whose operations are under consideration no doubt had it in their power to have suspended their operations and returned so soon as the portion of the appropriation placed at their disposal was so far exhausted as to leave no more than would be needed to complete their office work; but they feel satisfied that they would not have been justified in so doing so long as any portion of the line remained unsurveyed or the weather would permit a party to keep the field. Thus, although in the original plan for the partition of the work it was estimated that their lines would probably be connected in the parallel of the river Ouelle, about 30 miles south of Temiscouata portage, when it was found that, from unforeseen delays in the transportation of the party of J. Renwick by sea to their work, and on the river St. Lawrence from one station to another, it became doubtful whether he could pass the Temiscouata portage before the woods became impassable, his colleague continued his parties in the field until the junction was effected. In this way, while the expenses of the division of J. Renwick have not been materially diminished, those of the division of A. Talcott have been largely increased; but a portion of the general work has been accomplished which might otherwise have been left incomplete.
The undersigned, in conclusion, beg leave respectfully to urge the importance of a speedy appropriation to enable them to make up their report. A delay of any continuance will be productive of evil, either by enhancing the cost of office work or by rendering it difficult in consequence of the dispersion of the engineers and surveyors by whom the field notes have been taken. Upon the completion only of such a report will it be possible to render apparent how much of the whole task has been accomplished and how much remains to be performed; and the Department will then have it in its power to decide whether the part that has not been completed is of such importance to the question at issue as to require further operations upon it.
All which is respectfully submitted.
JAS. RENWICK,
A. TALCOTT,
J.D. GRAHAM,
Commissioners.
WASHINGTON, January 25, 1842.
Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER,
Secretary of State.
SIR: The undersigned, commissioners appointed by the President of the United States for the purpose of surveying and exploring the boundary line between the States of Maine and New Hampshire and the British Provinces, beg leave, in compliance with your directions, to submit an estimate for the operations of the commission for the ensuing year.
So much of your directions as regards the state of the survey and the amount required to complete the office work preparatory to a report has already been laid before you in their report of the 4th January, 1842, prepared in anticipation of your orders. By reference thereto it will appear that the delineation of the meridian of the source of St. Croix has not, in spite of every effort on the part of the commissioner to whom it was assigned, been pursued farther than 81 miles from the monument. Sixty-four miles, therefore, of the said meridian line remain to be surveyed before this part of their task is completed. The other two commissioners, while they would not have hesitated to join in a final report in case the state of the survey of the meridian line would have permitted it, are aware that the hasty manner in which their work was performed, in anticipation of completing the object of their appointment during the past year, leaves room for a more accurate examination of some parts of the lines they have surveyed. Some portions, also, of the lines intrusted to them, respectively, were not reached; and, in addition, a part of the survey which was contemplated in their original instructions from your predecessor was not included in their estimates for the past year, in consequence of its having only a collateral relation to the main object.
Thus the surveys respectively undertaken by Messrs. Talcott and Graham of the lines claimed on the part of Great Britain and by Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh, although brought near to each other, have not been united, and a part of the highlands claimed by the United States near the source of the Rimouski was not reached by the parties of Professor Renwick.
The height of a part of the line explored by Captain Talcott in 1840, lying at the source of Arnolds River, was not determined for the want of a barometer.
Two or three miles in length of the line of highlands near the source of the river Du Loup require to be reexamined.
The longitudes of Lake Megantic, Lake Etchemin, the source of the Metjarmette, upon the line of Captain Talcott, and of some one point on the line of Professor Renwick ought to be ascertained with greater precision than the time that could be allowed during the last season would permit.
The instructions of Mr. Forsyth contemplated an exploration of the highlands described in the proclamation of 1763 as beginning on the north shore of the Bay of Chaleurs. The existence of a continuous elevated region from the tide of that bay to the termination of the exploring meridian line has been ascertained in a manner satisfactory to the commission, but the heights have not been measured on that part of it which lies nearest to the Bay of Chaleurs.
Under these circumstances the undersigned are of opinion that as no delay in the presentation of a final report will arise from further explorations of the parts of the territory thus pointed out and the more accurate examination of the uncertain matters, it would add to the confidence which may be placed in their results that a party be employed under the direction of each of the above-named commissioners upon the said work. For this object it is estimated—
1. That $25,000 in all, say $12,500 to be expended under the direction of each of the two above-named commissioners, will suffice. A less sum than this will not keep two parties in the field during the working season; a larger sum could not advantageously be expended on this part of the work.
2. In estimating the amount necessary for completing the delineation of the meridian of the source of the river St. Croix, it will be borne in mind that numerous astronomical observations must be made in aid of the operations with the transit instrument, in order constantly to preserve the true north direction, a condition of the utmost consequence, not alone as affecting the extent of territory that will be embraced by it, but more particularly because the character and position of the highlands alluded to in the treaty of 1783 would be exhibited in a very different light as encountered by a line running due north, as is required by the treaty, and by one varying even in a slight degree from that direction. This principle has already been exhibited in a striking manner by the trace of the meridian line as far as it has now progressed, for instead of encountering highlands in the latitude of Mars Hill having a claim to be considered those described in the treaty as the intended boundary between the two countries, the line as recently traced actually passes that latitude at an elevation of less than 10 feet above the level of the monument, and the greatest elevation encountered by this line in passing over any spur connected with Mars Hill is 63 feet above the level of the monument. In advance of this spur the line becomes again depressed below the level of the monument at several points before it reaches the Aroostook.
These, however, are only a few of the many facts that might be adduced from the surveys already made to show how important it is to the question at issue that every necessary means to avail of the aids of science should be adopted in order to preserve scrupulously the direction specified in the treaty while tracing this line. It must also be remembered that in the further prosecution of this duty a wilderness has to be traversed, totally uninhabited and totally without roads. The only means of progressing through it and of transporting the necessary provisions and the instruments indispensable to accuracy will be by means of canoes, for supplying two or three depots at points where Grand River and the waters of the Restigouche intersect the line, leaving the whole transportation along the meridian to be performed by packmen, or men carrying burdens on their backs. That the usual avenue to give an unimpeded view along the line must be opened through a dense forest, which in the neighborhood of all streams crossing it will still be found to consist of that swampy growth described in the report from the undersigned of the 4th of January instant as requiring so much labor to cut through it.
With all these circumstances in view, the following estimate for the completion of the survey of the meridian line and for some further surveys between that line and the source of the Aroostook is submitted; and it is intended to embrace the expense of completing both the field and the office wort that will require to be done in order to a final accomplishment of the duties:
| Estimate for the meridian line. | |
| 1. Pay of 4 assistant engineers from May 1, 1842, to March 31, 1843, being 304 days, at $4 per day each | $4,864.00 |
| 2. Pay of 3 other assistant engineers from May 1, 1842, to December 31, 1842, being 275 days, at $3 per day each | 2,475.00 |
| 3. Hire of 30 men as axmen, and for preparing, constructing, and erecting stations and signals in advance, from June 1 to November 30, 1842, being 183 days, at $1 each per day | 5,490.00 |
| 4. Hire of 30 other men as instrument carriers, chain bearers, canoe men, and packmen for 183 days, as above, at $1 per day each | 5,490.00 |
| 5. Hire of 1 carpenter and 2 cooks 183 days, as above, at $1.25 per day each | 686.25 |
| 6. Subsistence of 1 commissioner, 7 assistant engineers, 1 carpenter, 2 cooks, and 60 men, as above, being in all 71 persons, while in the field, 183 days at 50 cents per day each, including transportation of provisions to Grand Falls of St. John, or first depot | 5,496.50 |
| 7. Purchase of barometers and repairs of instruments heretofore used | 800.00 |
| 8. Salary of commissioner | 3,000.00 |
| 9. Contingencies, including Stationery, office rent, and fuel, and transportation of engineers and commissioner to and from the field | 1,500.00 |
| Total required for the meridian line | 30,801.75 |
That is to say, $30,801.75, making the whole amount for the work yet to be performed in the field on all parts of the boundary and for the office work that will be consequent from the said field work $55,801.75
All which is respectfully submitted.
JAS. RENWICK,
A. TALCOTT,
J.D. GRAHAM,
Commissioners.
RECAPITULATION. | |
| 1. Amount of estimate for completing the surveys yet required to be made on the boundary, as above stated | $55,801.75 |
| 2. Amount of estimate rendered with report of January 4, 1842, for completing maps of surveys already made, etc. | 10,500.00 |
| Aggregate amount required | 66,301.75 |
WASHINGTON, February 9, 1842.
To the House of Representatives:
In answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 7th of February, 1842, in the following words—
Resolved, That the President of the United States inform this House under what authority the commission, consisting of George Poindexter and others, for the investigation of the concerns of the New York custom-house was raised; what were the purposes and objects of said commission; how many persons have in any way been connected with it, and the compensation received or to be received by each; and the aggregate amount of every description of said commission, and out of what fund the said expenditures have been or are to be paid—
I have to state that the authority for instituting the commission mentioned in said resolution is the authority vested in the President of the United States to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and to give to Congress from time to time information on the state of the Union, and to recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
The expediency, if not the necessity, of inquiries into the transactions of our custom-houses, especially in cases where abuses and malpractices are alleged, must be obvious to Congress, and that investigations of this kind were expected to be made appears from the provision in the twenty-first section of the act of 1799, "which enjoins collectors of the customs to submit their books, papers, and accounts to the inspection of such persons as shall be appointed for that purpose."
The purposes and objects of the commission will be explained by the commission itself, a copy of which, together with information on the other subjects mentioned in the resolution, will at the proper time be laid before Congress.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, February 11, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with the request of the governor of the Territory of Iowa, I have the honor to submit the accompanying memorials[20] and joint resolutions[20] of the council and house of representatives of that Territory to your consideration.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, February 14, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 3d instant, I transmit herewith a report[21] from the Secretary of State, with copies of the papers requested by the resolution.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, February 16, 1842.
To the House of Representatives:
I transmit herewith a communication addressed to me by the Secretary of War, in relation to certain contracts entered into by a board of medical officers appointed for that purpose for the purchase of sites on the western waters for the erection of marine hospitals; and concurring fully in his views of the subject, I recommend that either an appropriation of $44,721 be made for the purpose of satisfying the claims of the individuals with whom the contracts were made or that the Department of War be authorized to reconvey to them their lands and annul the contracts.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, February 18, 1842.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
I have the honor to invite the attention of Congress to the accompanying letter, addressed to me by the Secretary of State. You will doubtless perceive the importance of furnishing a uniform rule for the guidance of the public officers in the matter referred to in the Secretary's letter.[22]
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, February 19, 1842.
To the House of Representatives:
In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 8th instant, I have the honor to submit the accompanying communication[23] from the Secretary of State and the correspondence on the subject referred to by the resolution of the House.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, February 21, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit to the Senate herewith a report from the Secretary of State, with an accompanying paper,[24] in answer to their resolution of the 18th instant.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, February 26, 1842.
To the House of Representatives:
The resolution of the House of Representatives of the 21st instant, requesting the President of the United States to communicate to that body, "if not incompatible with the public interest, the state of the negotiation between the United States and the Government of Great Britain in relation to the northeastern boundary of the State of Maine, and also all correspondence on that subject between the two Governments not hitherto communicated," has been transmitted to me. Desirous always to lay before Congress and the public everything affecting the state of the country to the fullest extent consistent with propriety and prudence, I have to inform the House of Representatives that in my judgment no communication could be made by me at this time on the subject of its resolution without detriment or danger to the public interests.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, February 28, 1842.
To the House of Representatives:
I have the honor to submit copies of the correspondence[25] and other documents called for by the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 2d February.
I am not informed of the existence of any official opinion of the late Judge Johnson on the unconstitutionality of the act or acts of the State of South Carolina upon the subject referred to in the resolution.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, March 8, 1842.
To the House of Representatives:
I feel it to be my duty to invite your attention to the accompanying communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, in relation to the probable demands which will be made upon the Treasury for the present quarter. It will be seen that, without arresting the requisitions which will be made by the War and Navy Departments for the months of March, April, and May, there will be an unprovided-for deficit of upward of three millions.
I can not bring myself, however, to believe that it will enter into the view of any department of the Government to arrest works of defense now in progress of completion or vessels under construction or preparation for sea. Having due regard to the unsettled condition of our foreign relations and the exposed situation of our inland and maritime frontier, I should feel myself wanting in my duty to the country if I could hesitate in urging upon Congress all necessary appropriations for placing it in an attitude of strength and security. Such recommendation, however, has heretofore been made in full reliance as well on Congress as on the well-known patriotism of the people, their high sense of national honor, and their determination to defend our soil from the possibility, however remote, of a hostile invasion.
The diminution in the revenue arising from the great diminution of duties under what is commonly called the compromise act necessarily involves the Treasury in embarrassments, which have been for some years palliated by the temporary expedient of issuing Treasury notes—an expedient which, affording no permanent relief, has imposed upon Congress from time to time the necessity of replacing the old by a new issue. The amount outstanding on the 4th of March, 1840, varies in no great degree from the amount which will be outstanding on the 1st of January next, while in the interim the new issues are rendered equivalent to the redemption of the old, and at the end of the fiscal year leave an augmented pressure on the finances by the accumulation of interest.
The contemplated revision of the tariff of duties may, and doubtless will, lead in the end to a relief of the Treasury from these constantly recurring embarrassments, but it must be obvious that time will be necessary to realize the full anticipations of financial benefit from any modification of the tariff laws. In the meantime I submit to Congress the suggestions made by the Secretary, and invite its prompt and speedy action.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, March 8, 1842.
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
In my message of the 7th of December I suggested to Congress the propriety, and in some degree the necessity, of making proper provisions by law within the pale of the Constitution for the removal at their commencement and at the option of the party of all such cases as might arise in State courts involving national questions or questions touching the faithful observance and discharge of the international obligations of the United States from such State tribunal to the Federal judiciary. I am urged to repeat at this time this recommendation by the receipt of intelligence, upon which I can rely, that a subject of Great Britain residing in Upper Canada has been arrested upon a charge of connection with the expedition fitted out by the Canadian authorities by which the Caroline was destroyed, and will in all probability be subjected to trial in the State courts of New York. It is doubtful whether in this state of things, should his discharge be demanded by the British Government, this Government is invested with any control over the subject until the case shall have reached the court of final resort of the State of New York and been decided in that court; and although such delay ought not, in a national point of view to give cause of umbrage to Great Britain, yet the prompt and instant rendering of justice to foreign nations should be placed among our highest duties. I can not, therefore, in consideration of what properly becomes the United States, and in anticipation of any demand from a foreign government for the discharge of one of its subjects, forego the duty of repeating my recommendation to Congress for the immediate Adoption of some suitable legislative provision on this subject.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, March 11, 1842.
To the House of Representatives:
In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 23d ultimo, I communicate to that body a report from the Secretary of State, conveying copies of the correspondence[26] which contains the information called for by said resolution.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, March 12, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I have reason to think that the rejection of Silas Reed as surveyor-general of Illinois and Missouri on the evening of the last day of the session of the Senate at the last session of Congress was founded in a misapprehension of facts, which, while it deprived the public of the services of a useful officer, left him to suffer a considerable degree of injustice in his reputation. After mature reflection upon all the circumstances of his case, and particularly of facts which have become known since his rejection, I have felt it my duty to submit his nomination for the same office anew to the Senate for its advice and consent.
I therefore nominate Silas Reed to be surveyor-general of Illinois and Missouri, in place of Joseph C. Brown, removed.
JOHN TYLER.
MARCH 15, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I take the earliest moment to correct an error into which I inadvertently fell in my message of the 12th instant, nominating Silas Reed to be surveyor-general for Illinois and Missouri. In that message I represent the nominee as being rejected by the Senate on the evening of the last day of the last session of Congress, when upon a more accurate inquiry I find that he was rejected on the 14th of August, 1841, and his successor nominated on the 23d August and confirmed on the 13th September, which was the last day of the last session of Congress, and which fact had become identified in my memory, upon which I drew when I wrote the message, with the fact of his rejection.
I hasten to make the correction, not deeming it, however, of much moment in regard to the real merits of the nomination; for whether the rejection occurred on the last or any other day of the session, if done under a misapprehension or mistake of the facts, the Senate, I doubt not, will take equal pleasure in correcting the error.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, March 17, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 2d ultimo, requesting information in regard to the demarcation of the boundary line between the United States and the Republic of Texas, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the papers by which it was accompanied.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, March 17, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I have the honor to submit the accompanying report and documents[27] from the Postmaster-General, in compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 16th February.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, March 23, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
A resolution adopted by the House of Representatives on the 16th instant, in the following words, viz, "Resolved, That the President of the United States and the heads of the several Departments be requested to communicate to the House of Representatives the names of such of the members (if any) of the Twenty-sixth and Twenty-seventh Congresses who have been applicants for office, and for what offices, distinguishing between those who have applied in person and those whose applications were made by friends, whether in person or by writing," has been transmitted to me for my consideration.
If it were consistent with the rights and duties of the executive department, it would afford me great pleasure to furnish in this, as in all cases in which proper information is demanded, a ready compliance with the wishes of the House of Representatives. But since, in my view, general considerations of policy and propriety, as well as a proper defense of the rights and safeguards of the executive department, require of me as the Chief Magistrate to refuse compliance with the terms of this resolution, it is incumbent on me to urge, for the consideration of the House of Representatives, my reasons for declining to give the desired information.
All appointments to office made by a President become from the date of their nomination to the Senate official acts, which are matter of record and are at the proper time made known to the House of Representatives and to the country. But applications for office, or letters respecting appointments, or conversations held with individuals on such subjects are not official proceedings, and can not by any means be made to partake of the character of official proceedings unless after the nomination of such person so writing or conversing the President shall think proper to lay such correspondence or such conversations before the Senate. Applications for office are in their very nature confidential, and if the reasons assigned for such applications or the names of the applicants were communicated, not only would such implied confidence be wantonly violated, but, in addition, it is quite obvious that a mass of vague, incoherent, and personal matter would be made public at a vast consumption of time, money, and trouble without accomplishing or tending in any manner to accomplish, as it appears to me, any useful object connected with a sound and constitutional administration of the Government in any of its branches.
But there is a consideration of a still more effective and lofty character which is with me entirely decisive of the correctness of the view that I have taken of this question. While I shall ever evince the greatest readiness to communicate to the House of Representatives all proper information which the House shall deem necessary to a due discharge of its constitutional obligations and functions, yet it becomes me, in defense of the Constitution and laws of the United States, to protect the executive department from all encroachment on its powers, rights, and duties. In my judgment a compliance with the resolution which has been transmitted to me would be a surrender of duties and powers which the Constitution has conferred exclusively on the Executive, and therefore such compliance can not be made by me nor by the heads of Departments by my direction. The appointing power, so far as it is bestowed on the President by the Constitution, is conferred without reserve or qualification. The reason for the appointment and the responsibility of the appointment rest with him alone. I can not perceive anywhere in the Constitution of the United States any right conferred on the House of Representatives to hear the reasons which an applicant may urge for an appointment to office under the executive department, or any duty resting upon the House of Representatives by which it may become responsible for any such appointment.
Any assumption or misapprehension on the part of the House of Representatives of its duties and powers in respect to appointments by which it encroaches on the rights and duties of the executive department is to the extent to which it reaches dangerous, impolitic, and unconstitutional.
For these reasons, so perfectly convincing to my mind, I beg leave respectfully to repeat, in conclusion, that I can not comply with the request contained in the above resolution.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, March 25, 1842.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
Notwithstanding the urgency with which I have on more than one occasion felt it my duty to press upon Congress the necessity of providing the Government with the means of discharging its debts and maintaining inviolate the public faith, the increasing embarrassments of the Treasury impose upon me the indispensable obligation of again inviting your most serious attention to the condition of the finances. Fortunately for myself in thus bringing this important subject to your view for a deliberate and comprehensive examination in all its bearings, and I trust I may add for a final adjustment of it to the common advantage of the whole Union, I am permitted to approach it with perfect freedom and candor. As few of the burdens for which provision is now required to be made have been brought upon the country during my short administration of its affairs, I have neither motive nor wish to make them a matter of crimination against any of my predecessors. I am disposed to regard, as I am bound to treat, them as facts which can not now be undone, and as deeply interesting to us all, and equally imposing upon all the most solemn duties; and the only use I would make of the errors of the past is by a careful examination of their causes and character to avoid if possible the repetition of them in future. The condition of the country, indeed, is such as may well arrest the conflict of parties.
The conviction seems at length to have made its way to the minds of all that the disproportion between the public responsibilities and the means provided for meeting them is no casual nor transient evil. It is, on the contrary, one which for some years to come, notwithstanding a resort to all reasonable retrenchments and the constant progress of the country in population and productive power, must continue to increase under existing laws, unless we consent to give up or impair all our defenses in war and peace. But this is a thought which I am persuaded no patriotic mind would for a moment entertain. Without affecting an alarm, which I do not feel, in regard to our foreign relations, it may safely be affirmed that they are in a state too critical and involve too many momentous issues to permit us to neglect in the least, much less to abandon entirely, those means of asserting our rights without which negotiation is without dignity and peace without security.
In the report of the Secretary of the Treasury submitted to Congress at the commencement of the present session it is estimated that after exhausting all the probable resources of the year there will remain a deficit of about $14,000,000. With a view partly to a permanent system of revenue and partly to immediate relief from actual embarrassment, that officer recommended, together with a plan for establishing a Government exchequer, some expedients of a more temporary character, viz, the issuing of Treasury notes and the extension of the time for which the loan authorized to be negotiated by the act of the last session should be taken. Congress accordingly provided for an issue of Treasury notes to the amount of $5,000,000, but subject to the condition that they should not be paid away below par.
No measure connected with the last of the two objects above mentioned was introduced until recently into the House of Representatives. Should the loan bill now pending before that body pass into a law for its present amount, there would still remain a deficit of $2,500,000. It requires no argument to show that such a condition of the Treasury is incompatible not only with a high state of public credit, but with anything approaching to efficiency in the conduct of public affairs. It must be obvious even to the most inexperienced minds that, to say nothing of any particular exigency, actual or imminent, there should be at all times in the Treasury of a great nation, with a view to contingencies of ordinary occurrence, a surplus at least equal in amount to the above deficiency. But that deficiency, serious as it would be in itself, will, I am compelled to say, rather be increased than diminished without the adoption of measures adequate to correct the evil at once. The stagnation of trade and business, in some degree incident to the derangement of the national finances and the state of the revenue laws, holds out but little prospect of relief, in the ordinary course of things, for some time to come.
Under such circumstances I am deeply impressed with the necessity of meeting the crisis with a vigor and decision which it imperatively demands at the hands of all intrusted with the conduct of public affairs. The gravity of the evil calls for a remedy proportioned to it. No slight palliatives or occasional expedients will give the country the relief it needs. Such measures, on the contrary, will in the end, as is now manifest to all, too surely multiply its embarrassments. Relying, as I am bound to do, on the representatives of a people rendered illustrious among nations by having paid off its whole public debt, I shall not shrink from the responsibility imposed upon me by the Constitution of pointing out such measures as will in my opinion insure adequate relief. I am the more encouraged to recommend the course which necessity exacts by the confidence which I have in its complete success. The resources of the country in everything that constitutes the wealth and strength of nations are so abundant, the spirit of a most industrious, enterprising, and intelligent people is so energetic and elastic, that the Government will be without the shadow of excuse for its delinquency if the difficulties which now embarrass it be not speedily and effectually removed.
From present indications it is hardly doubtful that Congress will find it necessary to lay additional duties on imports in order to meet the ordinary current expenses of the Government. In the exercise of a sound discrimination having reference to revenue, but at the same time necessarily affording incidental protection to manufacturing industry, it seems equally probable that duties on some articles of importation will have to be advanced above 20 per cent. In performing this important work of revising the tariff of duties, which in the present emergency would seem to be indispensable, I can not too strongly recommend the cultivation of a spirit of mutual harmony and concession, to which the Government itself owes its origin, and without the continued exercise of which jarring and discord would universally prevail.
An additional reason for the increase of duties in some instances beyond the rate of 20 per cent will exist in fulfilling the recommendations already made, and now repeated, of making adequate appropriations for the defenses of the country.
By the express provision of the act distributing the proceeds of the sales of the public lands among the States its operation is ipso facto to cease so soon as the rate of the duties shall exceed the limits prescribed in the act.
In recommending the adoption of measures for distributing the proceeds of the public lands among the States at the commencement of the last session of Congress such distribution was urged by arguments and considerations which appeared to me then and appear to me now of great weight, and was placed on the condition that it should not render necessary any departure from the act of 1833. It is with sincere regret that I now perceive the necessity of departing from that act, because I am well aware that expectations justly entertained by some of the States will be disappointed by any occasion which shall withhold from them the proceeds of the lands. But the condition was plainly expressed in the message and was inserted in terms equally plain in the law itself, and amidst the embarrassments which surround the country on all sides and beset both the General and the State Governments it appears to me that the object first and highest in importance is to establish the credit of this Government and to place it on durable foundations, and thus afford the most effectual support to the credit of the States, equal at least to what it would receive from a direct distribution of the proceeds of the sales of the public lands.
When the distribution law was passed there was reason to anticipate that there soon would be a real surplus to distribute. On that assumption it was in my opinion a wise, a just, and a beneficent measure. But to continue it in force while there is no such surplus to distribute and when it is manifestly necessary not only to increase the duties, but at the same time to borrow money in order to liquidate the public debt and disembarrass the public Treasury, would cause it to be regarded as an unwise alienation of the best security of the public creditor, which would with difficulty be excused and could not be justified.
Causes of no ordinary character have recently depressed American credit in the stock market of the world to a degree quite unprecedented. I need scarcely mention the condition of the banking institutions of some of the States, the vast amount of foreign debt contracted during a period of wild speculation by corporations and individuals, and, above all, the Doctrine of repudiation of contracts solemnly entered into by States, which, although as yet applied only under circumstances of a peculiar character and generally rebuked with severity by the moral sense of the community, is yet so very licentious and, in a Government depending wholly on opinion, so very alarming that the impression made by it to our disadvantage as a people is anything but surprising. Under such circumstances it is imperatively due from us to the people whom we represent that when we go into the money market to contract a loan we should tender such securities as to cause the money lender, as well at home as abroad, to feel that the most propitious opportunity is afforded him of investing profitably and judiciously his capital. A government which has paid off the debts of two wars, waged with the most powerful nation of modern times, should not be brought to the necessity of chaffering for terms in the money market. Under such circumstances as I have adverted to our object should be to produce with the capitalist a feeling of entire confidence, by a tender of that sort of security which in all times past has been esteemed sufficient, and which for the small amount of our proposed indebtedness will unhesitatingly be regarded as amply adequate. While a pledge of all the revenues amounts to no more than is implied in every instance when the Government contracts a debt, and although it ought in ordinary circumstances to be entirely satisfactory, yet in times like these the capitalist would feel better satisfied with the pledge of a specific fund, ample in magnitude to the payment of his interest and ultimate reimbursement of his principal. Such is the character of the land fund. The most vigilant money dealer will readily perceive that not only will his interest be secure on such a pledge, but that a debt of $18,000,000 or $20,000,000 would by the surplus of sales over and above the payment of the interest be extinguished within any reasonable time fixed for its redemption. To relieve the Treasury from its embarrassments and to aid in meeting its requisitions until time is allowed for any new tariff of duties to become available, it would seem to be necessary to fund a debt approaching to $15,000,000; and in order to place the negotiation of the loan beyond a reasonable doubt I submit to Congress whether the proceeds of the sales of the public lands should not be pledged for the payment of the interest, and the Secretary of the Treasury be authorized out of the surplus of the proceeds of such sales to purchase the stock, when it can be procured on such terms as will render it beneficial in that way, to extinguish the debt and prevent the accumulation of such surplus while its distribution is suspended.
No one can doubt that were the Federal Treasury now as prosperous as it was ten years ago and its fiscal operations conducted by an efficient agency of its own, coextensive with the Union, the embarrassments of the States and corporations in them would produce, even if they continued as they are (were that possible), effects far less disastrous than those now experienced. It is the disorder here, at the heart and center of the system, that paralyzes and deranges every part of it. Who does not know the permanent importance, not to the Federal Government alone, but to every State and every individual within its jurisdiction, even in their most independent and isolated individual pursuits, of the preservation of a sound state of public opinion and a judicious administration here? The sympathy is instantaneous and universal. To attempt to remedy the evil of the deranged credit and currency of the States while the disease is allowed to rage in the vitals of this Government would be a hopeless undertaking.
It is the full conviction of this truth which emboldens me most earnestly to recommend to your early and serious consideration the measures now submitted to your better judgment, as well as those to which your attention has been already invited. The first great want of the country, that without answering which all attempts at bettering the present condition of things will prove fruitless, is a complete restoration of the credit and finances of the Federal Government. The source and foundation of all credit is in the confidence which the Government inspires, and just in proportion as that confidence shall be shaken or diminished will be the distrust among all classes of the community and the derangement and demoralization in every branch of business and all the interests of the country. Keep up the standard of good faith and punctuality in the operations of the General Government, and all partial irregularities and disorders will be rectified by the influence of its example; but suffer that standard to be debased or disturbed, and it is impossible to foresee to what a degree of degradation and confusion all financial interests, public and private, may sink. In such a country as this the representatives of the people have only to will it, and the public credit will be as high as it ever was.
My own views of the measures calculated to effect this great and desirable object I have thus frankly expressed to Congress under circumstances which give to the entire subject a peculiar and solemn interest. The Executive can do no more. If the credit of the country be exposed to question, if the public defenses be broken down or weakened, if the whole administration of public affairs be embarrassed for want of the necessary means for conducting them with vigor and effect, I trust that this department of the Government will be found to have done all that was in its power to avert such evils, and will be acquitted of all just blame on account of them.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, March 25, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I have the honor herewith to submit a report[28] from the Secretary of the Navy, in compliance with your resolution of the 18th February, 1842.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, March 30, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
I transmit to the House of Representatives two extracts from a note of the chargé d'affaires of the Republic of Texas accredited to this Government to the Department of State, one suggesting in behalf of his Government such modifications of the existing laws of the United States as will impart greater facility to the trade between the two countries, particularly to that which passes across their frontier, and the other expressing a desire for some regulation on the part of this Government by means of which the communication by post between the United States and Texas may be improved.
As the wishes of the Texan Government in relation to those subjects can only be gratified by means of laws to be passed by Congress, they are accordingly referred to the consideration of the two Houses.
JOHN TYLER.
[The same message was sent to the Senate.]
WASHINGTON, April 1, 1842.
To the Senate:
In part compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 20th of July, 1841, I transmit herewith a report[29] from the Department of War.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, April 1, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
In compliance with your resolution of the 21st of March, I have the honor to submit the accompanying communication[30] from the Secretary of the Navy.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, April 4, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States.
In part compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 21st March, 1842, I herewith communicate a report[31] from the Secretary of State.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, April 7, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
I herewith transmit to the House of Representatives copies of a letter addressed to the Secretary of State by the chairman of the board of commissioners appointed to explore and survey the boundary line between the States of Maine and New Hampshire and the adjoining British Provinces, together with the report of the operations of that commission to the 31st ultimo, and a profile of the meridian line from the source of the St. Croix River as far as surveyed, illustrative of the report.
JOHN TYLER.
[The same message was sent to the Senate.]
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, March 31, 1842.
Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER,
Secretary of State.
SIR: By directions of the board of commissioners for exploring and surveying the northeastern boundary, I have handed you the papers hereinafter specified, viz:
1. The report of the operations of the commission up to the present date.
2. A profile of the meridian line of the source of the St. Croix as far as surveyed, intended to illustrate the report.
3. A portfolio of drawings intended for the same purpose.
4. A roll marked Appendix No. 1, containing the narrative of the field operations of the division of Professor Renwick.
5. A tin case containing the detail of the surveys of the division of Professor Renwick.
In reply to your inquiry in relation to the disposition of the said papers, I am directed respectfully to suggest that all which it is absolutely necessary to lay before Congress are the items 1 and 2, which, with a general map now in preparation, will contain all that will be of any general public interest.
The portfolio (No. 3) and the box of maps and profiles (No. 5) should remain on file in the Department; and while a part of the drawings in the former may be useful for illustration, the latter will be superseded by the general map, in which will be embodied all that they contain of importance to the question at issue.
Appendix No. 1, specified as No. 4 in the above list, will probably be demanded hereafter to give authenticity to the conclusions of the report (No. 1). It ought not, however, to be communicated until the Appendices Nos. 2 and 3, containing the operations of the divisions of Messrs. Graham and Talcott, are handed in; and of the three no more than a limited number of copies will be useful.
I have the honor to be, with much respect, your most obedient servant,
JAS. RENWICK,
Chairman.
Report of the commissioners appointed by the President of the United States for the purpose of surveying and exploring the boundary line between the States of Maine and New Hampshire and the British Provinces.
WASHINGTON, March 28,1842.
Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER,
Secretary of State.
SIR: The duties assigned to the undersigned by the instructions of your predecessor were twofold:
First. To explore and survey the lines respectively claimed by the Governments of the United States and Great Britain.
Second. To examine and report upon the arguments contained in the report of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge addressed to the secretary of state of Her Britannic Majesty for foreign affairs under date of 16th April, 1840.
I.
In order to the more exact and successful performance of the duties included under the first of the above heads, the boundary line was divided by their instructions into three separate portions, one of which was assigned to each of the commissioners; and while they were instructed to assemble in a board for the purpose of comparing their respective surveys, in view of the performance of the duties included in the second of the above divisions their explorations have been separately conducted. Each of the commissioners has employed the methods and course of action most appropriate in his opinion to the successful fulfillment of his appointed task, and the nature of the surveys assigned to one of them has been of a character widely different from those of his colleagues. The commissioners, therefore, while uniting in a general report of the progress made up to this time in the duties of their appointment, beg leave to submit, in the form of appendices, the narrative of their several operations, with so much of the records of their observations and calculations as they have severally judged necessary to authenticate the conclusions at which they have arrived.
The progress which has been made in the labors of the commissioners enables them at this time to lay before you—
1. A description of the physical features of the disputed territory.
2. A comparison of the heights of the line claimed by the United States with those of the line styled the "axis of maximum elevation" by Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge. In laying the latter before you they have, in order to avoid delay, made use in part of the published results obtained by those gentlemen, and although they have already detected errors in their inferences they do not consider that by accepting them for the moment as the basis of comparison they can be accused of exhibiting the line claimed by Great Britain in an unfavorable light.
I.—DESCRIPTION OF THE DISPUTED TERRITORY.
The seacoast of the State of Maine is rugged and hilly. The primitive rocks of which its geological structure is chiefly composed are broken into ridges which run parallel to the great streams, and therefore in a direction from north to south. These ridges terminate in an irregular line, which to the east of the Penobscot may be identified nearly with the military road to Houlton. From the northern summit of these ridges an extensive view of the disputed territory can in many places be obtained. This is the case at the military post at Houlton, whence a wide extent of country may be seen. A still more perfect view may be obtained from the summit of Parks Hill, at a point about 400 yards south of the road from Houlton to Woodstock and about half a mile east of the exploring meridian line. At the time when that line was run by the British and American surveyors, under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, the top of this hill was covered with wood, and they were obliged to content themselves with the view from Park's barn, which is at least 200 feet beneath the summit. At the present moment the latter is cleared, and the view from west-southwest to northeast is unimpeded except by a single clump of trees, which cuts off the view for a few degrees in the northwest direction; but by a change of position every part of the horizon between these points is to be seen. Toward the west are seen ridges parallel to the Penobscot, over which Katahdin towers to a great height, bearing by compass N. 85° W. In a direction N. 75° W. are seen two distant peaks, one of which was identified as the Traveller. All of these eminences lie south of the line claimed by Great Britain. In the north-northwest direction there appear two ridges of comparatively small elevation, which were pointed out as the Aroostook Mountains, but have since been ascertained to lie near the sources of the Meduxnikeag. These lie in the line claimed by Great Britain in 1817.
Between these and the other mountains there is evidently no connection, and the rest of the country, as seen from the hill, bears the aspect of a wooded plain. It will be sufficient to refer to this view to be satisfied that all the impressions which have been circulated of a continuous chain of elevations extending along the line claimed by Great Britain are utterly fallacious.
Toward the north the country exhibits the same general features. One vast and apparently unbroken plain extends to the utmost limits of the visible horizon. In the midst of this, and at a distance of nearly 30 miles, Mars Hill alone breaks the monotonous prospect, and from its isolated position assumes to the eye an importance to which its altitude of less than 1,800 feet would not otherwise entitle it. No other eminences are to be seen in this direction, except a round peak bearing a few degrees west of north and some distant ridges about an equal distance to the east. The first of these has been ascertained by the surveys of Major Graham to be an isolated hill near the peak known as Quaquajo. The eastern ridges are probably those measured between the Tobique and the Bay of Chaleurs by the British commissioners. A sketch of this view from Parks Hill is annexed to the report, and lest any doubt be entertained of its accuracy it is proper to state that the unassisted vision was not relied upon, but that the outlines were carefully delineated by means of the camera lucida.
From this view it might be inferred that the northern part of the admitted possessions of the United States to the east of the Penobscot and the disputed territory as far as visible constitute a vast table-land slightly inclined toward the southeast.
On descending into the valley of the St. John the appearances change. The tableland is cut to a great depth by that stream, and from its bed the broken edges of the great plain look like ridges whose height is exaggerated to the senses in consequence of their being densely clothed with wood. The same is the case with all the branches of this river, which also cut the table-land to greater or less depths according to their distance from the stream into which they discharge themselves.
The want of a true highland or mountainous character in this region is obvious from the aspect it presents in the two different points of view. Mountainous regions are most imposing when seen from a distance and from heights. On a nearer approach, and from the valleys which intersect them, the elevations, so important in the distant view, are hidden by their own slopes or lose the appearance of relative elevation in consequence of the absolute heights of the valleys themselves. In conformity with this character, the line claimed by the United States for the most part presents, when seen at a distance, the appearance of lofty and deeply serrated ridges, while to one who traverses it it is a labyrinth of lakes, morasses, and short but steep elevations which hide its peaks from the valleys and streams.
The line claimed by Great Britain, on the other hand, when seen from a distance is as level as the surface of the ocean, with no greater appearance of elevation and depression than would represent its billows; while, seen from its own valleys, the heights assume an importance which their elevation above the valleys when actually measured does not warrant. The characteristics of the region through which the line of Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh passes are therefore the opposite of those usually remarked in highland countries, while those of the line claimed by the United States are the same as are always observed in such regions.
This character of a table-land deeply cut by streams is well exhibited in the section of their "axis of maximum elevation" by the British commissioners. In that will be seen the mountains near the source of the Aroostook, Alleguash, and Penobscot on the one hand, and of the Tobique on the other, while the intervening space is occupied by a curve resembling an inverted arch, of which the St. John occupies the keystone. In a country of this character any line whatever would present the appearance of a succession of eminences, and might by as liberal a construction of the term as has been made by Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh be called highlands.
The sameness of this general character is broken only by a single chain of hills.[32] This is a prolongation of Mars Hill toward the north, and, being both of less height and breadth than that mountain, is hidden by it from the view of a spectator on Parks Hill. Mars Hill is itself an isolated eminence, and is in fact nearly an island, for the Presque Isle and Gissiguit rivers, running the one to the north and the other to the south of it, have branches which take their rise in the same swamp on its northwestern side. To the north of the Des Chutes the ground again rises, and although cut by several streams, and particularly by the Aroostook, the chain is prolonged by isolated eminences as far as the White Rapids, below the Grand Falls of the St. John, where it crosses that river. It may thence be traced in a northern direction to the Sugar Loaf Mountain, on the Wagansis portage, where it terminates.
To this broken chain belongs the elevation of 918 feet given by Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh to an eminence in the neighborhood of the Aroostook Falls. An accurate profile of so many of these eminences as fall in the line of the connected meridian is herewith submitted. This chain of eminences is not prolonged to the westward, as it is entirely unconnected with any other height aspiring to the name of mountain in that direction.
It is not in any sense a dividing ridge, being cut by all the streams in the country, and in particular to a great depth by the St. John and the Aroostook.
A section of this line was given in a report to the British commissioner under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent by Colonel Bouchette, the surveyor-general of the Province of Canada. His heights were determined by the barometer, and estimated from the assumed level of the monument at the source of the St. Croix.
It would now appear that the section of Colonel Bouchette is very inaccurate, and that the heights as reported by him are not only much beyond the truth, but that the continually ascending slope ascribed by him to the country from the monument at the source of the St. Croix to the point where the due north line crosses the St. John is entirely erroneous. He, however, adroitly availed himself of this inaccurate section to attempt to prove the existence of a continuous chain of mountains from Katahdin to the Great Falls of the St. John, and thence around the southwestern branches of the Restigouche until it met the heights rising from the north shore of the Bay of Chaleurs. For this reason his view taken from Park's barn and that made by Mr. Odell from the same point were urged for admission as evidence on oath by the British agent, and the map of Mr. Johnson, which contradicted this evidence, was carefully excluded. It can not be concealed that could Colonel Bouchette's idea founded on erroneous premises have been established by indisputable facts it would have been the most fatal argument that has ever been adduced against the American claim, for he would have argued that the meridian line of the St. Croix would at Mars Hill have first intersected highlands which, rising from the north shore of the Bay of Chaleurs, would have appeared to divide until within a few miles of the Grand Falls of the St. John waters which fall into the St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic, and would have been the south boundary of the Province of Quebec.
Mars Hill would then have appeared to be in truth as well as in claim the northwest angle of the Province of Nova Scotia; and although the rest of the line would not have fulfilled the conditions, the United States might by an arbitrator have been compelled to accept this point as the beginning of their boundary. Nor, in the unexplored state of the country, is it by any means certain that the American agent, who does not seem to have seen the drift of the proceedings of Colonel Bouchette, would have been prepared with the adverse facts, which are now known to be undeniable. It may therefore be considered fortunate for the claim of the United States that the survey was afterwards intrusted to a surveyor who, in pursuit of the double object of encroachment on the United States and the enlargement of his native Province at the expense of Canada, signally failed in the proof of either of his positions.
The knowledge now acquired shows that the idea of Colonel Bouchette is unsupported by the facts of the case, for the highlands which rise from the north shore of the Bay of Chaleurs do not meet those in which the most southerly branch of the Restigouche takes its rise.
The British commissioners, although they give a profile of this ridge, do not pretend to have examined it except at Mars Hill, near the Aroostook, and at the Grand Falls of the St. John. It must be remarked that these profiles (the original one of Colonel Bouchette and that exhibited by themselves) are contrasted—one British authority with another—for the purpose of invalidating the ground on which the American claim is founded.
It is not our business to reconcile these conflicting authorities, but it is our duty to recall the recollections of the fact that no part of the American argument laid before the King of the Netherlands was founded on this or any other estimate of heights. Many elevations, indeed, were measured with great pains on the part of the Americans as well as of Great Britain.
On behalf of the United States Captain Partridge made many barometric observations, while Mr. Johnson took an extensive series of vertical and horizontal angles. His operations were performed in the presence of Mr. Odell, the surveyor on behalf of Great Britain, who doubtless made similar ones, as he visited the same stations with a better instrument and for the same avowed purpose. Mr. Odell's observations were not presented by the British agent, and those of Mr. Johnson were objected to. If received, they would have set aside the pretensions that a continuous ridge of mountains existed between the Metjarmette portage and Mars Hill. They are, however, superseded by the operations of the undersigned, which have yielded satisfactory evidence that no chain of highlands in the sense of the British commissioners, or even an "axis of maximum elevation," exists where it is laid down on their map. Nor can it be doubted that the operations of Mr. Johnson had a decided advantage in point of probable accuracy over theirs. The exploring meridian line used as a base was measured with a tolerable degree of accuracy, and from the three heights chosen by him the whole country is visible.
On the other hand, the course of Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh being confined, except where they ascended Mars Hill, to the valleys of the streams, they were for the most part excluded from a prospect. In describing the view from Mars Hill, however, they have pictured in most accurate terms the true features of the country:
"The character of the country may be well discerned and understood from this insulated hill. It presents to the eye one mass of dark and gloomy forest to the utmost limits of sight, covering by its umbrageous mantle the principal rivers, minor streams, and scanty vestiges of the habitation of man."
This description can only agree with that of a vast table-land into which the streams cut so deep and form such narrow valleys as to be invisible.
But if a chain of highlands, or even an "axis of maximum elevation," had existed as they lay it down, within 20 miles, it would have been visible, and it need not be said that they would not have failed to describe it. The inconsistency between their map and this true and forcible description of the features of the country is apparent.
The same general character of table-land is found to the north of the St. John above the Grand Falls. Its first important northern tributary is the Grand River. In ascending this stream the level of the table-land is soon reached. The river runs between banks of very moderate elevation and on a regular slope, and although running with great rapidity upon a pebbly bed it is yet so tortuous that while its distance from its mouth to the Wagansis portage in a straight line is no more than 13 miles the meanders of its channel amount to 30.
On the Wagansis portage the table-land is terminated by a ridge whose summit is elevated 264 feet above the wagansis[33] of Grand River. It was at first believed that this, although of small elevation, was a dividing ridge, and that it might correspond to one construction which has, although inaccurately, been put on the treaty of 1783. This belief was speedily removed, for the rivulet on its northern side was found to be cut off from the Restigouche by the Sugar Loaf Mountain, and is therefore a branch either of the Grand River or of the stream which falls into the St. John immediately above the Grand Falls. The height of land which divides this rivulet from the wagan of the Restigouche is not elevated above the former more than 117 feet. There is, in fact, at this place a gap 5 or 6 miles in breadth in the great system of mountains which extend from the Gulf of St. Lawrence at the Bay des Chaleurs to the river St. Lawrence near the Temiscouata portage. At the northern verge of the table-land which has been described, and near the mouth of Green River, rises to the height of about 1,600 feet a mountain known from the name of that stream. This is, like Mars Hill, isolated, and affords an extensive view. To the north and west the prospect is bounded by a continuous line of horizon, which, instead of being obviously below the level of the eye, as in the view of the disputed territory from Mars Hill, is evidently of even greater height than the Green River Mountain itself.
On entering into this region from the south by any of the navigable streams which traverse it, it presents a more decidedly mountainous character than the country to the south. The Grande Fourche of Restigouche is bordered by two continuous chains of mountains, rising when it first issues from them to the height of a thousand feet above its surface. The stream having a rapid fall, the relative elevation becomes less until, in the neighborhood of the lake in which its north branch first collects its waters, the relative elevation is not more than four or five hundred feet.
On traversing this elevated country it presents a different aspect from what is seen either from a distance or where it is entered from the rivers. Frequent ridges are crossed; the tops of these are often occupied by swamps filled with a thick growth of cedars. Deep and small basins occur, which are occupied by lakes that give rise to rivers flowing to the St. Lawrence or to the St. John. These are intermingled with thickets of dwarf spruce, and the streams are sometimes bordered by marshes covered by low alders, and sometimes cut deep into rocky channels. In this apparent labyrinth one positive circumstance marks the line of division, or the true height of land: The streams which run to the St. John are all of the first description—sluggish—while those which discharge themselves into the St. Lawrence are rapid, and have the character of torrents.
On the western side of the disputed territory are ridges of rocky hills running nearly north and south, and thus tending toward the St. Lawrence, which they in some places reach and shut out the view of the interior.
It thus becomes difficult to find a station whence the heights of land can be viewed and its character exhibited. It has therefore been hitherto possible for those who have argued in support of the claims of Great Britain to represent without meeting with contradiction that the streams which fall into the St. John had their rise in a country possessed of none of that mountainous character which they urged was essential to the epithet of highlands. There are, however, points where a different character is apparent, and some of these are easy of access. Thus, on the main mail road, along the Southeast Branch of the St. Lawrence a mile northeast of the church of L'Islette, a rocky eminence is passed, whence may be seen a bold group of mountains which have been identified with the sources of the Ouelle, the Kamouraska, and Black rivers. A view of this group is herewith presented.
From the height to the east of river Du Loup a view may be seen on a clear day extending round 137° of the horizon, beginning with the highlands of Bic, bearing N. 58° E., and terminating in a conical mountain bearing S. 15° W.
The nearest and more conspicuous of these highlands (named those of St. Andre) are on the river Fourche, a branch of the river Du Loup, whose waters they divide from those of the St. Francis. A view of these is also submitted herewith.
A similar view of the same panorama of highlands is obtained from Hare Island, in the St. Lawrence, an outline of which, taken with the camera lucida, is likewise submitted. About a quarter of a mile to the south of the point where the Temiscouata portage crosses Mount Biort the highlands may be seen at the head of Rimouski, bearing nearly east, thence extending round by the north to the mountains of St. Andre, bearing nearly west, forming about one-half of the entire horizon. The entire panorama from the latter point, taken with the camera lucida, along with copies of some daguerreotypes made at the same place, are herewith submitted. Of the part of the line which extends to the northeast from the source of the Etchemin for a distance of many miles, a view may be almost constantly seen from the citadel of Quebec and from the tops of the houses in that city. One still more satisfactory may be obtained from the road between Quebec and the Falls of Montmorency, in the neighborhood of the village of Belport. The latter views are in particular referred to, as they are within the reach of numerous civil and military officers of the British Government, who must assent to the evidence of their own senses, which will prove that this region, the position of the path pursued during the present year by Captain Talcott's parties, is to all intents a range of highlands.
The boundary presents from these positions the aspect of a continuous and deeply serrated ridge.
The geological character of the country can not be admitted as having any bearing upon the subject under consideration. It never entered into the views of the framers of the treaty of 1783, and therefore could afford no illustrations of their intentions.
Were it admissible, however, it might be cited as an additional argument that the dividing height which incloses the waters of the Connecticut continues unchanged in its features until it is cut off by the deep channel of the St. Lawrence.
Opportunities for observations of this character were most frequent on the Temiscouata portage and on the banks of the St. Lawrence itself. It was only on the former place that the relative geological heights of the rocks could be observed by means of their outcrop.
The whole of the portage passes over stratified rocks dipping rapidly to the southeast. They were found to be alternate groups of common and talcose slate and of a rock made up principally of angular fragments of white quartz (grauwacke). These are in all respects identical with rocks which have been observed by one of the commissioners in place in Berkshire County, Mass., and in Columbia and Rensselaer counties, N.Y., and the description of geologists at various intervening points, as well as the observations of Captain Talcott's parties, would tend to establish the fact that the formations are continuous.
From these data it would appear probable that the rocks are a prolongation of the western slope of the great range called by Mr. Featherstonhaugh, in his report as United States geologist, the Atlantic ridge. This formation, which is but a few miles in width where it crosses the Hudson, appears gradually to widen as it proceeds to the north, and was on the St. Lawrence found to prevail both at the river Du Loup and at Grand Metis, dipping in the two places in opposite directions and covered in the interval by the thick diluvial deposits which form the valley of the Trois Pistoles. To render the analogy more complete, in the valley of the outlet of the Little Lake (Temiscouata) was found a vein of metalliferous quartz charged with peroxide of iron, evidently arising from the decomposition of pyrites, being in fact the same as the matrix of the gold which has been traced in the talcose slate formation from Georgia to Vermont; and on the western shore of the Temiscouata Lake, about a mile to the south of Fort Ingall, lie great masses of granular carbonate of lime, identically resembling the white marbles of Pennsylvania, Westchester County, N.Y., and Berkshire County, Mass.
If the latter be in place, which, although probable, was not ascertained beyond all question, the primitive carbonate of lime has exactly the same relation to the slaty rocks which it bears in the latter locality.
The formations which have been spoken of appear to occupy the whole extent of the country explored by the parties of Professor Renwick. Everywhere the streams were found cutting through rocks of slate. On the summits of many of the hills were found weathered masses of angular quartz rocks, showing that while the slate had yielded to the action of the elements, the harder and less friable rock had kept its place. The ridges which intervene between the St. Lawrence at the river Du Loup and Lake Temiscouata have the character, so well described by Élie de Beaumont, of mountains elevated by some internal force.
To the eastward of Lake Temiscouata, on the other hand, the country has the aspect of having once been a table-land, elevated on the average about 1,700 feet above the level of the sea, and of having been washed by some mighty flood, which, wearing away the softer rocks, had cut it into valleys, forming a complex system incapable of being described in words and only to be understood by inspection of a map.
2.—COMPARISON OF THE ELEVATIONS OF THE BOUNDARY LINE CLAIMED BY THE UNITED STATES WITH THOSE OF THE "AXIS OF MAXIMUM ELEVATION" OF MESSRS. FEATHERSTONHAUGH AND MUDGE.
For the purpose of exhibiting the relative claims of the two lines to the exclusive epithet of "the highlands" in the most clear and definite manner, each of them will be considered as divided into three portions, which will be contrasted with each other by pairs The first portion of each of the lines is that which lies nearest to the point of bifurcation, the residue of the American line is divided at the source of the Ouelle, the remainder of the line of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge at that of the Aroostook Metjarmette portage is taken as the point of bifurcation, whence waters run to the Penobscot, the St. John, and the St. Lawrence.
| On the American line from the Metjarmette portage to Lake Etchemm— | Feet |
| The maximum height is | 1,718 |
| The minimum height is | 1,218 |
The minimum measured height is that of Lake Etchemm, which is lower than the actual source of that stream, and whose omission as not upon the dividing ridge would make the minimum greater. This height was determined by the parties of A. Talcott, esq, by two distinct and separate sets of observations, one of which was continued hourly for several days, and no doubt can exist that it is as accurate a measure as the barometer is capable of affording. In the report of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge this height is set down as no more than 957 feet, but it is determined from a single observation. That it is erroneous must be considered as demonstrated. In the map presented by those gentlemen they have made use of this erroneous determination for a purpose which, even were it correct, would not be warranted, for they on its authority leave out all the symbols by which heights are represented, and substitute therefore a dotted line with the inscription "Fictitious hills of Mr. Burnham's map." The actual character of this part of the American line is an undulating country.
| On the line of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge between the Metjarmette portage and the Cocumgamoc Mountains— | Feet |
| The maximum elevation is | 2,302 |
| The minimum elevation is | 987 |
This part of the line of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge derives its apparent advantage from the fact that it crosses the summit and occupies the eastern slope of the highlands claimed by the United States. Notwithstanding this, the difference in their elevation is not such as to give it any decided superiority in its highland character.
| On the American line from Lake Etchemm to the river Ouelle— | Feet |
| The maximum height is | 2,854 |
| The minimum height is | 1,306 |
| On the line of Messrs Featherstonhaugh and Mudge from the Cocumgamoc Mountains to the head waters of the Aroostook— | |
| The maximum height is | 1,268 |
| The minimum height is | 880 |
On the parts of the line thus contrasted the maximum height of that claimed by Great Britain is less elevated than the lowest gap of that claimed by the United States.
On the third portion of the American line | |
| From the head of the Ouelle to the Temiscouata portage— | Feet |
| The maximum height is | 2,231 |
| The minimum height is | 853 |
| From the point where the line first crosses the Temiscouata portage to Mount Paradis— | |
| The maximum height is | 1,983 |
| The minimum height is | 906 |
| From the Temiscouata portage to the head of the Abagusquash— | |
| The maximum height is | 1,510 |
| The minimum height is | 676 |
| From Abagusquash to the Rimouski Lake— | |
| The maximum height is | 1,824 |
| The minimum height is | 651 |
| From the Rimouski Lake to the northwest angle— | |
| The maximum height is | 1,841 |
| The minimum height is | 1,014 |
| The greatest elevation of the whole of the third part of the American line, therefore, is | 2,231 |
| The minimum is | 651 |
The termination of the exploring meridian line falls into this part of the American line. Its height of 1,519 feet was determined by two separate observations, compared with others taken on Lake Johnson. The height of the latter was calculated at 1,007 feet from a series of observations continued for seventeen days, and is believed to be as accurate as the method of the barometer is susceptible of.
This height of the termination of that line is estimated by Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge at no more than 388 feet, and that of the lake at no more than 363. In this estimate they reject the indications of their own barometers, because the results of them would have contradicted the previous impressions which seem to have governed all their operations, viz, that the point claimed by the United States as the northwest angle of Nova Scotia is not in an elevated region of country.[34]
On the third part of the British line from the sources of the Aroostook to the Grand Falls of the St. John no height is reported as measured by the British commissioners which exceeds 1,050 feet, while the greatest height on their profile is 1,150 feet. The minimum height on their profile, excluding the Aroostook at its mouth and its intersection with the meridian line, is 243 feet, and the mean of the numbers entered by them both on their map and profile is 665 feet.
It will therefore appear that if the profile of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge be correct the lowest gap on the third part of the American line is about as high as the mean elevation of the part of the British line with which it is compared.
The line claimed by the United States therefore possesses throughout in a pre-eminent degree the highland character according to the sense at one time contended for in the argument of Great Britain, and is, to use the term of the British commissioners, "the axis of maximum elevation," the mean of all the heights measured upon it being 1,459 feet, while that of those measured on the line of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge is no more than 1,085 feet.
It is regretted that the computations of the barometric and other observations for the determination of the heights of that portion of the country between the valley of the St. John and the sources of the Aroostook, explored by the division of Major Graham, could not be completed in time to be made use of for this report in the description of that portion of the line claimed for Great Britain by Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge. This delay has been solely caused by a want of reasonable time to complete this portion of the work, the commissioner having direction of the division charged with it having only returned from the field in the month of January.
Sufficient information is known, however, to have been derived from those surveys to justify the assertion that, instead of the strongly marked range of highlands represented by the British commissioners as constituting a part of their "axis of maximum elevation," the country in the vicinity of the Aroostook lying between its sources and the valley of the St. John is devoid of the character they have attributed to it. When properly represented upon a map it will appear as an extended undulating surface of moderate elevation above the level of the Aroostook River, sparsely interspersed with occasional detached elevations rising to heights of 600 to 900 and 1,400 feet above the level of the sea, but forming no continuous or connected chain whatever in the direction represented by the British commissioners, or that could be construed into the character of highlands such as are described in the treaty of 1783.[35]
In addition to the surveys upon the boundary line claimed by the United States, an exploring line was run under the direction of Professor Renwick, as is more particularly described in Appendix No. 1. This line extended to an eminence on the eastern side of Lake Matapediac, elevated 1,743 feet above the level of the sea. The views obtained from this eminence established the fact that a chain of highlands extended thence to the north shore of the Bay des Chaleurs. They are believed to terminate in an eminence, which from its imposing appearance has been called by the Scotch settlers at its foot Ben Lomond. This was measured during the operations of the summer of 1840, and found to rise from the tide of the bay to the height of 1,024 feet. This exploring line, coupled with the more accurate surveys, appears to establish the fact of the existence of a continuous chain of eminences entitled to the epithet of highlands from the north shore of the Bay des Chaleurs at its western extremity to the sources of the Connecticut River. Returning from the latter point, they exhibit the aspect of well-marked ranges of mountains as far as the sources of the Metjarmette. Thence to the sources of the Etchemin extends an undulating country whose mean height is 1,300 or 1,500 feet above the level of the sea. The boundary line is thence prolonged to the Temiscouata portage over well-defined ridges to the eastern side of Lake Temiscouata. At the sources of two of the streams which run into this lake the minimum heights of 651 feet and 676 feet have been observed.
With these exceptions, the sources of the streams which rise to the north of the Temiscouata portage and between the lake of that name and Lake Matapediac average more than 900 feet above the level of the sea. For the purpose of describing this portion of the line claimed by the United States, we may take this height of 900 feet as the elevation of a horizontal plane or base. On this are raised knolls, eminences, and short ridges whose heights above this assumed base vary from 300 to 1,300 feet. The more elevated of these are universally designated by the hunters who occasionally visit the country and the lumberers who search it for timber as mountains clothed to the summit with wood, which, in consequence of the rigor of the climate, attains but a feeble growth. They have an aspect of much greater altitude than they in reality possess, but their character as highlands is indisputable. This term, which the first English visitors ascribed without hesitation to the hills of New Jersey,[36] whose altitude is about 300 feet above the level of the sea, is much better merited by a group of eminences rising from 300 to 1,300 feet above a base itself 900 feet in height, and which exceed in elevation the well-known highlands of the Hudson River.
Not to rest merely on instances drawn from the language of those of English birth who first settled or traded on the coast of the present United States, there are in the immediate vicinity of the region in question a range of eminences the highest of which is no more than 1,206 feet above the level of the sea. These, on the authority of a distinguished officer of Her Britannic Majesty's navy,[37] are named the "highlands of Bic," and have long been thus known by all the navigators of the St. Lawrence who use the English tongue.
To sum up the results of the field operations of the commissioners:
(1) The meridian has been traced by astronomic observations from the monument, established by the consent of both nations in 1798, at the source of the St. Croix to a point 4 miles beyond the left bank of the St. John in the neighborhood of the Grand Falls. In the course of this not only has no highland dividing waters which run into the St. Lawrence from those which run into the Atlantic been reached, but no common source or reservoir of two streams running in opposite directions.[38] No place has, therefore, been found which by any construction proposed or attempted to be put on the words of the treaty of 1783 can be considered as the northwest angle of Nova Scotia. This point must, in consequence, lie in the further prolongation of the meridian line to the north.
(2) The streams whose title to the name of the northwesternmost head of the Connecticut River is in dispute have been explored, and the line of the highlands has been traced from their sources to the point at which the lines respectively claimed by the two nations diverge from each other.
(3) The line claimed by Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, on the part of Great Britain, has been in a great measure explored.
(4) The line of highlands claimed by the United States has, with some small exceptions, been thoroughly examined, and its prolongation as far as the north shore of the Bay of Chaleurs reconnoitered. The parts of the line which have not been actually reached have been seen from a distance, and streams flowing from them crossed and leveled. From the former indication it is probable that the average height of those parts exceeds that of the neighboring parts of the line. From the heights of the streams it is certain that the lowest gaps in the unexplored portion of the line can not be less elevated than 1,000 feet above the level of the sea.
That part of this line of highlands which lies east of the sources of the Rimouski fulfills to the letter the words of the royal proclamation of 1763 and the contemporaneous commission of Governor Wilmot. The first of those instruments defines the mouth of the river St. Lawrence by a line drawn from Cape Rozier to the St. John River (on the Labrador coast), and therefore all to the eastward of that line is "the sea." The height of land thus traced by the commission, rising from the north shore of the Bay des Chaleurs at its western extremity, divides waters which fall into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the sea, and is the southern boundary of the Province established by the proclamation of 1763 under the name of Quebec. The identity of the line defined in the proclamation of 1763 and the boundary of the United States in the treaty of 1783 has been uniformly maintained on the part of the United States, and is not merely admitted but strenuously argued for in the report of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge.
The undersigned therefore report that they have explored and in a great measure surveyed and leveled a line of highlands in which the northwest angle of Nova Scotia lies, and which in their opinion is the true boundary between the States of Maine and New Hampshire and the British Provinces.
II.—EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENT CONTAINED IN THE REPORT OF MESSRS. MUDGE AND FEATHERSTONHAUGH.
The progress which has been made in the first portion of the duties of the commissioners has been set forth in the preceding part of this report.
Although, as will be there seen, the task of running the meridian line of the monument marking the source of the St. Croix and of exploring and surveying the lines of highlands respectively claimed by the Governments of the United States and Great Britain has not been completed, yet enough has been done to furnish materials for an examination of the argument preferred by Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh in support of the novel form in which the claim of Great Britain has been presented by them.
In the surveys made by direction of the commissioners under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent the difficult character of the country had prevented any other method of exploration than that of ascending rivers to their sources. It was believed on the part of the United States that the determination of the position of these sources was sufficient for the demarcation of the line of highlands in relation to which the controversy exists, and no attempt was made to meet the British argument by the exhibition of the fact that the lines joining these sources run in some cases along ridges and in other cases pass over elevations to which in any sense of the term the epithet of "highlands" may be justly applied. The denial of this mode of determining the line of highlands by Great Britain has made it important that both the lines claimed by Great Britain and by the United States should be explored and leveled—a task which until recently had not been attempted on either part. The examination of the lines claimed by the two nations, respectively, has been in a great measure accomplished, as will be seen from the reports of the field operations of the commission, while such of these determinations as have a direct bearing on the argument will be cited in their proper place in this report.
It is to be regretted that the document now under consideration exhibits many instances of an unfriendly spirit. Charges of direct and implied fraud are made, and language is used throughout that is irritating and insulting. It is fondly hoped that these passages do not express the sentiments of the British nation, as in a state of feeling such as this report indicates little hope could be entertained of an amicable adjustment of this question. Any inference to be drawn from the language of the report under consideration is contradicted by the official declarations of the British Government, and may therefore be considered as the individual act of the authors, not as the deliberate voice of the nation by which they were employed.
It might have been easy to have retorted similar charges, and thus have excited in the Government of Great Britain feelings of irritation similar to those which pervaded the whole population of the United States on the reception of that report. While, however, it is due to the honor of the United States to declare that no desire of undue aggrandizement has been felt, no claim advanced beyond what a strict construction of their rights will warrant, it is trusted that the pretensions of Great Britain, however unfounded in fact or principle, have been advanced with a like disregard to mere extension of territory, and urged with the same good faith which has uniformly characterized the proceedings of the United States.
It is not to be wondered that the claims of Great Britain have been urged with the utmost pertinacity and supported by every possible form of argument. The territory in question is of great value to her, by covering the only mode of communication which can exist for nearly six months in the year, not only between two valuable colonies, but between the most important of all her possessions and the mother country. The time is not long past when the use of this very communication was not an unimportant part of the means by which that colony was restrained from an attempt to assert its independence. It is not, therefore, surprising that the feelings of British statesmen and of those who desired to win their favor have been more obvious in the several arguments which have appeared on that side of the question than a sober view of the true principles, on which alone a correct opinion of the case can be founded.
To the United States in their collective capacity the territory in dispute is, on the other hand, of comparatively little moment. No other desire is felt throughout the greater part of the Union than that the question should be settled upon just principles. No regret could, therefore, be widely felt if it should be satisfactorily shown that the title of Great Britain to this region is indisputable. But should it be shown, as is beyond all question the fact, that the title is in truth in the United States, national honor forbids that this title should be abandoned. To the States of Maine and Massachusetts, who are the joint proprietors of the unseated lands, the territory is of a certain importance from the value of the land and timber, and to the latter, within whose jurisdiction it falls, as a future means of increasing her relative importance in the Union, and a just and proper feeling on the part of their sister States must prevent their yielding to any unfounded claim or the surrender of any territory to which a title can be established without an equivalent satisfactory to those States.
To show the basis on which the title rests—
It is maintained on the part of the United States that the territory they held on the continent of North America prior to the purchase of Louisiana and the Floridas was possessed by a title derived from their own Declaration of Independence on the 4th of July, 1776, the assertion of that independence in a successful war, and its acknowledgment by Great Britain as a preliminary to any negotiation for a treaty of peace. It is admitted on the part of Great Britain that a territory designated by certain limits was granted to the United States in the treaty of 1783. As a matter of national pride, the question whether the territory of the original United States was held by the right of war or by virtue of a grant from the British Crown is not unimportant; as a basis of title it has not the least bearing on the subject. From the date of the treaty of 1783 all pretensions of the British Crown to jurisdiction or property within the limits prescribed by the provisions of that instrument ceased, and when a war arose in 1812 between the two nations it was terminated by the treaty of Ghent, in which the original boundaries were confirmed and acknowledged on both sides.
The treaty of 1783, therefore, is, in reference to this territory, the only instrument of binding force upon the two parties; nor can any other document be with propriety brought forward in the discussion except for the purpose of explaining and rendering definite such of the provisions of that treaty as are obscure or apparently uncertain.
The desire of full and ample illustration, which has actuated both parties, has led to the search among neglected archives for documents almost innumerable, and their force and bearing upon the question have been exhibited in arguments of great ability. Such has been the talent shown in this task of illustration and so copious have been the materials employed for the purpose that the great and only important question, although never lost sight of by the writers themselves, has to the eye of the casual observer been completely hidden. In the report under consideration this distinction between treaties of binding force and documents intended for mere illustration has not been regarded, and the vague as well as obviously inaccurate delineations of a French or a Venetian map maker are gravely held forth as of equal value for a basis of argument as the solemn and ratified acts of the two nations.
In pursuance of this desire of illustration, every known document which could in any form support either claim has been advanced and set forth in the statements laid before His Majesty the King of the Netherlands when acting as umpire under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent. If not yet given entire to the public,[39] they are in the possession of both Governments in a printed form, together with the opinion of the arbiter in respect to them; and although it is necessary that the arguments then adduced in favor of the American claim should be in part repeated, and although new illustrations of the correctness of that argument have since been brought to light, the present document will be confined as closely as possible to the provisions of the treaty itself, and will adduce no more of illustration than is barely sufficient to render the terms of that treaty certain and definite.
The boundaries of the United States are described in the treaty of 1783 in the following words:[40]
"And that all disputes which might arise in future on the subject of the boundaries of the said United States may be prevented it is hereby agreed and declared that the following are and shall be their boundaries, viz: From the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, viz, that angle which is formed by a line drawn due north from the source of St. Croix River to the highlands; 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 northwesternmost head of Connecticut River; thence down along the middle of that river to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude; from thence by a line due west on said latitude until it strikes the river Iroquois, or Cataraquy; thence along the middle of said river into Lake Ontario; through the middle of said lake until it strikes the communication by water between that lake and Lake Brie; thence along the middle of said communication into Lake Erie through the middle of said lake until it arrives at the water communication between that lake and Lake Huron; thence along the middle of said water communication into the Lake Huron; thence through the middle of said lake to the water communication between that lake and Lake Superior; thence through Lake Superior northward of the Isles Royal 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; thence through the said lake to the most northwestern point thereof, and from thence on a due west course to the river Mississippi; thence by a line to be drawn along the middle of the said river Mississippi until it shall intersect the northernmost part of the thirty-first degree of north latitude; south by a line to be drawn due east from the determination of the line last mentioned in the latitude of 31° north of the equator to the middle of the river Apalachicola, or Catahouche; thence along the middle thereof to its junction with the Flint River; thence straight to the head of St. Marys River, and thence down along the middle of St. Marys River to the Atlantic Ocean; 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 which fall into the river St. Lawrence; comprehending all islands within 20 leagues of any part of the shores of the United States and lying between lines to be drawn due east from the points where the aforesaid boundaries between Nova Scotia on the one part and East Florida on the other shall respectively touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean, excepting such islands as now are or heretofore have been within the limits of the said Province of Nova Scotia."
So far as the present question is concerned, five points of discussion are presented by this article of the treaty of 1783:
I. What stream is to be understood by the name of the river St. Croix?
II. The determination of the line due north from the source of that river.
III. What is the position of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia?
IV. The delineation of the line passing through the highlands from that angle to the northwest head of Connecticut River.
V. What is to be considered as the northwestern head of Connecticut River?
I.—RIVER ST. CROIX.
Doubts in respect to the particular river intended to be understood by the name of the St. Croix having arisen, an article was inserted in the treaty of commerce signed in London in November, 1794, by Lord Grenville on the part of Great Britain and by John Jay on the part of the United States.[41] This article, the fifth of that treaty, provided for the appointment of a joint commission with full powers to decide that question. This commission was constituted in conformity, and the award was accepted by both Governments.[42] The river designated in this award became thenceforth the true St. Croix, however erroneous may have been the grounds on which it was decided so to be. When, therefore, in the fourth article of the treaty of Ghent it is declared that the due north line from the source of the St. Croix has not been surveyed, and when in this and the other articles of the same treaty all other uncertain parts of the boundary are recited, the validity of the decision of the commissioners under the fifth article of Jay's treaty is virtually acknowledged. Nay, more; the acknowledgment is completed by the stipulation in the second article of the treaty of Ghent that "all territory, places, and possessions taken by either party during the war," with certain exceptions, shall be forthwith restored to their previous possessors.[43] The only exceptions are the islands in Passamaquoddy Bay; and had it been believed that any uncertainty in respect to the adjacent territory existed it would not have been neglected. Nay, more; all the settlements lying within the line claimed by Great Britain before the commission created by the treaty of 1794 had been taken, and were in her actual possession at the time the treaty of Ghent took effect, and were forthwith restored to the jurisdiction of the United States. When, also, it became necessary to proceed to the investigation of the second point of the discussion, the agents and surveyors of both parties proceeded as a matter of course to the point marked in 1798 as the source of the St. Croix.[44] This point is therefore fixed and established beyond the possibility of cavil, and the faith of both Governments is pledged that it shall not be disturbed.
II.—DUE NORTH LINE FROM THE SOURCE OF THE ST. CROIX.
The treaty of 1783 provides that the boundary from the source of the St. Croix shall be drawn "directly north." In relation to this expression no possible doubt can arise. It is neither susceptible of more than a single meaning nor does it require illustration from any extrinsic source. The undersigned, therefore, do not consider that so much of the argument of Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh as attempts to show that this line ought to be drawn in any other direction than due north requires any reply on the part of the United States. Admitting that the words had been originally used as a mistranslation of terms in the Latin grant of James I to Sir William Alexander, the misconception was equally shared by both parties to the treaty of 1783; and it will be shown hereafter that this misconception, if any, had its origin in British official papers. Were it capable of proof beyond all possibility of denial that the limit of the grant to Sir William Alexander was intended to be a line drawn toward the northwest instead of the north it would not affect the question. So far as that grant was used by American negotiators to illustrate the position of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia it would have failed to fulfill the object, but such failure in illustration does not involve the nullity of the treaty itself.
That the translation which has hitherto been universally received as correct of the terms in the grant to Sir William Alexander is the true one, and that the new construction which is now attempted to be put upon it is inaccurate, will be shown in another place,[45] where will also be exhibited an error committed in rendering the sense of another part of that instrument. The consideration of the correctness or incorrectness of the several translations can form no part of the present argument. While, therefore, it is denied that Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh have succeeded in showing that the grant to Sir William Alexander has been mistranslated, it is maintained that an error in the translation of this document can have no effect in setting aside the simple and positive terms of the treaty of 1783. That treaty and its confirmation in the treaty of Ghent must be admitted to be null and void before that line can be drawn in any other direction than "due north."
III.—NORTH WEST ANGLE OF NOVA SCOTIA.
The term northwest angle of Nova Scotia was used in the secret instructions of Congress and is adopted in the treaty of 1783. In the instructions it is named without any explanation, as if it were a point perfectly well known. In one sense it was so, for although it never had been marked by a monument, nor perhaps visited by the foot of man, its position could be laid down upon a map; nay, was so on many existing maps, and the directions for finding it on the ground were clear and explicit. These directions are to be found in the royal proclamation of October, 1763, and in the commission to Montague Wilmot, governor of Nova Scotia, of cotemporaneous date. Any uncertainty in regard to the position of this angle which may have existed in relation to the meaning of the first of these instruments is removed by the act of Parliament of 1774, commonly called the Quebec act.
Before citing these instruments it will be proper to refer to the circumstances under which the two first were issued.
Great Britain, after a successful war, found herself in possession of the whole eastern side of the continent of North America. So much of this as lay to the south of the St. Lawrence and the forty-fifth parallel of north latitude had been previously made the subject of charters from the British Crown under a claim of right from priority of discovery.[46] The possession of this wide tract was not uncontested, and various other European nations had attempted to found settlements within the limits of the British charters. In such cases it was held as a matter of law that where the occupation or defense of the territory granted had been neglected the right had ceased, and the country, when recovered by conquest or restored by treaty, was again vested in the Crown, to be made the subject of new grants or governed as a royal colony. Thus, when the settlements made by the Dutch and Swedes, which by the fortune of war had become wholly vested in Holland, were reduced, the Crown exercised its rights by conveying them to the Duke of York, although covered in a great part, if not wholly, by previous charters; and when these countries were again occupied by the Dutch and restored by the treaty of Breda it was thought necessary that the title of the Duke of York should be restored by a fresh grant. In both of these charters to that prince was included the Province of Sagadahock, within whose chartered limits was comprised the territory at present in dispute. This Province, confined on the sea between the rivers St. Croix and Kennebec, had for its opposite limits the St. Lawrence, or, as the grant expresses it, "extending from the river of Kenebeque and so upward by the shortest course to the river Canada northward." The shortest course from the source of the Kennebec to the St. Lawrence is by the present Kennebec road. This grant therefore covered the whole space along the St. Lawrence from about the mouth of the Chaudiere River[47] to the eastern limit of the grant to Sir William Alexander. By the accession of James II, or, as some maintain, by the act of attainder, it matters not which, this Province reverted to the Crown, and was by it granted, in 1691, to the colony of Massachusetts. In the same charter Nova Scotia also was included. This has been called a war grant, as in fact it was, and the colony of Massachusetts speedily availed themselves of it by conquering the whole of the territory conveyed except the island of Cape Breton. The latter, too, fell before the unassisted arms of the New England Provinces in 1745, at a time when Great Britain was too deeply engaged in the contest of a civil war to give aid either in money or in men to her transatlantic possessions.
The colony of Massachusetts, therefore, could not be charged with any want of energy in asserting her chartered rights to the territory in question. It is, in fact, due to her exertions that both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick came at so early a period into the possession of the British Crown. In 1654 the French settlements as far as Port Royal, at the head of the Bay of Fundy, were reduced by Major Sedgwick, but by the treaty of Breda they were restored to France.
In 1690 Sir William Phips, governor of Massachusetts, with a force of 700 men, raised in that colony, again conquered the country, and although on his return the French dislodged the garrison possession was forthwith resumed by an expedition under Colonel Church. Acadie, however, or Nova Scotia, was ceded again to France by the treaty of Ryswick. After several spirited but unsuccessful attempts during the War of the Succession, General Nicholson, with a force of five regiments, four of which were levied in Massachusetts, reduced Port Royal, and by its capitulation the present Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were permanently annexed to the British Crown.[48] Finally the militia of Massachusetts, during the War of 1776, took possession of the territory, and occupied it until the date of the treaty of 1783. This occupation was not limited by the St. Croix, or even by the St. John, but included the whole of the southern part of New Brunswick, while the peninsula of Nova Scotia was only preserved to Great Britain by the fortification of the isthmus which unites it to the mainland.[49]
The recession of Acadie, or Nova Scotia, to France by the treaty of Ryswick divested Massachusetts only of the territory granted her in the charter of 1691 under the latter name. Her war title to Sagadahock was confirmed by a conquest with her own unaided arms; and even the cession of Nova Scotia was a manifest injustice to her, as she was at the moment in full possession of it. It, however, suited the purpose of Great Britain to barter this part of the conquest of that colony for objects of more immediate interest.
Admitting that England did convey a part or the whole of Sagadahock to France under the vague name of Acadie or Nova Scotia,[50] the conquest by Massachusetts in 1710 renewed her rights to this much at least, and although the Crown appropriated to itself the lion's share of the spoils by making Nova Scotia a royal province, it did not attempt to disturb her possession of Sagadahock. So far from so doing, the commission of the royal governors was limited to the west by the St. Croix, although it was stated in a saving clause that the Province of Nova Scotia extended of right to the Penobscot. From that time until the breaking out of the Revolutionary War, a space of more than sixty years, the Province of Sagadahock was left in the undisturbed possession of Massachusetts under the charter of 1691.
In defiance of this charter the French proceeded to occupy the right bank of the St. Lawrence, which at the time of the capture of Quebec and the cession in the treaty of 1763 was partially held by settlements of Canadians. The Crown therefore acted upon the principle that the right of Massachusetts to the right bank of the St. Lawrence had thus become void, and proceeded by proclamation to form the possessions of France on both banks of the St. Lawrence into a royal colony under the name of the Province of Quebec.
This was not done without a decided opposition on the part of Massachusetts, but any decision in respect to her claims was rendered needless by the breaking out of the War of Independence. It is only proper to remark that this opposition was in fact made and that her claim to the right bank of the St. Lawrence was only abandoned by the treaty of 1783. The country of which it was intended to divest her by the proclamation of 1763 is described in a letter of her agent, Mr. Mauduit, to the general court of that colony as "the narrow tract of land which lies beyond the sources of all your rivers and is watered by those which run into the St. Lawrence."
It is assigned by him as a reason why the Province of Massachusetts should assent to the boundary assigned to the Province of Quebec by the proclamation that "it would not be of any great consequence to you" (Massachusetts), "but is absolutely necessary to the Crown to preserve the continuity of the Province of Quebec." The part of the Province of Quebec whose continuity with the rest of that colony was to be preserved is evidently the district of Gaspe, of which Nova Scotia, a royal colony, was divested by the same proclamation. For this continuity no more was necessary than a road along the St. Lawrence itself, and the reason would have been absurd if applied to any country lying beyond the streams which fall into that river, for up to the present day no communication between parts of Canada exists through any part of the disputed territory. The narrow territory thus advised to be relinquished extends, according to the views of Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh, from the Great Falls of the St. John to Quebec, a distance in a straight line of 160 miles. It has a figure not far from triangular, of which this line is the perpendicular and the shore of the St. Lawrence from the Chaudiere to the Metis the base. It contains about 16,000 square miles. It would have been a perversion of language in Mr. Mauduit to describe this to his employers as a narrow tract. But the space whose cession he really intended to advise is in every sense a narrow tract, for its length along the St. Lawrence is about 200 miles, and its average breadth to the sources of the streams 30. It contains 6,000 square miles, and is described by him in a manner that leaves no question as to its extent being "watered by streams" which "run into the St. Lawrence." It therefore did not include any country watered by streams which run into the St. John.
It is believed that this is the first instance in which the term narrow has ever been applied to a triangle almost right angled and nearly isosceles, and it is not a little remarkable that this very expression was relied upon in the statement to the King of the Netherlands as one of the strongest proofs of the justice of the American claim.
Admitting, however, for the sake of argument, that the Crown did demand this territory, and that the mere advice of an agent without powers was binding on Massachusetts, the fact would have no direct bearing upon the point under consideration. The relinquishment by Massachusetts of the whole of the territory west of the meridian of the St. Croix would not have changed the position of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, nor the title of the United States collectively under the treaty of 1783 to a boundary to be drawn from that angle, however it might have affected the right of property of that State to the lands within it.
And here it is to be remarked that the Government of the United States is two-fold—that of the individual States and that of the Federal Union. It would be possible, therefore, that all right of property in unseated lands within a State's jurisdiction might be in the General Government, and this is in fact the case in all the new States. Even had Massachusetts divested herself of the title (which she has not) the treaty of 1783 would have vested it in the Confederation. She had at least a color of title, under which the Confederation claimed to the boundaries of Nova Scotia on the east and to the southern limits of the Province of Quebec on the north, and this claim was allowed by Great Britain in the treaty of 1783 in terms which are at least admitted to be identical in meaning with those of the proclamation creating the latter Province.[51]
To illustrate the subject further:
Of the seventeen British colonies in North America, thirteen succeeded in asserting their independence; the two Floridas were conquered and ceded to Spain; while of her magnificent American domain only Quebec and Nova Scotia were left to Great Britain. The thirteen colonies, now independent States, claimed all that part of the continent to the eastward of the Mississippi and north of the bounds of Florida which was not contained within the limits of the last-named colonies, and this claim was fully admitted by the boundary agreed to in the treaty of 1783. Within the limits thus assigned it was well known that there were conflicting claims to parts which had more than once been covered by royal charters; it was even possible that there were portions of the wide territory the right to which was asserted by the United States and admitted by Great Britain that had not been covered by any royal grant; but the jurisdiction in respect to disputed rights and the title to land not conveyed forever ceased to be in the British Crown—first by a successful assertion of independence in arms, and finally by the positive terms of a solemn treaty.
If it should be admitted, for argument's sake, that the claim of Massachusetts, as inherited by the State of Maine, to the disputed territory is unfounded, it is a circumstance that can not enter into a discussion between Great Britain and the United States of America. Massachusetts did claim, under at least the color of a title, not merely to "the highlands," but to the St. Lawrence itself, and the claim was admitted as far as the former by the treaty of 1783. If it should hereafter appear that this claim can not be maintained, the territory which is not covered by her title, if within the boundary of the treaty of 1783, can not revert to Great Britain, which has ceded its rights to the thirteen independent States, but to the latter in their confederate capacity, and is thus the property of the whole Union. As well might Great Britain set up a claim to the States of Alabama and Mississippi, which, although claimed by the State of Georgia, were found not to be covered by its royal charter, as to any part of the territory contained within the line defined by the treaty of 1783, under pretense that the rights of Massachusetts are not indefeasible.
While, therefore, it is maintained that whether the title of Massachusetts be valid or not is immaterial to the present question, it may be further urged that not even the shadow of a pretense existed for divesting her of her rights by the proclamation of 1763, except to territory which by neglect she had permitted France to occupy. On this point the French are the best authority, for it can not be pretended that the Crown of England intended in forming the Province of Quebec to go beyond the utmost limits of the claim of France to her colony of Canada. The assertions on the part of France in the argument preceding the War of 1756 were:
First. That both banks of the St. Lawrence are included in Canada.
Second. That with the exception of Miscou and Cape Breton, her grants extended 10 leagues from the river.
Third. That the commissions of the governors of Canada in the most formal and precise manner extended their jurisdiction to the sources of the rivers which discharge themselves into the St. Lawrence.
Now the distance of 10 French leagues and that of the sources of the rivers, on an average, are nearly identical, and this narrow tract, of which alone the Crown could with any shadow of justice assume the right of disposing, is that of which Massachusetts was intended to be divested by the proclamation of 1763.
It was because Great Britain held that these claims on the part of France were too extensive that the War of 1756 was waged. In this war at least one-half of the force which under Wolfe took Louisburg and reduced Quebec, and under Amherst forced the French armies in Canada to a capitulation, was raised and paid by the colonies. The creation of the Province of Quebec, covering a part of their chartered limits, was therefore a just subject of complaint.
The bounds assigned to the new Province of Quebec to the south by the proclamation of 7th October, 1763, are as follows:
"The line, crossing the river St. Lawrence and the Lake Champlain in 45° of north latitude, passes along the highlands which divide the rivers that empty themselves into the St. Lawrence from those which fall into the sea, and also along the north coast of the Bay des Chaleurs and the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Cape Rosieres," etc.
In the same month of October, 1763, the limits of the royal Province of Nova Scotia are fixed, in the commission to Governor Wilmot, on the west "by the said river St. Croix to its source, and by a line drawn due north from thence to the southern boundary of our Province of Quebec; to the northward, by the same boundary, as far as the western extremity of the Bay des Chaleurs."
Here, then, we find the first mention in an English dress of the line to be drawn due north from the source of the St. Croix. There is no evidence that it was a translation of the terms in the grant to Sir William Alexander, but if it were it was made not by Americans, but by Englishmen; and not only made, but set forth under the high authority of the royal sign manual and authenticated by the great seal of the United Kingdom of England and Scotland.
The due north line from the source of the St. Croix, meeting the south bounds of the Province of Quebec, forms two angles. One of these was the northeast angle of the Province of Sagadahock; the other is the northwest angle of Nova Scotia. It aright be debated which of the streams that fall into Passamaquoddy Bay was the true St. Croix, but such a question could be settled by reference to evidence, and has been thus settled by the award of the commissioners under the fifth article of Jay's treaty. Among the many branches of a stream it may for a moment be doubted which is to be considered as its principal source, but this can be ascertained by proper methods, and it has been ascertained and marked with a monument by the same commissioners. The tracing of a meridian line may be a difficult operation in practical surveying, but it can be effected by proper instruments and adequate skill, and this task has in fact been performed by one of the present commissioners, after being attempted by the surveyors under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent. The highlands are defined in the commission of Governor Wilmot and the proclamation of 1763 beyond the possibility of doubt. They are on the north shore of the Bay of Chaleurs as described in the one instrument, and on the western extremity of that bay as described by the other. They can therefore be found, and they have been found.
The Congress of 1779 and the framers of the treaty of 1783 were therefore warranted in speaking of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia as if it were a known point. It could have been laid down with precision on any good map; it could be discovered by the use of adequate methods and the expenditure of a sufficient appropriation; it was, in fact, as well known as the forty-fifth and thirty-second parallels of latitude, which are named in the same article of the treaty, or as the boundaries of very many of the States which had united in the Confederation. These were defined by the course and sources of rivers—by parallels of latitude and circles of longitude, either of indefinite extent or setting out from some prescribed point whose position was to be determined. At the time of making these grants, as in the case before us, many of the boundaries had never been visited by civilized men. Some of these lines had, indeed, been sought and traced upon the ground in pursuance of orders from the privy council of Great Britain or the high court of chancery, and the recollection of the operation was fresh in the memory of both parties. Thus in 1750 it was ordered by the latter tribunal that the boundary on the lower counties on the Delaware (now the State of that name) and the Province of Maryland should be marked out. The boundary was an arc of a circle described around the town of Newcastle, with a given radius, and a meridian line tangent thereto. This was a far more difficult operation than to draw a meridian line from a given point, such as the source of a river. It was thought in 1763 worthy of the attention of the first assistant in the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, and the American Rittenhouse was associated with him. This operation was not only of great contemporary fame, but is still quoted in English books among the data whence we derive our knowledge of the magnitude and figure of the earth. So also the same astronomer (Mason) had but a few years before the War of Independence commenced the tracing of a parallel of latitude from the former line to the westward, thus marking the respective limits of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. With such examples before them the framers of the treaty of 1783 were warranted in considering the northwest angle of Nova Scotia as a point sufficiently definite to be made not merely one of the landmarks of the new nation, but the corner at which the description of its boundaries should begin. It has been well remarked by one of the commentators[52] on the report of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge that if the treaty of 1783 be a grant the grantors are bound by rule of law to mark out that corner of their own land whence the description of the grant commences. The British Government therefore ought, if it be, as it is maintained on its part, a grant, to have traced the line of highlands dividing their Provinces of Nova Scotia and Canada. Had this been done in conformity with the proclamation of 1763 and the commission to Governor Wilmot, the northwest angle of Nova Scotia would be given by the trace of the meridian of the St. Croix. So far from doing this, the question has been complicated by the denial that the boundaries defined in that proclamation and in the treaty of 1783 were intended to be identical. The argument on this point was so ingenious that the arbiter under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent did not consider the American case as made out,[53] and this doubt was the principal ground on which his decision rested. It is therefore an earnest of a more favorable state of feeling that the sophistry with which this fact had been veiled, at least in part, is now withdrawn, and that the commission whose report is under consideration frankly admit this identity.[54] This admission being made, it is obvious that the origin of the highlands of the treaty must be sought on the north shore of the Bay des Chaleurs and at its western extremity, and it follows that the point where this line of highlands is cut by the meridian of the monument at the source of the St. Croix is the northwest angle of Nova Scotia of the treaty of 1783, and must lie to the north of the Restigouche, or in the very spot claimed by the United States.
The British Government has not only failed in marking out the corner of their territory at which the boundary of the United States begins, but has in practice adopted a very different point as the northwest angle of the Province of New Brunswick, which now occupies the place of ancient Nova Scotia in its contiguity to the American lines. Up to the time of the discussion before the King of the Netherlands the commissions of the governors of New Brunswick had been, so far as the western and northern boundaries are concerned, copies of that to Governor Wilmot. The undersigned have no means of ascertaining when or how the form of these commissions was changed, but it was found during the exploration of the country that the jurisdiction of New Brunswick, limited at least to the north of the St. John by the exploring meridian line, did not leave the Bay of Chaleurs at its western extremity and follow thence the old bounds of the Province of Quebec. It, on the contrary, was ascertained that it was limited by the Restigouche as far as the confluence of its southwestern branch, formerly known by the name of Chacodi, and thence followed the latter up to the point where it is crossed by the exploring meridian line. On all the territory thus severed from the ancient domain of Nova Scotia permits to cut timber were found to have been issued by Canadian authorities, and the few settlers derived their titles to land from the same source.
Although this demarcation involves a double deviation from the proclamation of 1763 (first, in following a river instead of highlands; second, in taking a small branch instead of pursuing the main supply of the Bay of Chaleurs), the northwest angle of Nova Scotia may be considered as at last fixed by British authority at a point many miles north of the point claimed to be such in the statements laid before the King of the Netherlands on the part of Great Britain, and 48 miles to the north of where the line of "abraded highlands" of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge crosses the St. John. Were it not that the American claim would be weakened by any change in the strong ground on which it has always rested, it might be granted that this is in fact the long-lost northwest angle of Nova Scotia, and the highlands allowed to be traced from that point through the sources of the branches of the St. John and the St. Lawrence.
In proof of the position now assigned to this angle of New Brunswick, and consequently of ancient Nova Scotia, in the absence of documents which the archives of Great Britain alone can furnish, the map published by the Society for the Encouragement of Useful Knowledge, the several maps of the surveyor-general of the Province of Canada, and the most recent map of the Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, by John Wyld, geographer to the Queen of Great Britain, may be cited.
It may therefore be concluded that the northwest angle of Nova Scotia is no longer an unknown point. It can be found by a search conducted in compliance with the proclamation of 1763 and the contemporaneous commission of Governor Wilmot, and the researches of the present commission show that it can not be far distant from the point originally assigned to it in the exploring meridian line. The identity of the first of these documents with the boundary of the treaty of 1783 is admitted, and the latter is word for word the same with the description of the eastern boundary of the United States in the same treaty. Moreover, a northwest angle has been assigned to the Province of New Brunswick by British authority, which, did it involve no dereliction of principle, might without sensible loss be accepted on the part of the United States.
IV.—HIGHLANDS OF THE TREATY OF 1783.
The highlands of the treaty of 1783 are described as those "which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean." It has been uniformly and consistently maintained on the part of the United States that by the term "highlands" was intended what is in another form of the same words called the height of land. The line of highlands in this sense was to be sought by following the rivers described in the treaty to their source and drawing lines between these sources in such manner as to divide the surface waters. It was believed that the sources of such rivers as the Connecticut and the St. John must lie in a country sufficiently elevated to be entitled to the epithet of highlands, although it should appear on reaching it that it had the appearance of a plain. Nay, it was even concluded, although, as now appears, incorrectly—and it was not feared that the conclusion would weaken the American argument—that the line from the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, at least as far as the sources of Tuladi, did pass through a country of that description. Opposite ground was taken in the argument of Great Britain by her agent, but however acute and ingenious were the processes of reasoning by which this argument was supported, it remained in his hands without application, for the line claimed by him on the part of his Government was one having the same physical basis for its delineation as that claimed by the agent of the United States, namely, one joining the culminating points of the valleys in which streams running in opposite directions took their rise. The argument appears to have been drawn while he hoped to be able to include Katahdin and the other great mountains in that neighborhood in his claimed boundary, and he does not appear to have become aware how inapplicable it was in every sense to the line by which he was, for want of a better, compelled to abide. The British Government, however, virtually abandoned the construction of their agent in the convention signed in London the 27th September, 1827.[55]
In this it was stipulated that Mitchell's and Map A should be admitted to the exclusion of all others "as the only maps that shall be considered as evidence" of the topography of the country, and in the latter of these maps, constructed under the joint direction of the British and American negotiators by the astronomer of the British Government, it was agreed that nothing but the water courses should be represented. Finally, it was admitted in the report of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge that the terms highlands and height of land are identical. The decision of the King of the Netherlands, to which Great Britain gave her assent in the first instance, recognizes the correctness of the views entertained in the American statements.[56] All discussion on this subject is, however, rendered unnecessary by the knowledge which the undersigned have obtained of the country. The line surveyed by them not only divides rivers, but possesses in a preeminent degree the character by which in the British argument highlands are required to be distinguished.
It is sufficient for the present argument that the identity of the lines pointed out by the proclamation of 1763 and the act of 1774 with the boundary of the treaty of 1783 be admitted. Such has been the uniform claim of the Government of the United States and the State of Massachusetts, and such is the deliberate verdict of the British commissioners.[57] The words of the proclamation of 1763 have already been cited. By reference to them it will be seen that the origin of "the highlands" is to be sought on the north shore of the Bay of Chaleurs. If they are not to be found there, a gap exists in the boundary of the proclamation, which it is evident could not have been intended. It has been thought by some that the gap did actually exist, but this idea was founded on an imperfect knowledge of the country. The Bay of Chaleurs seems, in fact, to have been better known to the framers of the proclamation of 1763 and the act of 1774 than to any subsequent authorities, whether British or American. Researches made in the year 1840 show that at the head of the tide of the Bay of Chaleurs a mountain rises immediately on the northern bank, which from its imposing appearance has been called by the Scotch settlers at its foot Ben Lomond. This, indeed, has by measurement been found to be no more than 1,024 feet in height, but no one can deny its title to the name of a highland. From this a continuous chain of heights has been ascertained to exist, bounding in the first instance the valley of the Matapediac to the sources of that stream, which they separate from those of the Metis. The height of land then passes between the waters of Metis and Restigouche, and, bending around the sources of the latter to the sources of the Rimouski, begins there to separate waters which fall into the St. Lawrence from those which fall into the St. John, which they continue to do as far as the point where they merge in the line admitted by both parties.
These highlands have all the characteristics necessary to constitute them the highlands of the treaty. Throughout their whole northern and western slopes flow streams which empty themselves into the St. Lawrence. Beginning at the Bay of Chaleurs, they in the first place divide, as it is necessary they should, waters which fall into that bay; they next separate the waters of Restigouche from those of Metis; they then make a great detour to the south and inclose the valley of Rimouski, separating its waters from those of Matapediac and Restigouche, the Green River of St. John and Tuladi; they next perform a circuit around Lake Temiscouata, separating its basin from those of the Otty and Trois Pistoles, until they reach the Temiscouata portage at Mount Paradis. This portage they cross five times, and finally, bending backward to the north, inclose the stream of the St. Francis, whose waters they divide from those of Trois Pistoles, Du Loup, and the Green River of the St. Lawrence. Leaving the Temiscouata portage at the sixteenth milepost, a region positively mountainous is entered, which character continues to the sources of the Etchemin. It there assumes for a short space the character of a rolling country, no point in which, however, is less than 1,200 feet above the level of the sea. It speedily resumes a mountainous character, which continues unaltered to the sources of the Connecticut.
Now it is maintained that all the streams and waters which have been named as flowing from the southern and eastern sides of this line are in the intended sense of the treaty of 1783 rivers which empty themselves into the Atlantic. The first argument adduced in support of this position is that the framers of that treaty, having, as is admitted, Mitchell's map before them, speak only of two classes of rivers—those which discharge themselves into the St. Lawrence River and those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean; yet upon this map were distinctly seen the St. John and the Restigouche. The latter, indeed, figures twice—once as a tributary to the Bay of Miramichi and once as flowing to the Bay of Chaleurs.[58] It can not reasonably be pretended that men honestly engaged in framing an article to prevent "all disputes which might arise in future" should have intentionally passed over and left undefined these important rivers, when by the simplest phraseology they might have described them had they believed that in any future time a question could have arisen whether they were included in one or the other of the two classes of rivers they named. Had it been intended that the due north line should have stopped short of the St. John, the highlands must have been described as those which divide rivers which fall into the St. Lawrence and the St. John from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean. The mouth of the St. Lawrence had been defined in the proclamation of 1763 by a line drawn from the river St. John (on the Labrador coast) to Cape Rozier. If, then, it had been intended that the meridian line should not have crossed the Restigouche, the phraseology must have been highlands which divide rivers which fall into the river and Gulf of St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean. Where such obvious modes of expressing either of these intentions existed, it is not to be believed that they would have been omitted; but had they been proposed to be introduced the American negotiators would have been compelled by their instructions to refuse them. Such expressions would have prescribed a boundary different not only in fact, but in terms, from that of the proclamation of 1763 and the contemporaneous commission to Governor Wilmot. Either, then, the British plenipotentiaries admitted the American claim to its utmost extent or they fraudulently assented to terms with the intention of founding upon them a claim to territory which if they had openly asked for must have been denied them. The character of the British ministry under whose directions that treaty was made forbids the belief of the latter having been intended. The members of that ministry had been when in opposition the constant advocates of an accommodation with the colonies or of an honorable peace after all hopes of retaining them in their allegiance had ceased. They showed on coming into power a laudable anxiety to put an end to the profitless effusion of human blood, and they wisely saw that it would be of more profit to their country to convert the new nation into friends by the free grant of terms which sooner or later must have been yielded than to widen the breach of kindred ties by an irritating delay. The debates which ensued in the British Parliament when the terms of the treaty were made known show the view which the party that had conducted the war entertained of this question. The giving up of the very territory now in dispute was one of the charges made by them against their successors, and that it had been given up by the treaty was not denied. Nay, the effect of this admission was such as to leave the administration in a minority in the House of Commons, and thus became at least one of the causes of the resignation of the ministry[59] by which the treaty had been made. At this very moment more maps than one were published in London which exhibit the construction then put upon the treaty by the British public. The boundary exhibited upon these maps is identical with that which the United States now claim and have always claimed.
The full avowal that the boundary of the treaty of 1783 and of the proclamation of 1763 and act of 1774 are identical greatly simplifies the second argument. It has been heretofore maintained on the part of Great Britain that the word "sea" of the two latter-named instruments was not changed in the first to "Atlantic Ocean" without an obvious meaning. All discussion on this point is obviated by the admission. But it is still maintained that the Bay of Fundy is not a part of the Atlantic Ocean because it happens to be named in reference to the St. Croix in the same article of the treaty. To show the extent to which such an argument, founded on a mere verbal quibble, may be carried, let it be supposed that at some future period two nations on the continent of North America shall agree on a boundary in the following terms: By a line drawn through the Mississippi from its mouth in the Gulf of Mexico to its source; thence a parallel of latitude until it meet the highlands which divide the waters that empty themselves into the Pacific Ocean from those which fall into the Atlantic. Could it be pretended that because the mouth of the Mississippi is said to be in the Gulf of Mexico the boundary must be transferred from the Rocky Mountains to the Alleghanies? Yet this would be as reasonable as the pretensions so long set up by the British agents and commissioners.
It can not be denied that the line claimed by the United States fulfills at least one of the conditions. The streams which flow from one side of it fall without exception into the river St. Lawrence. The adverse line claimed by Great Britain in the reference to the King of the Netherlands divides until within a few miles of Mars Hill waters which fall into the St. John from those of the Penobscot and Kennebec. The latter do not discharge their waters directly into the ocean, but Sagadahock and Penobscot bays intervene, and the former falls into the Bay of Fundy; hence, according to the argument in respect to the Bay of Fundy, this line fulfills neither condition.
The line of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge is even less in conformity to the terms of the treaty. In order to find mountains to form a part of it they are compelled to go south of the source of branches of the Penobscot; thence from mountains long well known, at the sources of the Alleguash, well laid down on the rejected map of Mr. Johnson, it becomes entangled in the stream of the Aroostook, which it crosses more than once. In neither part does it divide waters at all. It then, as if to make its discrepancy with the line defined in the proclamation of 1763 apparent, crosses the St. John and extends to the south shore of the Bay of Chaleurs, although that instrument fixes the boundary of the Province of Quebec on the north shore of the bay. In this part of its course it divides waters which fall into the said bay from those which fall into the St. John. But the proclamation with whose terms this line is said to be identical directs that the highlands shall divide waters which fall into the St. Lawrence from those which fall into the sea. If the branches of the Bay of Chaleurs fulfill the first condition, which, however, is denied, the St. John must fulfill the latter. It therefore falls into the Atlantic Ocean, and as the identity of the boundary of the treaty with that of the proclamation of 1763 and act of 1774 is admitted, then is the St. John an Atlantic river, and the line claimed by the United States fulfills both conditions, and is the only line to the west of the meridian of the St. Croix which can possibly do so.
The choice of a line different from that presented to the choice of the King of the Netherlands is no new instance of the uncertainty which has affected all the forms in which Great Britain has urged her claim.
In fact, nothing shows more conclusively the weakness of the ground on which the British claim rests than the continual changes which it has been necessary to make in order to found any feasible argument upon it.[60] In the discussion of 1798 it was maintained on the part of Great Britain that the meridian line must cross the St. John River; in the argument before the commissioners under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent it was denied that it ever could have been the intention of the framers of the treaty of 1783 that it should. Yet the mouthpiece by which both arguments were delivered was one and the same person. The same agent chose as the termination of what he attempted to represent as a continuous range of hills an isolated mountain, Mars Hill; and the commissioners whose report is under consideration place a range of abraded highlands, "the maximum axis of elevation," in a region over which British engineers have proposed to carry a railroad as the most level and lowest line which exists between St. Andrews and Quebec.[61]
On the other hand, the American claim, based on the only practicable interpretation of the treaty of 1783, has been consistent throughout: "Let the meridian line be extended until it meets the southern boundary of the Province of Quebec, as defined by the proclamation of 1763 and the act of Parliament of 1774."
No argument can be drawn against the American claim from the secret instructions of Congress dated August, 1779. All that is shown by these instructions is the willingness to accept a more convenient boundary—one defined by a great natural feature, and which would have rendered the difficult operation of tracing the line of highlands and that of determining the meridian of the St. Croix by astronomic methods unnecessary. The words of the instructions are:
"And east by a line to be drawn along the middle of the St. John from its source to its mouth in the Bay of Fundy, or by a line to be settled and adjusted between that part of the State of Massachusetts Bay formerly called the Province of Maine and the colony of Nova Scotia, agreeably to their respective rights, comprehending all islands within 20 leagues of the shores of the United States and lying between lines to be drawn due east from the points where the aforesaid boundaries between Nova Scotia on the one part and East Florida on the other part shall respectively touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean."
The proposal in the first alternative was to appearance a perfectly fair one. From an estimate made by Dr. Tiarks, the astronomer of Great Britain under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, in conformity with directions from Colonel Barclay, the British commissioner, it was ascertained that the whole disputed territory contained 10,705 square miles; that the territory bounded by the St. John to its mouth contained 707 square miles less, or 9,998 square miles. The difference at the time was probably believed to be insensible. The first alternative was, however, rejected by Great Britain, and obviously on grounds connected with a difference in supposed advantage between the two propositions. The American commissioners were satisfied that they could urge no legal claim along the coast beyond the river St. Croix; they therefore treated on the other alternative in their instructions—the admitted limits between Massachusetts and Nova Scotia. Even in the former alternative, Nova Scotia would still have had a northwest angle, for the very use of the term shows that by the St. John its northwestern and not the southwestern branch was intended.
At that moment, when the interior of the country was unknown, the adoption of the St. John as the boundary, even admitting that the Walloostook, its southwestern branch, is the main stream, would have given to the United States a territory of more immediate value than that they now claim. For this very reason the proposition was instantly rejected by Great Britain, and the State of Massachusetts was forced to be contented with the distant region now in debate—a region then believed to be almost inaccessible and hardly fit for human habitation.
Even now, were there not vested private rights on both sides which might render such a plan difficult of application, the undersigned would not hesitate to recommend that this line should be accepted in lieu of the one which is claimed under the treaty of 1783.
It is finally obvious, from the most cursory inspection of any of the maps of the territory in question, that the line claimed for Great Britain in the argument before the King of the Netherlands fulfills no more than one of the two conditions, while that of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge fulfills neither; and as the line claimed on the part of the United States is denied to be capable of meeting the terms of the treaty of 1783 by Great Britain, there is no line that, in conformity with the British argument, can be drawn within the disputed territory or its vicinity that will comply with either of the conditions. This is as well and as distinctly shown in the map of Mitchell as in the map of the British commission. It would therefore appear, if, these views be correct, that the framers of the treaty of 1783 went through the solemn farce of binding their respective Governments to a boundary which they well knew did not and could not exist.
V.—NORTHWEST HEAD OF CONNECTICUT RIVER.
The true mode of determining the most northwesterly of any two given points need no longer be a matter of discussion. It has already been a matter adjudicated and assented to by both Governments, in the case of the Lake of the Woods. The point to be considered as most to the northwest is that which a ruler laid on a map drawn according to Mercator's projection in a direction northeast and southwest and moved parallel to itself toward the northwest would last touch. In this view of the subject the Eastern Branch of the Connecticut, which forms the lake of that name, is excluded, for its source, so far from lying to the northwest of those of the other two branches which have been explored, actually lies to the south of the source of the Indian Stream. The question must therefore lie between the two others, and it is as yet impossible to decide which of them is best entitled to the epithet, as their sources lie very nearly in the same northeast and southwest rhomb line. Another circumstance would, however, render the decision between them easy. The forty-fifth parallel of latitude, as laid out by the surveyors of the Provinces of Quebec and New York in conformity with the proclamation of 1763, crosses Halls Stream above its junction with the united current of the other two. In this case the latter is the Connecticut River of the treaty of 1783, and Halls Stream, which has not yet joined it, must be excluded. The parallel, as corrected by the united operations of the British and American astronomers under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, does not touch Halls Stream, and the Connecticut River, to which it is produced, is the united current of the three streams. If, then, the corrected parallel should become the boundary between the United States and the British Provinces, Halls Stream must become one of those the claim of whose source to the title of the north-westernmost head of Connecticut River is to be examined. And here it may be suggested, although with the hesitation that is natural in impeaching such high authority, that the commissioners under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent in all probability misconstrued that instrument when they reopened the question of the forty-fifth parallel. It can not be said that the forty-fifth degree of latitude had "not been surveyed" when it is notorious that it had been traced and marked throughout the whole extent from St. Regis to the bank of the Connecticut River.
In studying, for the purpose of illustration, the history of this part of the boundary line it will be found that a change was made in it by the Quebec act of 1774. The proclamation of 1763 directs the forty-fifth parallel to be continued only until it meets highlands, while in that bill the Connecticut River is made the boundary of the Province of Quebec. Now the earlier of these instruments was evidently founded upon the French claim to extend their possession of Canada 10 leagues from the St. Lawrence River, and from the citadel of Quebec, looking to the south, are seen mountains whence rivers flow to the St. Lawrence. On their opposite slope there was a probability that streams might flow to the Atlantic. These mountains, however, are visibly separated from those over which the line claimed by the United States runs by a wide gap. This is the valley of the Chaudiere; and the St. Francis also rises on the southeastern side of these mountains and makes its way through them. It is not, therefore, in any sense a dividing ridge. Yet under the proclamation of 1763 the Provinces of New York and New Hampshire claimed and were entitled to the territory lying behind it, which is covered by their royal charters. The Quebec act, it would appear, was intended to divest them of it, and according to the construction of the treaty of 1783 now contended for the United States acquiesced in this diminution of the territory of those members of the Union. If, however, it be true, as maintained by Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, that the highlands seen to the south of Quebec are a portion of the ridge seen from southeast to northeast, and if, as they maintain, so deep and wide a valley as that of the St. John is no disruption of the continuity of highlands, it would be possible to show that the highlands of the treaty of 1783 are made up of these two ridges of mountains and that the United States is entitled to the whole of the eastern townships. This range of highlands would coincide with the terms of the proclamation of 1763 by terminating on the north shore of the Bay of Chaleurs, while the abraded highlands of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge terminate on its south shore. In fact, there is no step in their argument which might not be adduced to support this claim, nor any apparent absurdity in preferring it which would not find its parallel in one or other of the positions they assume.
In this view of the history of this part of the line it becomes evident, however, that in divesting the Provinces of New York and New Hampshire by the Quebec act of territory admitted to belong to them in the proclamation of 1763 the British Parliament must have intended to make the encroachment as small as possible, and the first important branch of the Connecticut met with in tracing the forty-fifth parallel must have been intended. This intention is fully borne out by the words of the treaty of 1783, which chose from among the branches of the Connecticut that whose source is farthest to the northwest.
It has therefore been shown in the foregoing statement—
1. That the river to be considered as the St. Croix and its true source have been designated by a solemn act, to which the good faith of the majesty of Great Britain and of the people of the United States is pledged, and can not now be disturbed.
2. That the boundary line must, in compliance with the provisions of the treaty of 1783, be drawn due north from the source of that river, and in no other direction whatever.
3. That the northwest angle of Nova Scotia was a point sufficiently known at the date of the treaty of 1783 to be made the starting point of the boundary of the United States; that it was both described in the treaty and defined, without being named in previous official acts of the British Government, in so forcible a manner that no difficulty need have existed in finding it.
4. That the line of highlands claimed by the United States is, as the argument on the part of Great Britain has maintained it ought to be, in a mountainous region, while that proposed by Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge does not possess this character; that it is also, in the sense uniformly maintained by the United States, the height of land, which that of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge is not; that it fulfills in every sense the conditions of the proclamation of 1763, the Quebec act of 1774, and the treaty of 1783, which no other line that can possibly be drawn in the territory in question can perform.
5. That as far as the Indian Stream and that flowing through Lake Connecticut are concerned, the source of the former must in the sense established by the assent of both parties be considered as the northwestern source of the Connecticut River, but that if the old demarcation of the forty-fifth parallel be disturbed the question must lie between the sources of Halls and of Indian streams.
All which is respectfully submitted.
JAS. RENWICK
JAMES D. GRAHAM,
A. TALCOTT,
Commissioners.
Note I.
[Treaty of 1794, Article V.]
Whereas doubts have arisen what river was truly intended under the name of the river St. Croix mentioned in the said treaty of peace, and forming a part of the boundary therein described, that question shall be referred to the final decision of commissioners to be appointed in the following manner, viz:
One commissioner shall be named by His Majesty and one by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and the said two commissioners shall agree on the choice of a third, or, if they can not so agree, they shall each propose one person, and of the two names so proposed one shall be drawn by lot in the presence of the two original commissioners; and the three commissioners so appointed shall be sworn impartially to examine and decide the said question according to such evidence as shall respectively be laid before them on the part of the British Government and of the United States. The said commissioners shall meet at Halifax, and shall have power to adjourn to such other place or places as they shall think fit. They shall have power to appoint a secretary and to employ such surveyors or other persons as they shall judge necessary. The said commissioners shall, by a declaration under their hands and seals, decide what river is the river St. Croix intended by the treaty. The said declaration shall contain a description of the said river and shall particularize the latitude and longitude of its mouth and of its source. Duplicates of this declaration and of the statements of their accounts and of the journal of their proceedings shall be delivered by them to the agent of His Majesty and to the agent of the United States who may be respectively appointed and authorized to manage the business on behalf of the respective Governments. And both parties agree to consider such decision as final and conclusive, so as that the same shall never thereafter be called into question or made the subject of dispute or difference between them.
Note II.
Declaration of the commissioners under the fifth article of the treaty of 1794 between the United States and Great Britain, respecting the true river St. Croix, by Thomas Barclay, David Howell, and Egbert Benson, commissioners appointed in pursuance of the fifth article of the treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America finally to decide the question "What river was truly intended under the name of the river St. Croix mentioned in the treaty of peace between His Majesty and the United States, and forming a part of the boundary therein described?"
DECLARATION.
We, the said commissioners, having been sworn impartially to examine and decide the said question according to such evidence as should respectively be laid before us on the part of the British Government and of the United States, respectively, appointed and authorized to manage the business on behalf of the respective Governments, have decided, and hereby do decide, the river hereinafter particularly described and mentioned to be the river truly intended under the name of the river St. Croix in the said treaty of peace, and forming a part of the boundary therein described; that is to say, the mouth of the said river is in Passamaquoddy Bay at a point of land called Joes Point, about 1 mile northward from the northern part of St. Andrews Island, and in the latitude of 45° 5' and 5" north, and in the longitude of 67° 12' and 30" west from the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, in Great Britain, and 3° 54' and 15" east from Harvard College, in the University of Cambridge, in the State of Massachusetts; and the course of the said river up from its said mouth is northerly to a point of land called the Devils Head; then, turning the said point, is westerly to where it divides into two streams, the one coming from the westward and the other from the northward, having the Indian name of Cheputnatecook, or Chebuitcook, as the same may be variously spelt; then up the said stream so coming from the northward to its source, which is at a stake near a yellow-birch tree hooped with iron and marked S.T. and J.H., 1797, by Samuel Titcomb and John Harris, the surveyors employed to survey the above-mentioned stream coming from the northward.
Note III.
[Article V of the treaty of Ghent, 1814.]
Whereas neither that point of the highlands lying due north from the source of the river St. Croix, and designated in the former treaty of peace between the two powers as the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, nor the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River has yet been ascertained; and whereas that part of the 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 northwest 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 northwesternmost head of Connecticut River; thence down along the middle of that river to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude; thence by a line due west on said latitude until it strikes the river Iroquois, or Cataraquy, has not yet been surveyed, it is agreed that 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 meet at St. Andrews, in the Province of New Brunswick, and shall have power to adjourn to such other place or places as they shall think fit. The said commissioners shall have power to ascertain and determine the points above mentioned in conformity with the provisions of the said treaty of peace of 1783, and shall cause the boundary aforesaid, from the source of the river St. Croix to the river Iroquois, or Cataraquy, to be surveyed and marked according to the said provisions. The said commissioners shall make a map of the said boundary, and annex to it a declaration under their hands and seals certifying it to be the true map of the said boundary, and particularizing the latitude and longitude of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, of the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River, and of such other points of the said boundary as they may deem proper; and both parties agree to consider such map and declaration as finally and conclusively fixing the said boundary. And in the event of the said two commissioners differing, or both or either of them refusing, declining, or willfully omitting to act, such reports, declarations, or statements shall be made by them or either of them, and such reference to a friendly sovereign or state shall be made in all respects as in the latter part of the fourth article is contained, and in as full a manner as if the same was herein repeated.
Note IV.
The point originally chosen by the commissioners in 1798 as the source of the St. Croix was to all appearance the act of an umpire who wished to reconcile two contending claims by giving to each party about half the matter in dispute. No one who compares Mitchell's map with that of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge can fail to recognize in the St. Croix of the former the Magaguadavic of the latter. That this was the St. Croix intended by the framers of the treaty of 1783 was maintained, and, it may be safely asserted, proved on the American side. On the other hand, it was ascertained that the river called St. Croix by De Monts was the Schoodiac; and the agent of Great Britain insisted that the letter of the instrument was to be received as the only evidence, no matter what might have been the intentions of the framers. The American argument rested on the equity of the case, the British on the strict legal interpretation of the document. The commissioners were divided in opinion, each espousing the cause of his country. In this position of things the umpire provided for in the treaty of 1794 was chosen, and in the United States it has always been believed unfortunately for her pretensions. A lawyer of eminence, who had reached the seat of a judge, first of a State court and then of a tribunal of the General Government, he prided himself on his freedom from the influence of feeling in his decisions. As commissioner for the settlement of the boundary between the States of New York and Vermont, he had offended the former, of which he was a native, by admitting the claim of the latter in its full extent, and it was believed that he would rather encounter the odium of his fellow-citizens than run the risk of being charged with partiality toward them. Colonel Barclay, the British commissioner, who concurred in choosing him as umpire, had been his schoolfellow and youthful associate, and it is believed in the United States that he concurred in, if he did not prompt, the nomination from a knowledge of this feature of character. Had he, as is insinuated by Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, been inclined to act with partiality toward his own country, he had most plausible grounds for giving a verdict in her favor, and that he did not found his decisions upon them is evidence of a determination to be impartial, which his countrymen have said was manifested in a leaning to the opposite side. Those who suspect him of being biased by improper motives must either be ignorant of the circumstances of the case or else incapable of estimating the purity of the character of Egbert Benson. His award, however, has nothing to do with the question, as it was never acted upon. Both parties were dissatisfied with the conclusions at which he arrived, and in consequence a conventional line in which both concurred was agreed upon, and the award of the commissioners was no more than a formal act to make this convention binding.
If, then, both Governments should think it expedient to unsettle the vested rights which have arisen out of the award of 1798, there is a strong and plausible ground on which the United States may claim the Magaguadavic as their boundary, and the meridian line of its source will throw the valley of the St. John from Woodstock to the Grand Falls within the limits of the State of Maine. While, therefore, it is maintained that it would violate good faith to reopen the question, there is good reason to hope that an impartial umpire would decide it so as to give the United States the boundary formerly claimed.
Note V.
The angle made by the southern boundary of the Province of Quebec with the due north line from the source of the St. Croix first appeared in an English dress in the commission to Governor Wilmot. This was probably intended to be identical in its meaning with the terms in the Latin grant to Sir William Alexander, although there is no evidence to that effect. If, therefore, it were a false translation, the error has been committed on the side of Great Britain, and not on that of the United States. But it is not a false translation, as may be shown to the satisfaction of the merest tyro in classical literature.
The words of the grant to Sir William Alexander, as quoted by Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, are as follows, viz:
"Omnes et singulas terras continentis ac insulas situatas et jacentes in America intra caput seu promontorium communiter Cap de Sable appellat, jacen. prope latitudinem quadraginta trium graduum aut eo circa ab equinoctiali linea versus septentrionem, a quo promontorio versus littus maris tenden, ad occidentem ad stationem Sanctae Mariae navium vulgo Sanctmareis Bay. Et deinceps, versus septentrionem per directam lineam introitum sive ostium magnae illius stationis navium trajicien, quae excurrit in terrae orientalem plagam inter regiones Suriquorum et Etcheminorum vulgo Suriquois et Etchemines ad fluvium vulgo nomine Sanctae Crucis appellat. Et ad scaturiginem remotissimam sive fontem ex occidentali parte ejusdem qui se primum predicto fluvio immiscet. Unde per imaginariam directam lineam quae pergere per terram seu currere versus septentrionem concipietur ad proximam navium stationem, fluvium, vel scaturiginem in magno fluvio de Canada sese exonerantem. Et ab eo pergendo versus orientem per maris oris littorales ejusdem fluvii de Canada ad fluvium, stationem navium, portum, aut littus communiter nomine de Gathepe vel Gaspee notum et appellatum."
The authentic Latin copy of the grant to Sir William Alexander, as communicated officially by the British Government, contains no commas, and would read as follows:
"Omnes et singulas terras continentis ac insulas situatas et jacentes in America intra caput seu promontorium communiter Cap de Sable appellat. Jacen. prope latitudinem quadraginta trium graduum aut eo circa ab equinoctiali linea versus septentrionem a quo promontorio versus littus maris tenden. ad occidentem ad stationem Sanctae Mariae navium vulgo Sanctmareis Bay. Et deinceps versus septentrionem per directam lineam introitum sive ostium magnae illius stationis navium trajicien. quae excurrit in terrae orientalem plagam inter regiones Suriquorum et Etecheminorum vulgo Suriquois et Etechemines ad fluvium vulgo nomine Sanctae Crucis appellat. Et ad scaturiginem remotissimam sive fontem ex occidentali parte ejusdem qui se primum predicto fluvio immiscet. Unde per imaginariam directam lineam quae pergere per terram seu currere versus septentrionem concipietur ad proximam navium stationem fluvium vel scaturiginem in magno fluvio de Canada sese exonerantem. Et ab eo pergendo versus orientem per maris oris littorales ejusdem fluvii de Canada ad fluvium stationem navium portum aut littus communiter nomine de Gathepe vel Gaspee notum et appellatum."
The translation of Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh is as follows:
"All and each of the lands of the continent and the islands situated and lying in America within the headland or promontory commonly called Cape Sable, lying near the forty-third degree of latitude from the equinoctial line or thereabout; from which promontory stretching westwardly toward the north by the seashore to the naval station of St. Mary, commonly called St. Marys Bay; from thence passing toward the north by a straight line, the entrance or mouth of that great naval station which penetrates the interior of the eastern shore betwixt the countries of the Suriquois and Etchemins, to the river commonly called the St. Croix, and to the most remote source or spring of the same on the western side which first mingles itself with the aforesaid river; from whence, by an imaginary straight line, which may be supposed (concipietur) to advance into the country or to run toward the north to the nearest naval station, river, or spring discharging itself into the great river of Canada and from thence advancing toward the east by the gulf shores of the said river of Canada to the river, naval station, port, or shore commonly known or called by the name of Gathepe or Gaspe."
The only American translations which have ever been presented in argument are as follows:
[Translation of Messrs. Gallatin and Preble, who were employed to prepare the statement laid before the King of the Netherlands.]
"Beginning at Cape Sable, in 43° north latitude or thereabout; extending thence westwardly along the seashore to the road commonly called St. Marys Bay; thence toward the north by a direct line, crossing the entrance or mouth of that great ship road which runs into the eastern tract of land between the territories of the Souriquois and of the Etchemins (Bay of Fundy), to the river commonly called St. Croix, and to the most remote spring or source which from the western part thereof first mingles itself with the river aforesaid; and from thence, by an imaginary direct line, which may be conceived to stretch through the land or to run toward the north, to the nearest road, river, or spring emptying itself into the great river de Canada (river St. Lawrence); and from thence, proceeding eastwardly along the seashores of the said river de Canada, to the river, road, port, or shore commonly known and called by the name of Gathepe or Gaspe."
[Translation of Mr. Bradley, the American agent under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent.]
"By the tenor of this our present charter we do give, grant, and convey to the said Sir William Alexander, his heirs or assigns, all and singular the lands of the continent and islands situated and lying in America within the headland or promontory commonly called Cape Sable, lying near the latitude of 43° or thereabout, from the equinoctial line toward the north; from which promontory stretching toward the shore of the sea to the west to the road of ships commonly called St. Marys Bay, and then toward the north by a direct line, crossing the entrance or mouth of that great road of ships which runs into the eastern tract of land between the territories of the Souriquois and the Etchemins, to the river called by the name of St. Croix, and to the most remote spring or fountain from the western part thereof which first mingles itself with the river aforesaid; whence, by an imaginary direct line, which may be conceived to go through or run toward the north, to the nearest road of ships, river, or spring emptying itself into the great river of Canada; and from thence proceeding toward the east by the shores of the sea of the said river of Canada to the river, road of ships, or shore commonly known and called by the name of Gachepe or Gaspe."
But the translations of the Americans were merely for form's sake, as the original Latin, in a copy furnished from a British public office, was laid before the King of the Netherlands; and no fear need have been felt that the umpire would not have been able to judge whether the translations were true or not. It was rather to be inferred that he, in examining a question submitted in a language foreign to him, would have found the Latin quite as intelligible as the English. This examination, however, is wholly superfluous.
From whatever source the negotiators of the treaty of 1783 derived their view of the boundary, that instrument directs that it shall be a due north line from the source of the river St. Croix. This expression is too definite to require explanation or illustration, and it is only for those purposes that any other instrument can be permitted to be quoted.
In the passages referred to the words "versus septentrionem" occur three times, and in two of the instances are qualified by the context in such manner as to leave no possible doubt as to the meaning. The first time they occur the words of the passage are, "prope latitudinem quadraginta trium graduum aut eo circa versus septentrionem." The free translation into modern idiom is beyond doubt, "near the forty-third degree of north latitude or thereabout;" and the direction toward the north must be along a meridian line on which latitude is measured, or due north. Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh, instead of connecting in their translation the words "versus septentrionem" with the words "prope latitudinem," etc., with which they stand in juxtaposition in the Latin text which they quote, connect them with the words "ad occidentem tendentem," which occur in the next clause of the sentence, even according to their own punctuation. We note this as a false translation, although it does not touch the point in dispute. They have, indeed, attempted to use it in their argument; but even if the use they make of it had been successful their inferences fall, because drawn from erroneous premises.
The second clause in which the words occur is as follows: "Ad stationem navium Sanctae Mariae vulgo St. Marys Bay, et deinceps versus septentrionem per directam lineam introitum sive ostium magnae illius stationis navium trajicientem," etc., "ad fluvium vulgo nomine Sanctae Crucis appellatum." Here the line, although directed to be drawn toward the north, is also directed to be drawn between two given points, and it is clear that under the double direction, if they should differ from each other, the position of the given points must govern, and the line be traced from one of them to the other, no matter what may be their bearings.
The last time the words occur is after the direction that the line shall pass up the St. Croix and to the most remote western spring or fountain of that stream, "unde per imaginariam lineam directam quae pergere per terram seu currere versus septentrionem concipietur." Here alone can any doubt exist as to the meaning of the terms, and that is easily solved.
The boundary pointed out in the instrument is "such as may be conceived to go or run toward the north by (per) a direct (directam) line." Now a direct line toward the north can be no other than a meridian line. Had it been merely a straight line of vague northerly direction which was meant, rectum, the usual expression for a mathematical straight line, would have been used instead of directam. It is, moreover, to be considered that the Romans had names both for the northeast and northwest points of the compass, and that the expression "versus septentrionem" in its most vague application could not possibly have admitted of a deviation of more than two points on either hand. Had the direction intended deviated more than that amount from the true north, the Latin term corresponding to northeast or northwest must have been used. Nor is this a matter of mere surmise, for in a passage immediately following that which has been quoted the direction through the Gulf of St. Lawrence toward Cape Breton is denoted by the term "versus Euronotum," leaving no possibility of doubt that had the line directed to be drawn from the source of the St. Croix been intended to have a northwestern bearing the appropriate Latin words would have been employed.
It is, besides, to be recollected that the instrument was drawn by a person using habitually and thinking in a modern idiom, and that in translating the English words due north into Latin no other possible expression could suggest itself than the one employed. Such, then, was the sense appropriately given to the Latin words, first in the commission of Governor Wilmot and his successors, governors of Nova Scotia, and subsequently in the commission of all the governors of New Brunswick from the time that it was erected into a province until the question was referred to the King of the Netherlands. In this reference, although a translation was given in the American argument, it was not as quoted by Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, but was in the words which have already been cited.
Connected with this subject, although, like it, wholly irrelevant, is another conclusion which Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh attempt to draw from the same grant to Sir William Alexander. That charter directs the line "versus septentrionem" to be produced "ad proximam navium stationem, fluvium, vel scaturiginem in magno fluvio de Canada sese exonerantem." It can hardly be credited that, although a literal translation of this passage is given, including the whole of the three terms naval station, river, or spring, that it is attempted to limit the meaning to the first expression only, and to infer that as Quebec, in their opinion, is the first naval station above Gaspe on the St. Lawrence, the line "versus septentrionem" was intended to be drawn toward that place, but that as "spring" is also mentioned the line must stop at the source of the Chaudiere. Now it has been uniformly maintained by British authorities, and most strongly in the discussion which preceded the War of 1756, that Nova Scotia extended to the St. Lawrence. The boundary of Sir William Alexander's grant was therefore to be changed from a geographical line to a water course as soon as it met with one, and the apparently useless verbiage was introduced to meet every possible contingency. Supposing, however, that it did not extend so far, the northwest angle of his Nova Scotia will be where the meridian line of the St. Croix crosses the Beaver Stream running into Lake Johnson, only a mile to the north of the point maintained by the American claim to be such.
The map of L'Escarbot, quoted by Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh, illustrates both this point and the second instance in which the term "versus septentrionem" is employed. On that map, due north of the Bay of St. Marys, a deep inlet of the Bay of Fundy is represented, and, continuing in the same direction, a deep inlet of the St. Lawrence is figured. The latter does not exist, but this map shows that it was believed to exist at the time of the grant, and must be the "statio navium" of that instrument.
This inlet of the Bay of Fundy occupies the position of the St. John, which is almost due north by the most recent determination from St. Marys Bay, and is so represented on their own map. That the St. John was by mistake arising from this cause taken for the St. Croix in the charter to Alexander is obvious from its being described as lying between the territories of the Etchemin and Souriquois. Now Etchemin, or canoe men, is the name given by the Micmac Indians to the race of the Abenakis, from their skill in the management of the canoe; and this race has always inhabited the river, whence one of their tribes is still called St. John's Indians. The language of this tribe, although they have lived apart for many years, is still perfectly intelligible by the Indians of the Penobscot, and those in the service of the commission conversed with perfect ease with the Indians of Tobique. Massachusetts, then, was right in claiming to the St. John as the eastern limit of the grant to Sir William Alexander, being the stream understood and described in it under the name of St. Croix, and wholly different from the river known to the French under that name. If, therefore, Great Britain should insist that the question in relation to the St. Croix shall be reopened, the United States would be able to maintain in the very terms of the original grant to Alexander (on which the British argument in 1797 rested) that the St. John is the St. Croix, and the boundary will be that river to its most northwestern source, the Asherbish, which flows into the upper end of Lake Temiscouata. Nova Scotia will then have recovered her lost northwest angle, which can not be found in any of the many shapes under which the British argument has been presented, although it forms the place of beginning of what is called a grant to the United States.
Note VI.
The fact that a line drawn from the source of the Kennebec to the mouth of the Chaudiere or thereabout must be one of the boundary lines of the grant to the Duke of York has not escaped the notice of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge; but they have not derived the true result from this discovery. The Kennebec being the western limit of the grant, the line in question bounds the territory on the southwest, while they infer that it bounds it on the northeast. In making this inference they appear to have forgotten that the St. Croix is the eastern boundary of the grant. By their argument the grant to the Duke of York is blotted wholly from the map, or, rather, becomes a mathematical line which is absurd.
Note VII.
No name which has ever been applied to any part of North America is as vague as that of Acadie. The charter to De Monts in 1604 extended from the fortieth to the forty-sixth degree of north latitude; that is to say, from Sandy Hook, at the mouth of the Hudson, to the peninsula of Nova Scotia. It therefore included New York, parts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and all the New England States, but excluded the disputed territory. His settlement was at the mouth of the St. Croix, but was speedily removed to Port Royal. The latter place was soon after destroyed by an expedition from Virginia under Argall. Under the title derived from this conquest it would appear probable that the celebrated grant to Sir William Stirling was made; but when his agents attempted to make settlements in the country they found that the French had preoccupied it. Although the son of Alexander succeeded in conquering the country granted to his father, and even beyond it to the Penobscot, it was restored to France by the treaty of St. Germains in 1634, and the Alexanders were indemnified for the loss by the Crown of England.
In the subsequent cessions to France after its occupations by the arms of Massachusetts, and in its final cession to Great Britain by the treaty of Utrecht in 1713, the country ceded is described as Acadie or Nova Scotia, with its ancient bounds (cum finibus antiquis). The uncertainty arising from this vague description became in 1750 a subject of controversy between France and England, and was one of the causes which led to the war of 1756. In this discussion both parties admitted that the names Acadie and Nova Scotia were convertible terms. England maintained that the territory thus named extended to the St. Lawrence; the French, on the other hand, insisted that their Acadie had never extended more than 10 leagues from the Bay of Fundy; while by geographers, as quoted by the British commissioners, the name was limited to the peninsula which forms the present Province of Nova Scotia.[62] If Acadie had been limited to the north by the forty-sixth degree of north latitude, as expressed in the charter of De Monts, that parallel is to the south of Mars Hill. The British Government, therefore, derives no title to the disputed territory from this source, as the title of Massachusetts and of Maine as her successor is admitted to all country south of that parallel.[63]
It is very easy to tell what country was actually settled by the French as Acadie. Its chief town was Port Royal, now Annapolis, at the head of the Bay of Fundy. Nearly all the settlements of the Acadians were in that vicinity, and for the most part within the peninsula.
From these seats they were removed in 1756 by Great Britain, and to them a remnant was permitted to return. The most western settlement of Acadians was on the St. John River near the present site of Fredericton, and no permanent occupation was ever made by them of country west of the St. Croix. It is even doubtful whether the settlement near Fredericton was a part of French Acadie, for it seems to have been formed by persons who escaped from the general seizure and transportation of their countrymen.
This settlement was broken up in 1783, and its inhabitants sought refuge at Madawaska; but it can not be pretended that this forced removal of Acadians subsequent to the treaty of 1783 was an extension of the name of their country. The whole argument in favor of the British claim founded on the limits of ancient Acadie therefore fails:
First. Because of the inherent vagueness of the term, on which no settled understanding was ever had, although England held it to be synonymous with Nova Scotia and France denied that it extended more than 10 leagues from the Bay of Fundy.
Second. Because by its original definition in the grant to De Monts it excludes the whole disputed territory on the one side; and
Third. Because in its practical sense, as a real settlement, it is wholly to the east of the meridian of the St. Croix, and this excludes the whole of the disputed territory on the other.
The portion of the territory granted to the Duke of York, and which is now the subject of dispute, therefore can not be claimed as a part of Acadie, as it never fell within its limits either by charter or by occupation.
Note VIII.
[Extract from the award of the King of the Netherlands.]
Considering that in 1763, 1765, 1773, and 1782 it was established that Nova Scotia should be bounded at the north as far as the western extremity of the Bay des Chaleurs by the southern boundary of the Province of Quebec; that this delimitation is again found with respect to the Province of Quebec in the commission of the Governor-General of Quebec of 1786, wherein the language of the proclamation of 1763 and of the Quebec act of 1774 has been used, as also in the commissions of 1786 and others of subsequent dates of the governors of New Brunswick, with respect to the last-mentioned Province, as well as in a great number of maps anterior and posterior to the treaty of 1783; and that the first article of the said treaty specifies by name the States whose independence is acknowledged; but that this mention does not imply (implique) the entire coincidence of the boundaries between the two powers, as settled by the following article, with the ancient delimitation of the British Provinces, whose preservation is not mentioned in the treaty of 1783, and which, owing to its continual changes and the uncertainty which continued to exist respecting it, created from time to time differences between the provincial authorities.
Note IX.
[Article IV of the convention of 1827.]
The map called Mitchell's map, by which the framers of the treaty of 1783 are acknowledged to have regulated their joint and official proceedings, and the Map A, which has been agreed on by the contracting parties as a delineation of the water courses, and of the boundary lines in reference to the said water courses, as contended for by each party, respectively, and which has accordingly been signed by the above-named plenipotentiaries at the same time with this convention, shall be annexed to the statements of the contracting parties and be the only maps that shall be considered as evidence mutually acknowledged by the contracting parties of the topography of the country.
It shall, however, be lawful for either party to annex to its respective first statement, for the purposes of general illustration, any of the maps, surveys, or topographical delineations which were filed with the commissioners under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, any engraved map heretofore published, and also a transcript of the above-mentioned Map A or of a section thereof, in which transcript each party may lay down the highlands or other features of the country as it shall think fit, the water courses and the boundary lines as claimed by each party remaining as laid down in the said Map A. But this transcript, as well as all the other maps, surveys, or topographical delineations, other than the Map A and Mitchell's map, intended to be thus annexed by either party to the respective statements, shall be communicated to the other party, in the same manner as aforesaid, within nine months after the exchange of the ratifications of this convention, and shall be subject to such objections and observations as the other contracting party may deem it expedient to make thereto, and shall annex to his first statement, either in the margin of such transcript, map or maps, or otherwise.
Note X.
[Extract from the award of the King of the Netherlands.]
Considering that, according to the instances alleged, the term highlands applies not only to a hilly or elevated country, but also to land which, without being hilly, divides waters flowing in different directions, and that thus the character, more or less hilly and elevated, of the country through which are drawn the two lines respectively claimed at the north and at the south of the river St. John can not form the basis of a choice between them.
Note XI.
The reason of the double delineation of the Restigouche on the map of Mitchell and several others of ancient date is obvious. A mistake was common to them all by which the Bay of Chaleurs was laid down too far to the north. The main branch, or Grande Fourche, of Restigouche (Katawamkedgwick) has been reached by parties setting out from the banks of the St. Lawrence at Metis, and was known to fall into the Bay of Chaleurs, while the united stream had also been visited by persons crossing the wagansis of Grand River and descending the Southwestern Branch. The map makers could not, in consequence of the error in latitude, make their plat meet, and therefore considered the part of the united streams reached in the two different directions as different bodies of water, and without authority sought an outlet for that which they laid down as the southernmost of the two in another bay of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. On many of the maps, however, the small stream which modern geographers improperly call Restigouche is readily distinguishable under the name of Chacodi.
Note XII.
In the argument of the British commissioners under Jay's treaty the following points were maintained, and, being sanctioned by the decision of the umpire, became the grounds of an award acceded to by both Governments:
First. That the limits of Nova Scotia had been altered from the southern bank of the St. Lawrence to the highlands described in the treaty of peace.
Second. That if the river Schoodiac were the true St. Croix the northwest angle of Nova Scotia could be formed by the western and northern boundaries (the meridian line and the highlands).
Third. That the territory of Acadie, or Nova Scotia, was, the same territory granted to Sir William Alexander.
Fourth. That the sea and Atlantic Ocean were used as convertible terms.
Fifth. That from the date of the treaty of Utrecht the boundary between Massachusetts and Nova Scotia was that of the patent to Sir William Alexander.
Sixth. That the Provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia belonged to and were in possession of His Britannic Majesty in 1783, and that he had an undoubted right to cede to the United States such part of them as he might think fit.
Seventh. That the due north line from the source of the St. Croix must of necessity cross the St. John.
It has since been maintained on the part of Great Britain:
First. That the limits of Nova Scotia never did extend to the St. Lawrence.
Second. That the northwest angle of Nova Scotia was unknown in 1783.
Third. That Acadie extended south to the forty-sixth degree of north latitude, and was not the same with Nova Scotia.
Fourth. That the sea and the Atlantic Ocean were different things.
Fifth. That the claims and rights of Massachusetts did not extend to the western bounds of the grant to Sir William Alexander.
Sixth. That this being the case the cession of territory not included within her limits is void.
Seventh. That it could never have been intended that the meridian line should cross the St. John.
Note XIII.
It has been pretended that the grant of the fief of Madawaska in 1683 can be urged as a bar to the claim of Massachusetts. That fief, indeed, was among the early grants of the French governors of Canada, but it is not included in the claim which the French themselves set up. It was therefore covered by the Massachusetts charter, because the grant had never been acted upon. Even up to the present day this fief can hardly be said to be settled or occupied except by the retainers of the garrison of Fort Ingall, and from all the evidence which could be found on the spot it appeared that no settlement had ever been made upon it until the establishment of a posthouse some time between the date of the treaties of 1783 and 1794. It therefore was not at the time the charter of Massachusetts was granted (1691) "actually possessed or inhabited by any other Christian prince or state."
An argument has also been attempted to be drawn from the limits given on Greenleaf's map to a purchase made from the State of Massachusetts by Watkins and Flint. This purchase is, however, by the patent extended to the highlands, and the surveyors who laid it out crossed the Walloostook in search of them. Here they met, at a short distance from that stream, with waters running to the north, which they conceived to be waters of the St. Lawrence, and they terminated their survey. The lines traced on Greenleaf's map are therefore incorrect, either as compared with the grant or the actual survey, and although from a want of knowledge of the country the surveyors stopped at waters running into Lake Temiscouata instead of the St. Lawrence, the very error shows the understanding they had of the true design of the patent, and this transaction, so far from being an available argument against the American claim, is an act of possession at an early date within the limits of the disputed territory.
WASHINGTON, April 8, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with your resolution of the 31st March, 1842, I have the honor to submit the accompanying document and report[64] from the Commissioner of the General Land Office.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, April 9, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
I transmit herewith to the House of Representatives a report from the Secretary of State, with a copy of the correspondence[65] requested by their resolution of the 7th instant.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, April 11, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I herewith transmit a memorial[66] which I have received from the Choctaw tribe of Indians and citizens of the State of Mississippi, with a request that I should communicate the same to Congress. This I do not feel myself at liberty to decline, inasmuch as I think that some action by Congress is called for by justice to the memorialists and in compliance with the plighted national faith.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, April 12, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In further compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 2d of February last, requesting information touching the demarcation of the boundary line between the United States and the Republic of Texas, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the accompanying documents.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, April 13, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 24th of July last, I communicate to that body a report from the Secretary of State, conveying copies of the correspondence[67] which contains the information called for by that resolution.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, April 13, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 29th July last, I communicate to that body a report from the Secretary of State, conveying copies of the correspondence[68] which contains the information called for by said resolution.
In communicating these papers to the Senate I call their particular attention to that portion of the report of the Secretary of State in which he suggests the propriety of not making public certain parts of the correspondence which accompanied it.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, April 18, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I have the honor to transmit herewith the report[69] of the Secretary of State, in compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 18th February, 1842.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, April 19, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith, in part compliance with a resolution of the Senate of February 18, a report from the Secretary of War, inclosing a list of all officers, agents, and commissioners employed under the War Department who are not such by express provision of law, with other information required by the resolution.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, April 19, 1842.
To the House of Representatives:
I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of War, containing a list of appointments to office made in that Department since the 4th day of April, 1841, in part compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 21st ultimo.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, April 20, 1842.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
I submit to Congress a report from the Secretary of State, accompanied by documents relating to an application by the captain and owners of the Spanish ship Sabina,[70] which is recommended to their favorable consideration.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, April 28, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I submit to the Senate, for the constitutional action of that body, a treaty concluded on the 11th day of August last with the Minda Wankanton bands of the Dakota or Sioux Nation of Indians, with the papers necessary to an understanding of the subject.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, April 28, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I submit to the Senate, for the constitutional action of that body, a treaty concluded with the half-breeds of the Dakota or Sioux Nation on the 3ist day of July last, together with the papers referred to in the accompanying communication from the Secretary of War as necessary to a full view of the whole subject.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, April 30, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
In compliance with your resolution of the 29th instant, I have the honor to transmit the reports of Messrs. Kelley and Steuart, two of the commissioners originally appointed, along with Mr. Poindexter, to investigate the affairs of the custom-house of New York, together with all the correspondence and testimony accompanying the same, and also the report of Mr. Poindexter, to which is annexed two letters, subscribed by Mr. Poindexter and Mr. Bradley. The last-named gentleman was substituted in the place of Mr. Kelley, whose inclinations and duties called him to his residence in Ohio after the return of the commissioners to this city, about the last of August. One of the letters just mentioned was addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury and bears date the 12th of April instant, and the other to myself, dated the 20th of this month. From the former you will learn that a most interesting portion of the inquiry instituted by this Department (viz, that relating to light-houses, buoys, beacons, revenue cutters, and revenue boats) is proposed to be made the subject of a further report by Messrs. Bradley and Poindexter. You will also learn, through the accompanying letter from Mr. Steuart, the reasons which have delayed him in making a supplemental and additional report to that already made by himself and Mr. Kelley, embracing his views and opinions upon the developments made subsequent to the withdrawal of Mr. Kelley from the commission and the substitution of Mr. Bradley in his place. I also transmit two documents furnished by Mr. Steuart, and which were handed by him to the Secretary of the Treasury on the 7th instant, the one being "memoranda of proceedings," etc., marked No. 1, and the other "letters accompanying memoranda," etc., marked No. 2.
The commission was instituted for the purpose of ascertaining existing defects in the custom-house regulations, to trace to their true causes past errors, to detect abuses, and by wholesome reforms to guard in future not only against fraud and peculation, but error and mismanagement. For these purposes a selection was made of persons of acknowledged intelligence and industry, and upon this task they have been engaged for almost an entire year, and their labors remain yet to be completed. The character of those labors may be estimated by the extent of Messrs. Kelley and Steuart's report, embracing about 100 pages of closely written manuscript, the voluminous memoranda and correspondence of Mr. Steuart, the great mass of evidence accompanying Messrs. Kelley and Steuart's report, and the report of Mr. Poindexter, extending over 394 pages, comprised in the volume accompanying this, and additional reports still remaining to be made, as before stated.
I should be better pleased to have it in my power to communicate the entire mass of reports made and contemplated to be made at one and the same time, and still more should I have been gratified if time could have been allowed me, consistently with the apparent desire of the House of Representatives to be put into immediate possession of these papers, to have compared or even to have read with deliberation the views presented by the commissioners as to proposed reforms in the revenue laws, together with the mass of documentary evidence and information by which they have been explained and enforced and which do not admit of a satisfactory comparison until the whole circle of reports be completed. Charges of malfeasance against some of those now in office will devolve upon the Executive a rigid investigation into their extent and character, and will in due season claim my attention. The readiness, however, with which the House proposes to enter upon the grave and difficult subjects which these papers suggest having anticipated that consideration of them by the Executive which their importance demands, it only remains for me, in lieu of specific recommendations, which under other circumstances it would have been my duty to make, to urge upon Congress the importance and necessity of introducing the earliest reforms in existing laws and usages, so as to guard the country in future against frauds in the collection of the revenues and the Treasury against peculation, to relieve trade and commerce from oppressive regulations, and to guard law and morality against violation and abuse.
As from their great volume it has been necessary to transmit the original papers to the House, I have to suggest the propriety of the House taking order for their restoration to the Treasury Department at such time as may comport with its pleasure.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, May 2, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
I have this day received and now transmit to the House of Representatives the accompanying communication from Benjamin F. Butler, having relation to the reports of the commissioners appointed by me to examine into the affairs connected with the New York custom-house. As the whole subject is in possession of the House, I deem it also proper to communicate Mr. Butler's letter.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, May 10, 1842.
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
The season for active hostilities in Florida having nearly terminated, my attention has necessarily been directed to the course of measures to be pursued hereafter in relation to the few Indians yet remaining in that Territory. Their number is believed not to exceed 240, of whom there are supposed to be about 80 warriors, or males capable of bearing arms. The further pursuit of these miserable beings by a large military force seems to be as injudicious as it is unavailing. The history of the last year's campaign in Florida has satisfactorily shown that notwithstanding the vigorous and incessant operations of our troops (which can not be exceeded), the Indian mode of warfare, their dispersed condition, and the very smallness of their number (which increases the difficulty of finding them in the abundant and almost inaccessible hiding places of the Territory) render any further attempt to secure them by force impracticable except by the employment of the most expensive means. The exhibition of force and the constant efforts to capture or destroy them of course places them beyond the reach of overtures to surrender. It is believed by the distinguished officer in command there that a different system should now be pursued to attain the entire removal of all the Indians in Florida, and he recommends that hostilities should cease unless the renewal of them be rendered necessary by new aggressions; that communications should be opened by means of the Indians with him to insure them a peaceful and voluntary surrender, and that the military operations should hereafter be directed to the protection of the inhabitants.
These views are strengthened and corroborated by the governor of the Territory, by many of its most intelligent citizens, and by numerous officers of the Army who have served and are still serving in that region. Mature reflection has satisfied me that these recommendations are sound and just; and I rejoice that consistently with duty to Florida I may indulge my desire to promote the great interests of humanity and extend the reign of peace and good will by terminating the unhappy warfare that has so long been carried on there, and at the same time gratify my anxiety to reduce the demands upon the Treasury by curtailing the extraordinary expenses which have attended the contest. I have therefore authorized the colonel in command there as soon as he shall deem it expedient to declare that hostilities against the Indians have ceased, and that they will not be renewed unless provoked and rendered indispensable by new outrages on their part, but that neither citizens nor troops are to be restrained from any necessary and proper acts of self-defense against any attempts to molest them. He is instructed to open communications with those yet remaining, and endeavor by all peaceable means to persuade them to consult their true interests by joining their brethren at the West; and directions have been given for establishing a cordon or line of protection for the inhabitants by the necessary number of troops.
But to render this system of protection effectual it is essential that settlements of our citizens should be made within the line so established, and that they should be armed, so as to be ready to repel any attack. In order to afford inducements to such settlements, I submit to the consideration of Congress the propriety of allowing a reasonable quantity of land to the head of each family that shall permanently occupy it, and of extending the existing provisions on that subject so as to permit the issue of rations for the subsistence of the settlers for one year; and as few of them will probably be provided with arms, it would be expedient to authorize the loan of muskets and the delivery of a proper quantity of cartridges or of powder and balls. By such means it is to be hoped that a hardy population will soon occupy the rich soil of the frontiers of Florida, who will be as capable as willing to defend themselves and their houses, and thus relieve the Government from further anxiety or expense for their protection.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, May 13, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
I transmit herewith a report[71] from the Postmaster-General, made in pursuance of the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 21st of March last, together with the accompanying documents.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, May 16, 1842.
To the Senate:
Having directed hostilities in Florida to cease, the time seems to have arrived for distinguishing with appropriate honors the brave army that have so long encountered the perils of savage warfare in a country presenting every imaginable difficulty and in seasons and under a climate fruitful of disease. The history of the hardships which our soldiers have endured, of the patience and perseverance which have enabled them to triumph over obstacles altogether unexampled, and of the gallantry which they have exhibited on every occasion which a subtle and skulking foe would allow them to improve is so familiar as not to require repetition at my hands. But justice to the officers and men now in Florida demands that their privations, sufferings, and dauntless exertions during a summer's campaign in such a climate, which for the first time was witnessed during the last year, should be specially commended. The foe has not been allowed opportunity either to plant or to cultivate or to reap. The season, which to him has usually been one of repose and preparation for renewed conflict, has been vigorously occupied by incessant and harassing pursuit, by penetrating his hiding places and laying waste his rude dwellings, and by driving him from swamp to swamp and from everglade to everglade. True, disease and death have been encountered at the same time and in the same pursuit, but they have been disregarded by a brave and gallant army, determined on fulfilling to the uttermost the duties assigned them, however inglorious they might esteem the particular service in which they were engaged.
To all who have been thus engaged the executive department, responding to the universal sentiment of the country, has already awarded the meed of approbation. There must, however, in all such cases be some who, availing themselves of the occasions which fortune afforded, have distinguished themselves for "gallant actions and meritorious conduct" beyond the usual high gallantry and great merit which an intelligent public opinion concedes to the whole Army. To express to these the sense which their Government cherishes of their public conduct and to hold up to their fellow-citizens the bright example of their courage, constancy, and patriotic devotion would seem to be but the performance of the very duty contemplated by that provision of our laws which authorizes the issuing of brevet commissions.
Fortunately for the country, a long peace, interrupted only by difficulties with Indians at particular points, has afforded few occasions for the exercise of this power, and it may be regarded as favorable to the encouragement of a proper military spirit throughout the Army that an opportunity is now given to evince the readiness of the Government to reward unusual merit with a peculiar and lasting distinction.
I therefore nominate to the Senate the persons whose names are contained in the accompanying list[72] for brevet commissions for services in Florida. That the number is large is evidence only of the value of the services rendered during a contest that has continued nearly as long as the War of the Revolution. The difficulty has been to reduce the number as much as possible without injustice to any, and to accomplish this great and mature consideration has been bestowed on the case of every officer who has served in Florida.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, May 24, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith to the Senate a treaty recently concluded with the Wyandott tribe of Indians, and request the advice and consent of the Senate to the ratification of the same as proposed to be modified by the War Department.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, June 1, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I herewith transmit a report from the Acting Commissioner of the General Land Office and the documents accompanying the same (from No. 1 to No. 7), in relation to the conduct of N.P. Taylor, present register and former clerk in the land office at St. Louis, in compliance with your resolution of the 9th May.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, June 10, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I submit herewith a treaty concluded at Buffalo Creek on the 20th day of May last between the United States and the Seneca Nation of Indians, for your advice and consent to its ratification, together with a report on the subject from the War Department.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, June 13, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 2d of March last, requesting information touching proceedings under the convention of the 11th of April, 1839, between the United States and the Mexican Republic, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, with the accompanying documents.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, June 15, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 29th of March last, calling for information touching the relations between the United States and the Mexican Republic, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, with the accompanying documents.[73]
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, June 17, 1842.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith transmit a report from the Secretary of the Treasury, which, accompanied by copies of certain letters of Mr. Ewing, late Secretary of the Treasury, and a statement[74] from the Treasury Department, completes the answer, a part of which has heretofore been furnished, to your resolution of the 7th of February last, and complies also with your resolution of the 3d instant.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, June 20, 1842.
To the House of Representatives:
A resolution of the House of Representatives of the 13th instant has been communicated to me, requesting, "so far as may be compatible with the public interest, a copy of the quintuple treaty between the five powers of Europe for the suppression of the African slave trade, and also copies of any remonstrance or protest addressed by Lewis Cass, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States at the Court of France, to that Government, against the ratification by France of the said treaty, and of all correspondence between the Governments of the United States and of France, and of all communications from the said Lewis Cass to his own Government and from this Government to him relating thereto."
In answer to this request I have to say that the treaty mentioned therein has not been officially communicated to the Government of the United States, and no authentic copy of it, therefore, can be furnished. In regard to the other papers requested, although it is my hope and expectation that it will be proper and convenient at an early day to lay them before Congress, together with others connected with the same subjects, yet in my opinion a communication of them to the House of Representatives at this time would not be compatible with the public interest.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, June 22, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 15th of April last, I communicate to the Senate a report from the Secretary of State, accompanying copies of the correspondence[75] called for by said resolution.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, June 24, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith to the Senate the translation of a letter[76] addressed by the minister of France at Washington to the Secretary of State of the United States and a copy of the answer given thereto by my direction, and invite to the subject of the minister's letter all the consideration due to its importance and to a proposition originating in a desire to promote mutual convenience and emanating from a Government with which it is both our interest and our desire to maintain the most amicable relations.
JOHN TYLER.
[The same message was sent to the House of Representatives.]
WASHINGTON, June 24, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 16th of February last, I herewith transmit a letter[77] from the Secretary of State and the papers in that Department called for by the resolution aforesaid.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, June 25, 1842.
To the House of Representatives:
I have this day approved and signed an act, which originated in the House of Representatives, entitled "An act for an apportionment of Representatives among the several States according to the Sixth Census," and have caused the same to be deposited in the office of the Secretary of State, accompanied by an exposition of my reasons for giving to it my sanction.
JOHN TYLER.
[Transmitted to the House of Representatives by the Secretary of State in compliance with a resolution of that body.]
WASHINGTON, June 25,1842.
A BILL entitled "An act for an apportionment of Representatives among the several States according to the Sixth Census," approved June 25, 1842.
In approving this bill I feel it due to myself to say, as well that my motives for signing it may be rightly understood as that my opinions may not be liable to be misconstrued or quoted hereafter erroneously as a precedent, that I have not proceeded so much upon a clear and decided opinion of my own respecting the constitutionality or policy of the entire act as from respect to the declared will of the two Houses of Congress.
In yielding my doubts to the matured opinion of Congress I have followed the advice of the first Secretary of State to the first President of the United States and the example set by that illustrious citizen upon a memorable occasion.
When I was a member of either House of Congress I acted under the conviction that to doubt as to the constitutionality of a law was sufficient to induce me to give my vote against it; but I have not been able to bring myself to believe that a doubtful opinion of the Chief Magistrate ought to outweigh the solemnly pronounced opinion of the representatives of the people and of the States.
One of the prominent features of the bill is that which purports to be mandatory on the States to form districts for the choice of Representatives to Congress, in single districts. That Congress itself has power by law to alter State regulations respecting the manner of holding elections for Representatives is clear, but its power to command the States to make new regulations or alter their existing regulations is the question upon which I have felt deep and strong doubts. I have yielded those doubts, however, to the opinion of the Legislature, giving effect to their enactment as far as depends on my approbation, and leaving questions which may arise hereafter, if unhappily such should arise, to be settled by full consideration of the several provisions of the Constitution and the laws and the authority of each House to judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members.
Similar considerations have operated with me in regard to the representation of fractions above a moiety of the representative number, and where such moiety exceeds 30,000—a question on which a diversity of opinion has existed from the foundation of the Government. The provision recommends itself from its nearer approximation to equality than would be found in the application of a common and simple divisor to the entire population of each State, and corrects in a great degree those inequalities which are destined at the recurrence of each succeeding census so greatly to augment.
In approving the bill I flatter myself that a disposition will be perceived on my part to concede to the opinions of Congress in a matter which may conduce to the good of the country and the stability of its institutions, upon which my own opinion is not clear and decided. But it seemed to me due to the respectability of opinion against the constitutionality of the bill, as well as to the real difficulties of the subject, which no one feels more sensibly than I do, that the reasons which have determined me should be left on record.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, July 1, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In pursuance of the suggestions contained in the accompanying letter from the Secretary of the Navy and of my own convictions of their propriety, I transmit to the Senate the report made by Lieutenant Wilkes, commander of the exploring expedition, relative to the Oregon Territory. Having due regard to the negotiations now pending between this Government and the Government of Great Britain through its special envoy, I have thought it proper to communicate the report confidentially to the Senate.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, July 2, 1842.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
I submit to Congress the printed copy of certain resolutions of the legislature of the State of Louisiana, accompanied by a letter from the Senators and Representatives from that State, and also a letter from the Solicitor of the Treasury and Commissioner of the General Land Office, requesting and recommending that a suit in ejectment may be authorized and directed in order to test the validity of a grant made on the 20th of June, 1797, by the Baron de Carondelet, Governor-General of Louisiana, to the Marquis de Maison Rouge.
The magnitude of this claim renders it highly desirable that a speedy termination should be put to all contest concerning it, and I therefore recommend that Congress shall authorize such proceedings as may be best calculated to bring it to a close.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, July 9, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 21st ultimo, requesting information relative to proceedings of this Government in the case of George Johnson, a citizen of the United States aggrieved by acts of authorities of the Republic of Uruguay, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State with the accompanying Papers.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, July 14, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 12th instant, requesting copies of papers upon the subject of the relations between the United States and the Mexican Republic, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the documents by which it was accompanied.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, July 14, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 11th instant, calling for the recent correspondence between the Republic of Mexico and this Government in relation to Texas, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, with the accompanying documents.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, July 20, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
In further compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 29th of April last, I transmit herewith a supplemental and additional report of William M. Steuart, one of the commissioners appointed to investigate the affairs of the New York custom-house, which has recently been received, and which, like the reports of the commissioners heretofore communicated to the House, I have not had an opportunity to examine. For the reason stated in my message to the House of the 30th of April last, I shall abstain, as I have done hitherto, from recommending any specific measures which might be suggested by an examination of the various reports on the subject.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, July 22, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 13th instant, upon the subject of the relations between the United States and the Republic of Texas, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State. My last communication to Congress relating to that Republic was my message of the 30th of March last, suggesting the expediency of legislative provisions for improving the trade and facilitating the intercourse by post between the United States and Texas. The report of the Secretary of State is accompanied by a copy of all the correspondence between the two Governments since that period which it would be compatible with the public interest to communicate to the House of Representatives at this time.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, August 8, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In the communication made to the Senate on the 13th of June, in answer to its resolution of the 2d of March last, there appears to have been, among other papers, sundry letters addressed to the Department of State by certain claimants or their agents containing reflections upon the character of the umpire appointed by His Prussian Majesty pursuant to the convention between the United States and the Mexican Republic of the 11th of April, 1839. As the call was for all communications which had been addressed to the Department of State by any of the claimants under that convention relative to the proceedings and progress of the mixed commission, the copies were prepared and submitted without attracting the attention either of the head of the Department or myself. If those letters had been noticed, their transmission to the Senate, if transmitted at all, would have been accompanied by a disclaimer on the part of the Executive of any intention to approve such charges. The Executive has no complaint to make against the conduct or decisions of the highly respectable person appointed by his sovereign umpire between the American and Mexican commissioners.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, August 10, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with your resolution of the 18th July, I herewith transmit a letter from the Acting Secretary of the Treasury and a report from the Commissioner of Public Buildings, together with the accompanying documents.[78]
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, August 11, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I have the satisfaction to communicate to the Senate the results of the negotiations recently had in this city with the British minister, special and extraordinary.
These results comprise—
First. A treaty to settle and define the boundaries between the territories of the United States and the possessions of Her Britannic Majesty in North America, for the suppression of the African slave trade, and the surrender of criminals fugitive from justice in certain cases.
Second. A correspondence on the subject of the interference of the colonial authorities of the British West Indies with American merchant vessels driven by stress of weather or carried by violence into the ports of those colonies.
Third. A correspondence upon the subject of the attack and destruction of the steamboat Caroline.
Fourth. A correspondence on the subject of impressment.
If this treaty shall receive the approbation of the Senate, it will terminate a difference respecting boundary which has long subsisted between the two Governments, has been the subject of several ineffectual attempts at settlement, and has sometimes led to great irritation, not without danger of disturbing the existing peace. Both the United States and the States more immediately concerned have entertained no doubt of the validity of the American title to all the territory which has been in dispute, but that title was controverted and the Government of the United States had agreed to make the dispute a subject of arbitration. One arbitration had been actually had, but had failed to settle the controversy, and it was found at the commencement of last year that a correspondence had been in progress between the two Governments for a joint commission, with an ultimate reference to an umpire or arbitrator with authority to make a final decision. That correspondence, however, had been retarded by various occurrences, and had come to no definite result when the special mission of Lord Ashburton was announced. This movement on the part of England afforded in the judgment of the Executive a favorable opportunity for making an attempt to settle this long-existing controversy by some agreement or treaty without further reference to arbitration.
It seemed entirely proper that if this purpose were entertained consultation should be had with the authorities of the States of Maine and Massachusetts. Letters, therefore, of which copies are herewith communicated, were addressed to the governors of those States, suggesting that commissioners should be appointed by each of them, respectively, to repair to this city and confer with the authorities of this Government on a line by agreement or compromise, with its equivalents and compensations. This suggestion was met by both States in a spirit of candor and patriotism and promptly complied with. Four commissioners on the part of Maine and three on the part of Massachusetts, all persons of distinction and high character, were duly appointed and commissioned and lost no time in presenting themselves at the seat of the Government of the United States. These commissioners have been in correspondence with this Government during the period of the discussions; have enjoyed its confidence and freest communications; have aided the general object with their counsel and advice, and in the end have unanimously signified their assent to the line proposed in the treaty.
Ordinarily it would be no easy task to reconcile and bring together such a variety of interests in a matter in itself difficult and perplexed, but the efforts of the Government in attempting to accomplish this desirable object have been seconded and sustained by a spirit of accommodation and conciliation on the part of the States concerned, to which much of the success of these efforts is to be ascribed.
Connected with the settlement of the line of the northeastern boundary, so far as it respects the States of Maine and Massachusetts, is the continuation of that line along the highlands to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River. Which of the sources of that stream is entitled to this character has been matter of controversy and of some interest to the State of New Hampshire. The King of the Netherlands decided the main branch to be the northwesternmost head of the Connecticut. This did not satisfy the claim of New Hampshire. The line agreed to in the present treaty follows the highlands to the head of Halls Stream and thence down that river, embracing the whole claim of New Hampshire and establishing her title to 100,000 acres of territory more than she would have had by the decision of the King of the Netherlands.
By the treaty of 1783 the line is to proceed down the Connecticut River to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude, and thence west by that parallel till it strikes the St. Lawrence. Recent examinations having ascertained that the line heretofore received as the true line of latitude between those points was erroneous, and that the correction of this error would not only leave on the British side a considerable tract of territory heretofore supposed to belong to the States of Vermont and New York, but also Rouses Point, the site of a military work of the United States, it has been regarded as an object of importance not only to establish the rights and jurisdiction of those States up to the line to which they have been considered to extend, but also to comprehend Rouses Point within the territory of the United States. The relinquishment by the British Government of all the territory south of the line heretofore considered to be the true line has been obtained, and the consideration for this relinquishment is to inure by the provisions of the treaty to the States of Maine and Massachusetts.
The line of boundary, then, from the source of the St. Croix to the St. Lawrence, so far as Maine and Massachusetts are concerned, is fixed by their own consent and for considerations satisfactory to them, the chief of these considerations being the privilege of transporting the lumber and agricultural products grown and raised in Maine on the waters of the St. Johns and its tributaries down that river to the ocean free from imposition or disability. The importance of this privilege, perpetual in its terms, to a country covered at present by pine forests of great value, and much of it capable hereafter of agricultural improvement, is not a matter upon which the opinion of intelligent men is likely to be divided.
So far as New Hampshire is concerned, the treaty secures all that she requires, and New York and Vermont are quieted to the extent of their claim and occupation. The difference which would be made in the northern boundary of these two States by correcting the parallel of latitude may be seen on Tanner's maps (1836), new atlas, maps Nos. 6 and 9.
From the intersection of the forty-fifth degree of north latitude with the St. Lawrence and along that river and the lakes to the water communication between Lake Huron and Lake Superior the line was definitively agreed on by the commissioners of the two Governments under the sixth article of the treaty of Ghent; but between this last-mentioned point and the Lake of the Woods the commissioners acting under the seventh article of that treaty found several matters of disagreement, and therefore made no joint report to their respective Governments. The first of these was Sugar Island, or St. Georges Island, lying in St. Marys River, or the water communication between Lakes Huron and Superior. By the present treaty this island is embraced in the territories of the United States. Both from soil and position it is regarded as of much value.
Another matter of difference was the manner of extending the line from the point at which the commissioners arrived, north of Isle Royale, in Lake Superior, to the Lake of the Woods. The British commissioner insisted on proceeding to Fond du Lac, at the southwest angle of the lake, and thence by the river St. Louis to the Rainy Lake. The American commissioner supposed the true course to be to proceed by way of the Dog River. Attempts were made to compromise this difference, but without success. The details of these proceedings are found at length in the printed separate reports of the commissioners.
From the imperfect knowledge of this remote country at the date of the treaty of peace, some of the descriptions in that treaty do not harmonize with its natural features as now ascertained. "Long Lake" is nowhere to be found under that name. There is reason for supposing, however, that the sheet of water intended by that name is the estuary at the mouth of Pigeon River. The present treaty therefore adopts that estuary and river, and afterwards pursues the usual route across the height of land by the various portages and small lakes till the line reaches Rainy Lake, from which the commissioners agreed on the extension of it to its termination in the northwest angle of the Lake of the Woods. The region of country on and near the shore of the lake between Pigeon River on the north and Fond du Lac and the river St. Louis on the south and west, considered valuable as a mineral region, is thus included within the United States. It embraces a territory of 4,000,000 acres northward of the claim set up by the British commissioner under the treaty of Ghent. From the height of land at the head of Pigeon River westerly to the Rainy Lake the country is understood to be of little value, being described by surveyors and marked on the map as a region of rock and water.
From the northwest angle of the Lake of the Woods, which is found to be in latitude 45° 23' 55" north, existing treaties require the line to be run due south to its intersection with the forty-fifth parallel, and thence along that parallel to the Rocky Mountains.
After sundry informal communications with the British minister upon the subject of the claims of the two countries to territory west of the Rocky Mountains, so little probability was found to exist of coming to any agreement on that subject at present that it was not thought expedient to make it one of the subjects of formal negotiation to be entered upon between this Government and the British minister as part of his duties under his special mission.
By the treaty of 1783 the line of division along the rivers and lakes from the place where the forty-fifth parallel of north latitude strikes the St. Lawrence to the outlet of Lake Superior is invariably to be drawn through the middle of such waters, and not through the middle of their main channels. Such a line, if extended according to the literal terms of the treaty, would, it is obvious, occasionally intersect islands. The manner in which the commissioners of the two Governments dealt with this difficult subject may be seen in their reports. But where the line thus following the middle of the river or water course did not meet with islands, yet it was liable sometimes to leave the only practicable navigable channel altogether on one side. The treaty made no provision for the common use of the waters by the citizens and subjects of both countries.
It has happened, therefore, in a few instances that the use of the river in particular places would be greatly diminished to one party or the other if in fact there was not a choice in the use of channels and passages. Thus at the Long Sault, in the St. Lawrence—a dangerous passage, practicable only for boats—the only safe run is between the Long Sault Islands and Barnharts Island (all which belong to the United States) on one side and the American shore on the other. On the other hand, by far the best passage for vessels of any depth of water from Lake Erie into the Detroit River is between Bois Blanc, a British island, and the Canadian shore. So again, there are several channels or passages, of different degrees of facility and usefulness, between the several islands in the river St. Clair at or near its entry into the lake of that name. In these three cases the treaty provides that all the several passages and channels shall be free and open to the use of the citizens and subjects of both parties.
The treaty obligations subsisting between the two countries for the suppression of the African slave trade and the complaints made to this Government within the last three or four years, many of them but too well founded, of the visitation, seizure, and detention of American vessels on that coast by British cruisers could not but form a delicate and highly important part of the negotiations which have now been held.
The early and prominent part which the Government of the United States has taken for the abolition of this unlawful and inhuman traffic is well known. By the tenth article of the treaty of Ghent it is declared that the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and justice, and that both His Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition; and it is thereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object. The Government of the United States has by law declared the African slave trade piracy, and at its suggestion other nations have made similar enactments. It has not been wanting in honest and zealous efforts, made in conformity with the wishes of the whole country, to accomplish the entire abolition of the traffic in slaves upon the African coast, but these efforts and those of other countries directed to the same end have proved to a considerable degree unsuccessful. Treaties are known to have been entered into some years ago between England and France by which the former power, which usually maintains a large naval force on the African station, was authorized to seize and bring in for adjudication vessels found engaged in the slave trade under the French flag.
It is known that in December last a treaty was signed in London by the representatives of England, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria having for its professed object a strong and united effort of the five powers to put an end to the traffic. This treaty was not officially communicated to the Government of the United States, but its provisions and stipulations are supposed to be accurately known to the public. It is understood to be not yet ratified on the part of France.
No application or request has been made to this Government to become party to this treaty, but the course it might take in regard to it has excited no small degree of attention and discussion in Europe, as the principle upon which it is founded and the stipulations which it contains have caused warm animadversions and great political excitement.
In my message at the commencement of the present session of Congress I endeavored to state the principles which this Government supports respecting the right of search and the immunity of flags. Desirous of maintaining those principles fully, at the same time that existing obligations should be fulfilled, I have thought it most consistent with the honor and dignity of the country that it should execute its own laws and perform its own obligations by its own means and its own power.
The examination or visitation of the merchant vessels of one nation by the cruisers of another for any purpose except those known and acknowledged by the law of nations, under whatever restraints or regulations it may take place, may lead to dangerous results. It is far better by other means to supersede any supposed necessity or any motive for such examination or visit. Interference with a merchant vessel by an armed cruiser is always a delicate proceeding, apt to touch the point of national honor as well as to affect the interests of individuals. It has been thought, therefore, expedient, not only in accordance with the stipulations of the treaty of Ghent, but at the same time as removing all pretext on the part of others for violating the immunities of the American flag upon the seas, as they exist and are defined by the law of nations, to enter into the articles now submitted to the Senate.
The treaty which I now submit to you proposes no alteration, mitigation, or modification of the rules of the law of nations. It provides simply that each of the two Governments shall maintain on the coast of Africa a sufficient squadron to enforce separately and respectively the laws, rights, and obligations of the two countries for the suppression of the slave trade.
Another consideration of great importance has recommended this mode of fulfilling the duties and obligations of the country. Our commerce along the western coast of Africa is extensive, and supposed to be increasing. There is reason to think that in many cases those engaged in it have met with interruptions and annoyances caused by the jealousy and instigation of rivals engaged in the same trade. Many complaints on this subject have reached the Government. A respectable naval force on the coast is the natural resort and security against further occurrences of this kind.
The surrender to justice of persons who, having committed high crimes, seek an asylum in the territories of a neighboring nation would seem to be an act due to the cause of general justice and properly belonging to the present state of civilization and intercourse. The British Provinces of North America are separated from the States of the Union by a line of several thousand miles, and along portions of this line the amount of population on either side is quite considerable, while the passage of the boundary is always easy.
Offenders against the law on the one side transfer themselves to the other. Sometimes, with great difficulty, they are brought to justice, but very often they wholly escape. A consciousness of immunity from the power of avoiding justice in this way instigates the unprincipled and reckless to the commission of offenses, and the peace and good neighborhood of the border are consequently often disturbed.
In the case of offenders fleeing from Canada into the United States, the governors of States are often applied to for their surrender, and questions of a very embarrassing nature arise from these applications. It has been thought highly important, therefore, to provide for the whole case by a proper treaty stipulation. The article on the subject in the proposed treaty is carefully confined to such offenses as all mankind agree to regard as heinous and destructive of the security of life and property. In this careful and specific enumeration of crimes the object has been to exclude all political offenses or criminal charges arising from wars or intestine commotions. Treason, misprision of treason, libels, desertion from military service, and other offenses of similar character are excluded.
And lest some unforeseen inconvenience or unexpected abuse should arise from the stipulation rendering its continuance in the opinion of one or both of the parties not longer desirable, it is left in the power of either to put an end to it at will.
The destruction of the steamboat Caroline at Schlosser four or five years ago occasioned no small degree of excitement at the time, and became the subject of correspondence between the two Governments. That correspondence, having been suspended for a considerable period, was renewed in the spring of the last year, but no satisfactory result having been arrived at, it was thought proper, though the occurrence had ceased to be fresh and recent, not to omit attention to it on the present occasion. It has only been so far discussed in the correspondence now submitted as it was accomplished by a violation of the territory of the United States. The letter of the British minister, while he attempts to justify that violation upon the ground of a pressing and overruling necessity, admitting, nevertheless, that even if justifiable an apology was due for it, and accompanying this acknowledgment with assurances of the sacred regard of his Government for the inviolability of national territory, has seemed to me sufficient to warrant forbearance from any further remonstrance against what took place as an aggression on the soil and territory of the country. On the subject of the interference of the British authorities in the West Indies, a confident hope is entertained that the correspondence which has taken place, showing the grounds taken by this Government and the engagements entered into by the British minister, will be found such as to satisfy the just expectation of the people of the United States.
The impressment of seamen from merchant vessels of this country by British cruisers, although not practiced in time of peace, and therefore not at present a productive cause of difference and irritation, has, nevertheless, hitherto been so prominent a topic of controversy and is so likely to bring on renewed contentions at the first breaking out of a European war that it has been thought the part of wisdom now to take it into serious and earnest consideration. The letter from the Secretary of State to the British minister explains the ground which the Government has assumed and the principles which it means to uphold. For the defense of these grounds and the maintenance of these principles the most perfect reliance is placed on the intelligence of the American people and on their firmness and patriotism in whatever touches the honor of the country or its great and essential interests.
JOHN TYLER.
[The following are inserted because they pertain to the treaty transmitted with the message of President Tyler immediately preceding.]
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, August 3, 1848.
To the Senate of the United States:
The Secretary of State has the honor to transmit to the Senate, in compliance with a resolution adopted by it on the 29th ultimo, a copy of joint report of the commissioners under the treaty of Washington of August 9, 1842, together with a copy of the report of the American commissioner transmitting the same to the State Department.
JAMES BUCHANAN.
Mr. Smith to Mr. Buchanan.
WASHINGTON, April 20, 1848.
SIR: In presenting to you the joint report of the commissioners appointed under the treaty of Washington of August 9, 1842, to survey and mark the line of boundary between the United States and the British Provinces, which I have the honor herewith most respectfully to submit, I have to perform the painful duty of informing you that the maps of that line and of the adjacent country, which had been elaborately constructed by the scientific corps on the part of the United States, and contained upon 100 sheets of drawing paper of the largest size, together with the tables of the survey, have been destroyed by the conflagration of the building in which they were contained. This house had been occupied by Major James D. Graham, the head of the scientific corps and principal astronomer of the American commission, as his office until his departure for Mexico. All the maps, drawings, and tables had been completed and duly authenticated by the joint commissioners, and were ready to be deposited with their joint report under their hands and seals in the archives of this Government. Of this I had the honor to inform you in my letter of the 24th ultimo.
I can hardly express the pain which this unfortunate event has occasioned me. But I can not perceive that any imputation of blame can properly be attached to any officer of the commission. The care and custody of all the work of the United States scientific corps were properly placed in charge of Major Graham, as the head of that corps, who had had the immediate direction and superintendence of it from the first organization of the commission. He required the maps and tables at his office for reference and revision in the progress of the astronomical work. Upon his departure for Mexico he placed Lieutenant A.W. Whipple in his rooms with an injunction to guard with the utmost care the valuable property of the commission. On the day after he left the city, and when for the first time informed of the fact, I called upon Lieutenant Whipple and requested him to have all the maps, drawings, and tables ready to be turned over to the State Department on the following day. On the 24th ultimo I acquainted you with that fact.
No censure can possibly be attributed to Lieutenant Whipple, whose great care and attention to all his duties have been on all occasions highly distinguished. He escaped from the fire with scarcely an article of his dress, and his loss in money and clothing is at least $1,000. Major Graham has lost his valuable library, together with personal effects to a large amount. The fire was communicated from the basement of the house, and by no effort could anything be saved.
There are tracings of the maps upon "tissue paper," without the topography, in the State of Maine, but they are not signed by the commissioners.
The field books of the engineers were, fortunately, not in Major Graham's office, and are preserved.
Duplicates of the maps, duly authenticated, have been placed in the British archives at London, which, although they have not the topography of the country so fully laid down upon them as it was upon our own, represent with equal exactness the survey of the boundary itself. Should it be deemed expedient by this Government to procure copies of them, access to those archives for that purpose would undoubtedly be permitted, and the object accomplished at small expense, and when completed these copies could be authenticated by the joint commissioners in accordance with the provisions of the treaty.
I have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient and humble servant,
ALBERT SMITH.
Report of the joint commission of boundary appointed under the treaty of Washington of August 9, 1842.
The undersigned, commissioners appointed under the treaty of Washington to trace and mark the boundary, as directed by that treaty, between the British possessions in North America and the United States—that is to say, James Bucknall Bucknall Estcourt, lieutenant-colonel in the British army, appointed commissioner by Her Britannic Majesty, and Albert Smith, appointed commissioner by the President of the United States—having accomplished the duty assigned to them, do now, in accordance with the directions of the said treaty, submit the following report and the accompanying maps, jointly signed, to their respective Governments.
In obedience to the terms of the treaty, the undersigned met at Bangor, in the State of Maine, on the 1st day of May, 1843, where they produced and verified the authority under which they each were respectively to act. They then adjourned, because the weather was not sufficiently open for taking the field, to the 1st of the following month (June), and agreed to meet again at that time at Houlton.
Accordingly, they did meet at that place, and began their operations.
It may be desirable to state at the outset that for the sake of convenience the whole line of boundary marked by the undersigned has been divided in the mention made of the different portions into the following grand divisions, viz:
"North line," from the source of the St. Croix to the intersection of the St. John.
"River St. John," from the intersection of the north line to the mouth of the St. Francis.
"River St. Francis," from its mouth to the outlet of Lake Pohenagamook.
"Southwest line," from the outlet of Lake Pohenagamook to the Northwest Branch of the St. John.
"South line," from the Northwest Branch to the parallel of latitude 46° 25' on the Southwest Branch.
"Southwest Branch," from the parallel 46° 25' to its source.
"Highlands," from the source of the Southwest Branch of the St. John to the source of Halls Stream.
"Halls Stream," from its source to the intersection of the line of Valentine and Collins.
"West line," from Halls Stream to the St. Lawrence near St. Regis, along the line of Valentine and Collins.
To return to the narration of operations:
The exploring line of Colonel Bouchette and Mr. Johnson, as directed by the treaty, was traced from the monument at the source of the St. Croix to the intersection of the St. John.
The monument found at the source of the St. Croix, as described in the report of Colonel Bouchette and Mr. Johnson, and the course of their exploring line, was traced by blazes or marks upon the trees.
An old line, cut out by the assistant surveyors of Colonel Bouchette and Mr. Johnson, was also found, which terminated about half a mile north of the South Branch of the Meduxnikeag, where, by records to which the undersigned referred, they ascertained that it had been abandoned because of its deviation from the exploring line of Colonel Bouchette and Mr. Johnson.
After the exploration and re-marking of the north line it was cut out 30 feet wide. The same was afterwards done in all parts where the boundary passed through woodland. After thus opening the north line it was surveyed, and iron posts were erected at intervals to mark it.
The general bearing of the line was rather to the west of the meridian of the monument at the source of the St. Croix. The precise line laid down by the undersigned was determined by successive courses, of which each was made to be as long as was convenient, provided it did not pass out of the opening of 30 feet.
At each angle of deflection an iron monument was erected, and placed anglewise with the line. Other monuments were erected at the crossing of roads, rivers, and at every mile, commencing from the source of the St. Croix. Those which were not intended to mark angles of deflection were placed square with the line.
At the intersection of the St. John by the north line the river is deep and broad. The boundary runs up the middle of the channel of the river, as indicated by the maps, dividing the islands as follows:
| No. 1. Ryan's Island. | United States. |
| No. 2. King's Island. | United States. |
| No. 3. Les Trois Isles. | United States. |
| No. 4. La Septieme Isle. | United States. |
| No. 5. Quissibis. | Great Britain. |
| No. 6. La Grand Isle. | United States. |
| No. 7. Thibideau's Islands. | United States. |
| No. 8. Madawaska Islands. | Great Britain. |
| No. 9. Joseph Michaud's three islands. | United States. |
| No. 10. Pine Island. | Great Britain. |
| No. 11. Baker's, Turtle, Dagle's, Fourth, Fifth islands. | Great Britain. |
| No. 12. Kennedy's Island | Great Britain. |
| No. 13. Crock's, Cranberry, Gooseberry islands. | Great Britain. |
| No. 14. Savage's Island. | United States. |
| No. 15. Wheelock's Island. | United States. |
| No. 16. Caton's Island. | United States. |
| No. 17. Honeywell's Island. | United States. |
| No. 18. Savage and Johnson's Island. | United States. |
| No. 19. Grew's Island. | United States. |
| No. 20. Kendall's Island. | Great Britain. |
The islands were distributed to Great Britain or to the United States, as they were found to be on the right or left of the deep channel. There was but one doubtful case, La Septieme Isle, and that was apportioned to the United States because the majority of the owners were ascertained to reside on the United States side of the river.
Monuments were erected upon the islands, marking them for Great Britain or the United States, as the case may have been.
After leaving the St. John the boundary enters the St. Francis, dividing the islands at the mouth of that river in the manner shown in the maps. It then runs up the St. Francis, through the middle of the lakes upon it, to the outlet of Lake Pohenagamook, the third large lake from the mouth of the river. At the outlet a large monument has been erected.
In order to determine the point on the Northwest Branch to which the treaty directed that a straight line should be run from the outlet of Lake Pohenagamook, a survey of that stream was made, and also of the main St. John in the neighborhood of the mouth of the Northwest Branch, and a line was cut between the St. John and the point on the Northwest Branch ascertained by the survey to be 10 miles in the nearest direction from it, and the distance was afterwards verified by chaining.
It was ascertained also, in accordance with the provisions of the treaty, by a triangulation of the country toward the highlands dividing the waters of the St. Lawrence and of the St. John, that more than 7 miles intervened between the point selected on the Northwest Branch and the crest of the dividing ridge. A large iron monument was afterwards erected on the point thus selected, and the space around was cleared and sown with grass seed. It is a short distance below the outlet of Lake Ishaganalshegeck.
The outlet of Lake Pohenagamook and the point on the Northwest Branch designated by the treaty having been thus ascertained and marked, in the spring of 1844 a straight line was run between them. Along that line, which passes entirely through forest, monuments were erected at every mile, at the crossings of the principal streams and rivers, and at the tops of those hills where a transit instrument had been set up to test the straightness of the line.
As soon as the parallel of latitude 46° 25' had been determined on the Southwest Branch, in the early part of the summer of 1844, a straight line was drawn from the boundary point on the Northwest Branch to a large monument erected on the left bank of the Southwest Branch where it is intersected by the parallel of latitude 46° 25'. The line so drawn crosses the Southwest Branch once before it reaches the parallel of latitude 46° 25', and at about half a mile distance from that parallel. There also a large monument has been set up on the left bank.
From the intersection of the parallel 46° 25' the boundary ascends the Southwest Branch, passes through a lake near its head, and so up a small stream which falls into the lake from the west to the source of that stream, which has been selected as the source of the Southwest Branch.
On the Southwest Branch there are two principal forks, at each of which two monuments have been erected, one on each bank of the river immediately above the forks and upon the branch established as the boundary. The maps point out their positions. At the mouth of the small stream selected as the source of the Southwest Branch a monument has been erected upon a delta formed by two small outlets. Above those outlets three other monuments have been placed at intervals upon the same stream.
Upon the crest of the dividing ridge, very close to the source of the Southwest Branch, a large monument has been erected. It is the first point in the highlands, and from it the boundary runs along the crest in a southerly direction, passing near to the southeastern shore of the Portage Lake, and so on to a large monument erected on a small eminence on the east side of the Kennebec road. Thence it passes through a dwelling house called Tachereau's, which was standing there at the time the line was run; so, by a tortuous course, it runs to the top of Sandy Stream Mountain; thence, inclining to the southwest, it runs over Hog Back the First, as shown in the maps; thence toward Hog Back the Second, which it leaves on the north side. Further on, at the head of Leech Lake, there is a stream which divides its waters and flows both into Canada and into the United States. The boundary has been made to run up that stream a short distance from the fork where the waters divide to a second fork; thence between the streams which unite to form that fork, and then to ascend again the dividing ridge. A monument has been erected at the fork first mentioned, where the waters divide.
As the boundary approaches the valley of Spider River it bends to the southeast, and, by a wide circuit over high and steep hills, it turns the head of Spider River; thence it bends to the northwest until it approaches within about 4 miles of Lake Megantic; thence it turns again south, having the valley of Arnolds River on the right and of Dead River on the left. It leaves Gasford Mountain in Canada, threads its way over very high ground between the head of Arnolds River and the tributaries of the Magalloway; inclines then to the north, so to the west, over very rocky, mountainous, and difficult country, leaving Gipps Peak in the United States, and turns by a sharp angle at Saddle Back to the south. After that it again inclines to the west, and then to the south, and again to the west, and passes the head of the Connecticut. About 3 miles and a half east of the head of the Connecticut there is a division of waters similar to that described near Leech Lake. The boundary runs down a stream from near its source to the fork where it divides, and then again follows the dividing ridge. The spot is noted on the map.
After the boundary has passed the head of the Connecticut it runs to the northwest, descending into very low, swampy ground between the heads of Indian Stream and the tributaries of the St. Francis. Thus it passes on, bending again to the south of west, over a high hill, to the source of Halls Stream.
Iron monuments have been erected at intervals along the highlands from the source of the Southwest Branch of the St. John to the source of Halls Stream, the position of each of which is shown upon the maps.
From the source of Halls Stream the boundary descends that river, dividing the islands, which are, however, merely unimportant alluvial deposits, in the manner indicated by the maps until it reaches the intersection of that stream by the line formerly run by Valentine and Collins as the forty-fifth degree of north latitude.
At that point a large monument has been erected on the right and a small one on the left bank of the stream. Monuments have also been erected along the bank of this stream, as indicated on the maps.
The line of Valentine and Collins was explored and found by the blazes still remaining in the original forest.
Upon cutting into those blazes it was seen that deep seated in the tree there was a scar, the surface of the original blaze, slightly decayed, and upon counting the rings (which indicate each year's growth of the tree) it was found that the blazes dated back to 1772, 1773, and 1774. The line of Valentine and Collins was run in 1771, 1772, 1773, and 1774. The coincidence of the dates of the blazes with those of the above line, confirmed by the testimony of the people of the country, satisfied the undersigned that the line they had found was that mentioned in the treaty. Along this portion of the boundary, which is known as the forty-fifth degree of Valentine and Collins, and which extends from Halls Stream to St. Regis, there are several interruptions to the blazes in those parts where clearings have been made, and there the authentic marks of the precise situation of the old line have been lost. In those cases the undersigned have drawn the boundary line straight from the original blazes on the one side of a clearing to the original blazes on the other side of the same clearing.
It can not be positively stated that the line as it has been traced through those clearings precisely coincides with the old line, but the undersigned believe that it does not differ materially from it; nor have they had the means of determining a nearer or a surer approximation.
Along this line, at every point of deflection, an iron monument has been erected; also at the crossing of rivers, lakes, and roads. Those which mark deflections are placed, as on the "north line," anglewise with the line; all the others are placed square with it. The maps show the position of each.
On the eastern shore of Lake Memphremagog an astronomical station was established, and on a large flat rock of granite, which happened to lie between the astronomical station and the boundary, was cut the following inscription:
Capt: Robinson.
Ast: Station
422 feet north.
Meridian Line.
————————<>————————
Boundary Line
595 feet south
August, 1845.
British Boundary Commission
A mark was cut upon the stone, as indicated by the dot upon the meridian line above, from which these measurements were made.
At Rouses Point a monument of wrought stone was set up at the intersection of the boundary by the meridian of the transit instrument used there by Major Graham, and an inscription was cut upon it stating the latitude and longitude, the names of the observer and his assistant, the names of the commissioners, and the territories divided.
To mark the position of the instruments used at the following astronomical stations along the west line, two monuments within a few feet of each other have been erected at each station, and they have been placed on the boundary line due north or south of the instrument, as the case may have been.
The stations are: Lake Memphremagog, Richford, John McCoy's, Trout River.
The boundary along the west line, though very far from being a straight line, is generally about half a mile north of the true parallel of latitude 45° from Halls Stream to Rouses Point. At about 28 miles west of Rouses Point it, however, crosses that parallel to the south until it reaches Chateaugay River, where it bends northward, and, crossing the parallel again about 4 miles east of St. Regis, it strikes the St. Lawrence 151 feet north of 45°. At that point a large monument has been erected on the bank of the St. Lawrence. Two large monuments have also been erected, one on either side of the river Richelieu near Rouses Point.
No marks of the old line were to be found about St. Regis. It was therefore agreed to run a line due west from the last blaze which should be found in the woods on the east side of St. Regis. That blaze occurred about 1 mile east of the St. Regis River.
The maps, which exhibit the boundary on a scale of 4 inches to 1 statute mile, consist of 62 consecutive sheets of antiquarian paper as constructed by the British and of 61 as constructed by the American commission. A general map has also been constructed on a scale of 8 miles to 1 inch by the British and of 10 miles to 1 inch by the American commission, upon which the before-mentioned sheets are represented.
The following portions of the boundary have been laid down by the British commission, on detached maps, on a scale of 12 inches to 1 mile, which have been signed by both commissioners:
Grand Falls of the St. John, including the intersection of that river by the north line; islands of the St. John; the outlet of Lake Pohenagamook; the turning point of the boundary on the Northwest Branch of the St. John; the intersection of the Southwest Branch by the parallel of latitude 46° 25'; the source of the Southwest Branch; the source of Halls Stream; the intersection of Halls Stream by the west line; Rouses Point; St. Regis; Derby.
But similar maps have not been prepared by the American commission, because during the interval between the finishing of the maps of the British commission and those of the American it was thought that the maps already constructed upon a scale of 4 inches to 1 mile represented the boundary with sufficient clearness and accuracy.
The astronomical observations were begun at the Grand Falls early in June, 1843, and were carried up the St. John River to the Northwest Branch by a chain of stations, which, together with the results obtained, are tabulated in the appendix accompanying this report.
From the valley of the St. John an astronomical connection was made with Quebec, and thence to Montreal, and so to Rouses Point. From Rouses Point a connection was obtained with Cambridge University, near Boston.
The astronomical stations on the west line were: Intersection of Halls Stream by the west line, Lake Memphremagog, Richford, Rouses Point, John McCoy's, Trout River, St. Regis.
Latitude was also obtained at an astronomical station established for the purpose at the head of the Connecticut.
Volumes containing the astronomical observations of both commissions are herewith submitted. From them it will be observed that the results for absolute longitude obtained by the British and American astronomers do not agree. It being a difference in no way affecting the survey of the boundary line, the undersigned do not feel called upon to attempt to reconcile it. The data upon which those results are based may be seen in the volumes of observations accompanying this report.
In the appendix will be found, in a tabular form, the following:
An abstract of the survey of the boundary along the north line; an abstract of the survey of the boundary along the southwest line; an abstract of the survey of the boundary along the south line; an abstract of the survey of the boundary along the highlands; an abstract of the survey of the boundary along the west line; the position of the monuments erected on the Southwest Branch of the St. John and on Halls Stream; the distribution of the islands of the St. John and the monuments on them; the guide lines and offsets run by each commission for the survey of the highlands; the azimuths of verification for the survey of the highlands; the latitudes and longitudes obtained from the astronomical observations; the comparative longitudes obtained, and the methods used for the purpose.
Upon comparing the maps of the two commissions it will be seen that the American commission numbers two monuments more than the British. Those are to be found, one on the "Fourth Island," in the river St. John, and the other on the highlands between the source of the Southwest Branch of the river St. John and the Kennebec road.
On the maps of the British commission representing the "west line" the name of the town of "Derby" has been improperly placed north of the line instead of south of it. Also, on the same maps the direction of Salmon River, near the western extremity of the "west line," has been incorrectly laid down from the boundary line northward. A direction has been given to it northeasterly instead of northwesterly.
The above two corrections the British commissioner is authorized to make on his maps after his return to England.
To avoid unnecessary delay in making their joint report, the undersigned have attached their signatures to the maps, although the lettering of some of the astronomical stations upon the maps of the American commission, as well as the alterations before mentioned in the maps of the British commission, are yet to be made; but in the maps of both the boundary has been laid down accurately and definitively, and the undersigned engage that it shall not be altered in any respect.
In conclusion the undersigned have the honor to report that the line of boundary described in the foregoing statement has been run, marked, and surveyed, and the accompanying maps faithfully constructed from that survey.
The undersigned take leave to add that the most perfect harmony has subsisted between the two commissions from first to last, and that no differences have arisen between the undersigned in the execution of the duties intrusted to them.
Signed and sealed in duplicate, at the city of Washington, this 28th day of June, A.D. 1847.
J.B. BUCKNALL ESTCOURT, [SEAL.]
Lieutenant-Colonel, Her Britannic Majesty's Commissioner.
ALBERT SMITH, [SEAL.]
United States Commissioner.
NOTE.—The astronomical computations of the American commission not being completed, and it being unnecessary to defer the signing of the report on that account, the American commissioner engages to transmit them, with any other papers or tables not yet finished, as soon as they shall be so, to the British commissioner, through the American minister resident in London, to whom, upon delivery of the documents, the British commissioner will give a receipt, to be transmitted to the American commissioner.
J. B. BUCKNALL ESTCOURT,
Lieutenant-Colonel, H.B.M. Commissioner of Boundary.
ALBERT SMITH,
United States Commissioner.
WASHINGTON, August 18, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to its ratification, a treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation with the Republic of Texas, negotiated at the seat of Government of the United States between the Secretary of State, duly empowered for that purpose, and the chargé d'affaires of that Republic.
In forming the first commercial treaty between the two Governments an anxious desire has been felt to introduce such provisions as should promote the interests of both countries. The immediate proximity of Texas to the United States and the consequent facility of intercourse, the nature of its principal agricultural production, and the relations which both countries bear to several large rivers which are boundaries between them, and which in some part of their course run within the territories of both, have caused peculiarities of condition and interests which it has been necessary to guard.
The treaty provides that Texas shall enjoy a right of deposit for such of her productions as may be introduced into the United States for exportation, but upon the condition that the Executive of the United States may prescribe such regulations as may be necessary for the proper enjoyment of the privilege within our territory. It was thought no more than reasonable to grant this facility to the trade of Texas, under such conditions as seem best calculated to guard against abuse or inconvenience.
The treaty further provides that raw cotton may be imported from either country into the other free of duties. In general it is not wise to enter into treaty stipulations respecting duties of import; they are usually much better left to the operation of general laws. But there are circumstances existing in this case which have been thought to justify a departure from the general rule, and the addition of it to the number of instances, not large, in which regulations of duties of imports have been made the subject of national compact.
The United States consume large quantities of raw cotton, but they are exporters of the article to a still greater extent. Texas, for the present at least, exports her whole crop. These exportations are, in general, to the same foreign markets, and it is supposed to be of no considerable importance to the American producer whether he meets the Texan product at home or abroad.
On the other hand, it is thought that a useful commercial intercourse would be promoted in several ways by receiving the raw cotton of Texas at once into the United States free of duty. The tendency of such a measure is to bring to the United States, in the first instance, Texan cotton ultimately destined to European markets. The natural effect of this, it is supposed, will be to increase the business of the cities of the United States to the extent of this importation and exportation, and to secure a further degree of employment to the navigation of the country. But these are by no means all the benefits which may be reasonably expected from the arrangement. Texas, at least for a considerable time to come, must import all the manufactured articles and much of the supplies and provisions necessary for her use and consumption. These commodities she will be likely to obtain, if to be had, in the markets of the country in which she disposes of her main annual product. The manufactures of the North and East, therefore, and the grain and provisions of the Western States are likely to find in Texas a demand, increased by whatever augments intercourse between the two countries, and especially by whatever tends to give attraction to the cities of the United States as marts for the sale of her great and principal article of export.
As a security, however, against unforeseen results or occurrences, it has been thought advisable to give this article of the treaty a limitation of five years.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, August 23, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
A resolution of the Senate of the 21st of June last requested the President to communicate to the Senate, so far as he might deem it compatible with the public interests, what measures, if any, had been taken to obtain the recognition by the Mexican Government of such claims of American citizens as were laid before the late joint commission, but were not finally acted on by it, and the satisfaction of such claims as were admitted by said commission; also whether any facts had come to his knowledge calculated to induce a belief that any such claims had been rejected in consequence of the evidence thereof having been withheld by the Mexican Government, its officers or agents, and any other information which he might deem it expedient to communicate relative to said claims; and another resolution of the 6th instant requested the President, so far as he might deem it compatible with the public service, to communicate to the Senate the measures taken to obtain the performance of the stipulations contained in the convention with Mexico in relation to the awards made by the commissioners and umpire under said convention.
In the present state of the correspondence and of the relations between the two Governments on these important subjects it is not deemed consistent with the public interest to communicate the information requested. The business engages earnest attention, and will be made the subject of a full communication to Congress at the earliest practicable period.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, August 24, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
On the 15th day of April, 1842, in virtue of the sentence of a court-martial regularly convened under orders from the Secretary of the Navy, which received my approval, John H. Clack, who was a captain in the Navy, was dismissed the service. Since the confirmation of that sentence a letter has been addressed by Mr. Paulding, late Secretary of the Navy, to Captain Clack, which leads to the belief that he had analyzed the charges made against Captain Clack, and for reasons which appeared to him satisfactory and which, according to his letter, he indorsed on the charges, disposed of the case by refusing to submit it to a court-martial.
Notwithstanding a diligent search has been made for this document, none such can be found; but the only paper in the office having reference to this subject is a letter addressed by Mr. Paulding to Lieutenant Buchanan, a copy of which, together with the original of that of Mr. P. to Captain C., is herewith communicated. I felt it, however, every way due to the high character of Mr. Paulding to consider the fact stated by him to be as well sustained by his declaration to that effect as if the record was found, and as the court-martial would not have been ordered by the present Secretary with the knowledge of the fact stated by Mr. Paulding, since it would have been improper to have reopened a case once finally disposed of, I have felt that it was alike due to the general service of the Navy as to Mr. Clack to nominate him for reappointment to the service.
I therefore nominate John H. Clack to be a captain in the Navy of the United States.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, August 25, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 11th of June last, upon the subject of claims of citizens of the United States against the Government of the Mexican Republic, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and a copy of the report of the commissioners on the part of the United States under the late convention between the United States and that Republic.
JOHN TYLER.