required to be drawn from the St. Croix River, "directly north to the aforesaid highlands," instead of terminating at Mars Hill, must of necessity be extended across the St. John River, for the purpose of completing the boundary defined by the treaty. Again, it is shown, independently of any consideration of the termination of the St. John River, that no claim has ever been made by any British authority, that the limits or jurisdiction of the province of Canada extended to the south of that river, as the same were described in the proclamation of 1763, or the act of Parliament of 1774, or the commission of Mr. Haldimand, who was governorin-chief of the province of Quebec in 1783; but it has been merely contended that the jurisdiction of that tract of territory was in the British crown, as appurtenant to the province of New Brunswick. Now it does not depend upon the question, whether the St. John falls into the Atlantic Ocean or not, where the western boundary of New Brunswick is to be placed. It was declared in the commission of King George III. to Montague Wilmot, Esq., Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief of the province of Nova Scotia, in 1763, and also in the commission of John Parr, Esq., Governor of the same province in 1783, as well as in the treaty of peace of that year, that the said province of Nova Scotia was, and should be bounded on the west, by a line running directly north from the source of the St. Croix, to the highlands which formed the southern boundary of the province of Quebec.

It will be seen, therefore, that as regards the evidence of the identity of the highlands described in the treaty, it is quite immaterial whether the river St. John is to be considered, in strictness of language, as running into the Atlantic Ocean, or not. It is nevertheless true, that this river is not only evidently intended by the framers of the treaty, and most properly described as in the class of rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, in contradistinction from another class, which fall into the river St. Lawrence. It is a river of 400 miles in extent, which is discharged directly into the Bay of Fundy, an arm of the Atlantic Ocean, and through that bay into the ocean itself, at a distance of about 50 miles. In precisely the same manner the other rivers embraced in the class of Atlantic rivers, the Penobscot, Kennebec, and Connecticut, -discharge their waters into bays, and through them into the ocean, and no one of them directly into the ocean. The only difference is, that the distance is somewhat greater, from the immediate termination of the other rivers respectively, to the ocean, than from that of St. John. Yet this difference is not so great as to leave the slightest doubt as to the intention of those who drew the treaty, to include this river within the class of rivers falling into the Atlantic. That such was their meaning is apparent from

the fact, that any other interpretation makes entire nonsense of the whole passage, besides leaving the most important of the tract of territory embraced in the description wholly unnoticed. So obvious is it, that such was the meaning of the framers of the treaty, especially when it is known that Mitchell's map * was before them at the time when they wrote and assented to the treaty, that to attribute to them any other meaning, must be to suppose them to be destitute of common sense. It is, in fact, to render this whole part of the treaty senseless and nugatory.

Mitchell's map, by which the commissioners were governed in framing the description of the boundaries of the territory relinquished to the States by the treaty, although in many respects inaccurate, particularly in the delineation of the course of rivers, was free from any material error in its general features. So far as regards the description in the treaty of the part of the boundary in question, there is no ground for supposing that the commissioners were led into any error, or to the adoption of a different language in that description, from what they would have used had they been possessed of the most perfect map of the country which can now be formed. It was apparent from a view of that map, that the meridian line from the source of the river St. Croix,

* That the commissioners who framed the treaty relied for their knowledge of the country upon Mitchell's map, is proved by the testimony of two of them, Mr. Adams, and Dr. Franklin. The latter states the fact in the following terms, in a letter written at the time of the investigation, preparatory to the convention for determining what river was intended in the treaty under the name of the St. Croix: "PHILADELPHIA, April 8, 1790.

"SIR: I received your letter of the 31st of last past, relating to encroachments made on the eastern limits of the United States, by settlers under the British_Government, pretending that it is the western, and not the eastern river of the Bay of Passamaquoddy which was designated by the name of St. Croix in the treaty of peace with that nation, and requesting of me to communicate any facts, which my memory or papers may enable me to recollect, and which may indicate the true river, which the commissioners on both sides had in their view to establish as the boundary between the two nations. Your letter found me under a severe fit of my malady, which prevented my answering it sooner, or attending, indeed, to any kind of business. I can now assure you that I am perfectly clear in the remembrance, that the map we used in tracing the boundary, was brought to the treaty by the commissioners from England, and that it was the same that was published by Mitchell, above twenty years before. Having a copy of that map by me in loose sheets, I send you that sheet which contains the Bay of Passamaquoddy, where you will see that part of the boundary traced. I remember, too, that in part of the boundary, we relied much on the opinion of Mr. Adams, who had been concerned in some former disputes concerning those territories. I think, therefore, that you may obtain some further light from him. That the map we used was Mitchell's map, Congress were acquainted at the time, by letter to their Secretary for Foreign Affairs, which I sup pose may be found upon their files.

"I have the honor to be, with the greatest esteem and respect, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant, "B. FRANKLIN.

"To Thomas Jefferson,

Secretary of State of the United States."

would cross the St. John, and meet the highlands on the north of that river, and consequently that in conformity with the description in the treaty, the whole country watered by the upper branches of the St. John, which is there laid down as a part of New England, would be relinquished to the United States. It is, therefore, an obvious and necessary inference, that such was the intention of the framers of the treaty.

It is intimated above, that a claim has been made in behalf of the State of Maine, of some 400,000 acres of territory, not obviously embraced within the limits defined in the treaty. The claim here referred to, is that which embraces a tract of mountain territory, extending to the highlands, which are to be found north of the tributaries of the River Ristigouche, on the assumption that the line drawn due north from the St. Croix, is to be extended across the head branches of the Ristigouche, to the point indicated on the annexed map at A, instead of terminating at the point C. It is maintained, that the River Ristigouche is to be considered, in the meaning of the treaty, as belonging to the class of waters which fall into the Atlantic Ocean. If we were speaking of rivers extending from the inland parts of the continent, over the whole eastern section, in contradistinction from rivers which flow into the Pacific Ocean, or the Gulf of Mexico, it might not be inappropriate to embrace the streams falling into the Gulf of St. Lawrence under the general description of rivers which empty themselves into the Atlantic Ocean. But when rivers falling into the Atlantic Ocean are spoken of in contradistinction merely from others falling into the River St. Lawrence, it can hardly be admitted that this description will embrace those which fall into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, especially in the absence of any collateral evidence that they were intended to be so included. In the present case, there does not appear to be the least reason to suppose, that in the description of the southern boundary of the province of Quebec, in the proclamation of 1763, or in the act of Parliament of 1774, the description of rivers which fall into the sea was intended to embrace rivers falling into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, or that the description of highlands was intended to apply to those north of the Ristigouche, to the exclusion of those on the south. If such be a true construction of this part of the treaty, the mountainous tract at the sources of the Ristigouche, between the points indicated on the map, marked A, E, and C, is not included within the limits of the United States.

The question in regard to this part of the claim is chiefly important because it has given rise to the impression that a delineation of the line of boundary in literal compliance with the description in the treaty is impracticable, without assuming that the Ristigouche is a river which falls into the Atlantic. It will be

seen, from what has been stated above, that this supposition is altogether unfounded. The highlands, extending from the source of the Connecticut River to the Bay of Chaleur, are distinctly defined, until they reach the point E on the map. They here separate into two irregular ridges, being intersected by the waters flowing into the Bay of Chaleur, both which ridges form part of the range described in the treaty. The point where the due north line meets this ridge, (unless an intermediate point between the two ridges is substituted by some act assented to by the two governments,) is the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, and consequently the point at which the northern boundary of the United States begins.

Such is our understanding of the treaty. The strength of the American claim has been obscured and weakened, by some inadvertent admissions. Surely nothing but a gross inadvertence could have permitted a reference of the whole question in controversy to the arbitration of a foreign power, on a disagreement between the commissioners, resting upon so ridiculous a pretext, as that the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, the grand landmark named in the treaty as the starting point of the line of boundary, was to be found at Mars Hill. So also, what could have been a grosser inadvertence, than the proposition repeatedly made by Mr. Livingston, under the direction of General Jackson, but not acceded to at the time by the British Government, that if no highlands can be found in a direction due north from the source of the St. Croix," which divide those waters that empty themselves into the St. Lawrence from those that fall into the Atlantic Ocean," in such case the due north line shall be discarded, and a line shall be drawn in any direction to highlands which may be found answering the description, in any part of the disputed territory, north or south of the St. John River? This concession, if it had any meaning, was an abandonment of one of the Inaterial conditions of the treaty, for the express purpose of giving some plausibility to the British claim, which without it, could hardly be pretended to exist?

as

It is foreign from our purpose to go into any history of the negotiations for settling this controversy. These negotiations, intimated at the beginning of this article, are now in a train which affords a hope of a satisfactory adjustment. The more reliance is to be placed on the expectation of an amicable termination of the controversy at this time, from the fact that both parties must be convinced, that the whole value of the territory in dispute would not be an adequate indemnity to the parties for the hazard of leaving it undetermined a single year, and for the injury in that period, resulting from the unsettled state of the relations between the two governments.