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]