Canada; its Defences, Condition, and Resources / Being a third and concluding volume of "My Diary, North and South"

by Sir William Howard Russell

It may be remarked here, that the difficulty of reconciling States’ rights with Imperial Federal policy was fore-shadowed in the original disputes which took place at the time of the treaty adjustment. The Treaty speaks of the “boundaries between the possessions of Her Britannic Majesty in North America and the territories of the United States;” but the State of Maine in its vehement protest against the line of the King of the Netherlands, assumed the language and the port of an independent Power. Mr. Thomas Colley Grattan, in his work, “Civilised America,” has collected an immense amount of information, and has drawn up an argument on the subject, which prove beyond a doubt, even without collateral aid, that the line yielded by Lord Ashburton was not that which was meant by the framers of the Treaty of 1783. Let us consider how the case stood.

In 1763 the French possessions in North America were ceded to Great Britain, and in the October of that year a royal proclamation defined the boundaries of the government of Quebec, “bounded on the Labrador coast by the river St. John, which falls into the mouth of the St. Lawrence, and from there by a line drawn from the head of that river through the Lake of St. John to the south end of the Lake Nipissing, from whence the said line, crossing the river St. Lawrence and Lake Champlain in 45 degrees of north latitude, passes along the highlands which divide the rivers that empty themselves into the said river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the sea, and also along the north coast of the Bay of Chaleurs and the coast of the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Cape Rosière, and from thence crossing the mouth of the river St. Lawrence by the west end of the island of Anticosti, terminates in the aforesaid Lake of St. John.” It is fortunate enough that we have no neighbours to raise any question about “the line drawn through the Lake of St. John to the south end of the Lake Nipissing.”

Previous to the Treaty of Independence only one Act was passed bearing upon the southern boundary of Canada. The Quebec Act of 1774 draws its boundaries between the province of Quebec and the colonies of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts, in words nearly the same as those of the Proclamation of 1763. When the State of Massachusetts and the State of Maine were acknowledged to be “free, sovereign, and independent,” by the Treaty of 1783, the contracting parties appeared to have defined the boundary-line with tolerable exactitude. They wished to prevent disputes between the United States and the colonies, and therefore the boundaries were constituted “from the north-west angle of Nova Scotia,—viz., that angle which is formed by a line drawn due north from the source of the St. Croix river to the highlands, along the said highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean,—to the north-westernmost head of Connecticut river east, by a line to be drawn along the middle of the river St. Croix from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source, and from its source directly north to the aforesaid highlands which divide the rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the river St. Lawrence, comprehending all highlands within twenty leagues of any harbour 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, except such highlands as now are, or heretofore have been, within the limits of the said province of Nova Scotia.”

The north-west angle of Nova Scotia thus becomes a point of consequence—upon the determination of it rests the true line. The British maintain that the angle is contained at the point “where the line due north from the river St. Croix touches the highlands at a point about 100 miles south of the point claimed by the United States.” The Americans argue that the north-west angle was “considerably nearer to the St. Lawrence, at a spot 145 miles north of the source of the St. Croix.” In 1794 Commissioners were appointed to determine “where a line drawn due north from the St. Croix would intersect a line of highlands corresponding with those mentioned in the Treaty of 1783.” The umpire called in by the Commissioners fixed on the most northern point of the river as the place from which the line to the highlands was to be drawn, and the result was that the line so drawn did not strike the highlands which we held to be those meant by the treaty, but passing them at a distance of twenty miles on the west, came to an isolated mountain called Mars Hill, from which the Americans desired to prolong it northwards beyond the river St. John to the highlands above the source of the Restigouche; but the British Commissioners insisted that the line should not proceed further north, and that the highlands which ran west from near that point to the head of the Connecticut river should form the next boundary-line.

Events of greater importance for a time prevented any attempt to adjust a question, which promised, however, no slight difficulty in time to come. Then war broke out between the United States and Great Britain; but the Peace of 1814 rendered it necessary to renew the attempt to define the boundaries of the two States. The Commissioners appointed by the Treaty of Ghent were not more fortunate than their predecessors; and it was thirteen years after the signing of that treaty before the Governments of the two countries arranged a convention, to carry out the provision made by an article in the Treaty for the appointment of a referee in case of disagreement. The King of the Netherlands, who accepted the office of arbiter in 1831, delivered his award, which, taking the line drawn north from the St. Croix to Mars Hill, passed beyond it to the river St. John, whence it took the course of the river westward, inside the line claimed by the United States to the head of the Connecticut River. This compromise was identical with the actual line established by the Treaty of 1842, except on the western side, where the line fixed by the King and that claimed by the United States are the same. The King’s line approximates much more closely to the United States’ line than it does to that which we claim: however, the Americans refused to accept it, on the grounds that the King had no right to go beyond the matter referred to him of determining which of the two lines was right, and that he had exceeded his province in proposing a line which had not been referred to him by either of the parties.

Eleven years passed in unavailing endeavours to adjust a question which rose into the highest rank of diplomatic difficulties. Lord Ashburton, the head of the commercial house of Baring, whose relations with American commerce were supposed to be likely to recommend him to American statesmen, was dispatched in 1842 to determine the boundary, in concert with Mr. Webster. These gentlemen were assisted by seven Commissioners from Maine and Massachusetts. The author of a pamphlet of very great ability, quoted by Mr. Grattan, arrived at the conclusion that the line designated in the Proclamation of 1763, is identical with that claimed by the United States, and that the line indicated in the treaty of 1783 is almost the same as that claimed by Great Britain. He argued that it was clearly intended to create a new boundary, because Mr. Townsend said so, and Lord North repeated the statement in Parliament. He maintained that the variations in the wording of the treaty from that of the proclamation, were specially introduced to show that a new boundary was intended, and that if it had not been so, the description in the treaty would have been the same as it was in the proclamation; and he then proceeded further to contend, with greater force of reasoning, that the proclamation boundary, although it might have adequately defined the limits of a province, would have been obviously unsuitable as between two independent nations, because it would cut off communication between two portions of the territory of one of the Powers, and give it to another independent State. He further asserted, that all negotiations and projects for peace on the part of the United States were based on the supposition that England would demand a new line, and that Congress never contemplated an adherence to the Proclamation of 1763. All the reasoning of the pamphleteer in support of these propositions is distinguished by acuteness, and inclines the mind to accept them with confidence; and he is not less happy in his argument that the Madawaska river is distinct from the river St. John—that it is a tributary, not a branch, of that stream.

The question as to the range of highlands meant by the treaties can only be settled by analytical reasoning, which, in relation to matters of fact of the kind under dispute, is satisfactory only to those who direct their own course of argument. There are two ranges of highlands dividing the rivers which flow into the St. Lawrence and those which empty themselves into the Atlantic; the first, running from the sources of the Connecticut towards the Bay of Chaleurs, certainly separates rivers emptying into the St. Lawrence from those emptying into the sea; but the second line starting from the same mountainous germ at the sources of the Connecticut, branching off from the first range at a point about eighty miles from its commencement, takes a southern course towards the head of the St. Croix, and divides the rivers which empty themselves into the St. Lawrence from those which flow into the Atlantic Ocean. It is contended on one side, with much force of reasoning and probability, that the highlands specified in the Treaty of 1783 are those of the southern range. It was necessary of course to fix upon some great natural features in a district vast in extent and unknown to all but the Red men and the hunter. Rivers and the summit level between two great watersheds would be obviously selected. It was the object of England to secure free communication between all parts of her American territory, and, of course, between Canada and Nova Scotia. The Americans proposed the line of the St. John, which was at once rejected. That being the case, it is difficult to conceive how they could go back and propose, as a line more likely to meet the views of England, the highlands of the northern range close to the St. Lawrence, which would throw the greatest difficulties in the way of the communication which it was a vital point for England to secure. It will have been observed that the words “the Sea” and the “Atlantic Ocean” are used in the treaties, and it certainly is not easy to comprehend how the Americans can maintain that these terms have an identical meaning, if the description of the maps which they had before them at the time is correct. The Connecticut, the Penobscot, and the Kennebeck, can be considered as flowing into the Atlantic Ocean from one range of highlands only, and it is equally plain that the other, or northern, range was that which was meant as the highlands from which rivers flowed into the “sea.”

It has been urged, ingeniously and truly, that the words “The Sea,” give a larger range of boundary than the words “The Atlantic;” and that therefore the boundary which depended on a reference to the Atlantic, was intended to have a smaller extent than that which was made to depend upon the Sea. The Atlantic was certainly substituted for the Sea, not only in the treaty, but in the Commissions of the Governors of Quebec, showing an alteration of the boundary of their jurisdiction, whilst no change was made in the Commissions of the Governors of New Brunswick, because the boundary of their province depended upon that of Quebec. The highlands separating rivers that empty into the Atlantic Ocean, are by no means identical with the highlands separating the rivers that empty into the Sea. The Americans have urged that the northern range divides the rivers of the St. Lawrence from the Atlantic rivers, but it certainly does not separate the Penobscot branches north and east which flow into the Atlantic from the southern range; and the term “The rivers,” of course means all the rivers, because, otherwise, such a considerable stream as the Penobscot would have been excepted specially. The southern range separated all the rivers which flow into the Atlantic, from all the rivers which flow into the St. Lawrence.

Had the Commissioners drawn the due north line from the western branch of the St. Croix, which formed the ancient boundary of Nova Scotia, instead of from the northern branch, the whole of the complicated and vexatious questions might have been evaded, and the claim urged by the United States might never have been heard. It was the doctrine of State rights alone which justified the rejection of the Netherlands compromise. The tract in dispute was indeed but seven million acres of river, mountain, and forest, but the northern boundary of this tract overlooked the course of the St. Lawrence, and carried American territory within a day’s march of its stream, whilst the direct roads and communications between the Provinces east and west, would be placed inside American territory. To the Maine lumberers, however, this tract was not uninviting, and it became a debateable land, in which British colonists from New Brunswick, and American squatters, carried on a series of inroads and forcible settlements, which were fortunately unattended by actual bloodshed. Lord Palmerston, who in 1835 notified the refusal of the British Government to accept the Netherlands compromise, appointed Commissioners in 1839 to inquire into the state of the question upon the spot, and their report, which was handed to the United States Government in 1840, in the most absolute terms laid it down that the southern range was that intended by the treaty of 1783. Mr. Grattan, who was by no means unduly disposed to favour American pretensions, describes with terse propriety the disputes which now arose. “All on our side,” he says, “was supercilious pride; on that of the United States, aggressive coarseness.”

To Sir Robert Peel is due the praise of having taken a decided step to settle the north-eastern boundary. Lord Ashburton, received with considerable enthusiasm in the United States, was at once accepted by President Tyler, and for the better adjustment of the difficulty, it was arranged that he should be met by Mr. Webster in a spirit of perfect candour; that memoranda and despatches were to be dispensed with, and that every honest, straightforward exertion should be made on both sides to come to a satisfactory settlement of the vexed question. Lord Ashburton had, however, to encounter not only the Secretary of State, but the Commissioners of Maine and Massachusetts, among whom were Mr. Abbott Lawrence and Mr. Preble.