A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. Volume 4, part 2: John Tyler

by Unknown

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: