officers charged with the duty of taking the periodical census for which their constitution and laws provide.

The settlement of John Baker appears to have been made outside of the Madawasca settlement, upon contiguous waste lands. Other American citizens established themselves in his neighbourhood. Whatever jurisdiction the government of New-Brunswick might claim in virtue of the Madawasca settlement, being confined to it, could not be rightfully extended to Baker and his American neighbours. Even if he had been guilty of any irregularity of conduct, he was not amenable to the provincial government, but to his own. His arrest, therefore, on that disputed ground, and transportation from it to Frederickton, at a considerable distance from his family, and his confinement in a loathsome jail, cannot be justified. It is a proceeding which seems to have been adopted without regard to the rights of the United States in the territory in question, and which assumes an exclusive jurisdiction on the part of the provincial government. Nor is it compatible with that modera. tion and forbearance which, it has been uuderstood between the two governments, should be mutually practised, until the question of right between them was finally settled. I am charged, therefore, by the President, to demand the immediate liberation of John Baker, and a full indemnity for the injuries which he has suffered in the arrest and detention of his person.

Nor can the President view with satisfaction the exercise of jurisdiction, on the part of the provincial government, over the settlement on the Aroostook. That settle.

ment was made only about six years ago, partly by American citizens, and partly by British subjects. The settlers supposed they were establishing themselves on American ground, and beyond the British jurisdiction. It has been only within these three or four years past, that the provincial government has undertaken to issue civil process against the settlers; and, as late as last summer, process for trespass and intrusion on the crown lands was, for the first time, issued. These proceedings cannot be reconciled with the resolution which you state to have been adopted by His Britannic Majesty's Lieutenant Governor of NewBrunswick, to maintain the disputed territory in the same state in which his excellency received it, after the conclusion of the treaty of Ghent. Nor can they be reconciled with that mutual forbearance to perform any new act of sovereignty within the disputed territory, having a tendency to strengthen the claim of the party exercising it, which it has been expected would be observed by the two governments, during the progress of their endeavours amicably to adjust their question of boundary. The undersigned must protest, in behalf of his government, against any exercise of acts of exclusive jurisdiction by the British authority, on the Madawasca, the Aroostook, or within any other part of the disputed territory, before the final settlement of that question; and he is directed to express the President's expectation that Mr. Vaughan will make such representations as will prevent, in future, any such jurisdiction from being exerted.

The undersigned requests Mr. Vaughan, on this occasion, to ac

cept assurances of his high consideration.

H. CLAY. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. Washington, Feb. 20, 1828.

MR. VAUGHAN TO Mr. CLAY.

Washington, February, 1818. The undersigned, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of his Britannic Majesty, has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of a note from the Secretary of State of the United States, enclosing a copy of the report made by the agent of the general govern. ment, and a copy of the reports made by the agent of the government of the state of Maine, sent to inquire into the proceedings which took place, not long since, in the disputed territory within the province of New-Brunswick.

The undersigned has not any remarks to make upon the reports which have been submitted to him; but he is glad to learn, from Mr. Clay's note, that it appears, from those reports, that some misrepresentation took place in the accounts which had reached the government of the United States, respecting the recent disturbances which took place amongst the settlers in the disputed territory.

The Secretary of State expresses his dissent to the principle laid down by the undersigned, in his note of the 21st of November last, that the sovereignty and jurisdic. tion over the territory in dispute continue to be vested in Great Britain, until the two governments shall have reconciled their differences respecting the line of boundary. Mr. Clay observes that the United States contend that possession was transferred to them by the treaty of 1782, which places the disputed territory within their limits. What

ever may be the conviction of the government of the United States, with regard to the extent of the limits assigned to it by that treaty, those limits are still undefined, and remain unadjusted; and, notwithstanding the reports of the commissioners of Boundary, and, after repeated negotiations, remained to be settled by a reference to a friendly sovereign, it is the opinion. of the undersigned that the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the disputed territory rests with Great Britain, until that portion of it designated in the treaty of 1783 shall have been finally set apart from the British possessions, as belonging to the United States.

The British settlement upon the Madawasca river is considered by Mr. Clay as an unauthorized intru. sion on the property of the state of Massachusetts. When the treaty of 1783 was concluded, New-Brunswick had not been erected into a separate province, but it was included in the province of Nova Scotia. The St. Croix river was then considered to be the boundary, on the northeast, of Massachusetts, and on the West of Nova Scotia. Some difficulty might have arisen about the exact boundary between that province and Massachusetts, on account of the uncertainty of the limits of Acadia, (which now forms the province of New Brunswick) as ceded by France to Great Britain in 1713. The undersigned, however, cannot acquiesce in the pretensions of Massachusetts to the territory upon the Madawasca, which lies to the north of the St. John's, and falls into that river at a distance from its source.

It remains to be seen, when the position of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia shall have been determined, whether the line

of boundary between Great Britain and the United States will intersect any portion of the Madawasca territory. In the mean time, the undersigned begs leave to express his conviction, that neither the establishment of settlements upon that river, nor the grants of land made to the settlers by the government of New-Brunswick, in 1790, can, in any shape, affect the final settlement of the boundary, or tend, as Mr. Clay seems to imagine, to strengthen the claims of Great Britain, or in any manner to invalidate the rights acquired by the United States under the treaty of 1783.

The Secretary of State observes, in his last note, that the jurisdiction exercised by the government of New-Brunswick, in the Madawasca settlement, has not been exclusive, inasmuch as an agent sent by the Governor of the State of Maine took the census of the population in 1820, as belong. ing to that state. The undersign. ed begs leaye to remind Mr. Clay, that that attempt of the state of Maine to interpose its jurisdiction was considered by the British government as an encroachment, and it was the subject of a remonstrance to the government of the United States.

With regard to the arrest of John Baker, surely his outrageous conduct in stopping the mail from Canada, in hoisting the American flag, and forming a combination to transfer the territory in which he resided to the United States, made him amenable to the laws, Although his residence, as it is observed by Mr. Clay, was not actually in the Madawasca settlement, it was within the jurisdiction of New Brunswick, and he knew

it; as he had applied for, and re. ceived, in 1822, the bounty upon corn grown in newly cultivated ground, given by the government of that province. A moderate bail was demanded of Baker, for his appearance to take his trial. He did not profit by this offer of the magistrates, and thereby obtain his release from confinement, because he understood that a writ had been taken out against him by some one of his creditors. It does not appear that the proceedings have been carried on against him with any unusual severity; and after the investigation which has taken place into all the circumstances attending his arrest, the undersigned did not expect that the President of the United States would have demanded his immediate liberation, and full indemnity for the injuries he has suffered by the arrest and detention of his person. A copy of the note which the undersigned has had the honour to receive from the Secretary of State shall be immediately transmitted to his majesty's government, and to the Lieutenant Governor of NewBrunswick.

It appears that the President of the United States does not view with satisfaction the exercise of jurisdiction by the government of New-Brunswick, in a settlement upon the Aroostook river, which had its origin in the unauthorized residence of stragglers from other districts. They remained for some time unnoticed; but, within the last three or four years, civil process has been issued against the settlers by the provincial government, which Mr. Clay is at a loss to reconcile with the resolution which the undersigned has stated to have been adopted by the Lieutenant Gover

nor of New-Brunswick, to maintain the disputed territory in the state in which it was after the conclusion of the treaty of Ghent. The undersigned is convinced that Mr. Clay will admit that no part of the disputed territory can be left without the control of any civil authority. All persons, of whatever description, who take up their residence in the disputed territory, are within the British jurisdiction, until the boundary line is adjusted, and are amenable to the government of New. Brunswick, and owe a temporary allegiance to His Majesty, so long as they remain under his protection. It is not for the Lieutenant Governer of New-Brunswick to surrender up the exercise of an ancient jurisdiction, but in strict conformity with his resolution, above alluded to. His Excellency has exercised it with great moderation, by refusing to make grants of land, and by suspending the issuing of licenses for the cutting of timber, and by strictly enjoining all magis. trates under his control to prevent trespasses and intrusions of every description. The Secretary of State may rely upon the moderation with which the jurisdiction will be exercised by His Excellency over the disputed territory.

The undersigned has observed that a misconception pervades all the papers, which have fallen under his notice, from the State of Maine. The disputed territory is invariably represented as a part of that State, unjustly withheld from it; overlooking, always, the difficulties which Great Britain and the United States have encountered in appropriating and setting apart that portion which belongs to the United States under the treaty of 1783, and which have so unfortunately kept, as it were, in

abeyance, the title of the United States.

The undersigned cannot conclude this note without expressing his anxious wishes that the measure, now resorted to by both Govern. ments, of arbitration, may put at rest, for ever, the question of boundary which has lately so repeatedly occupied the attention of the Secre. tary of State and of the undersigned.

The undersigned requests Mr. Clay to accept the assurances of his highest consideration.

CHAS. R. VAUGHAN.

Mr. Clay to Mr. Vaughan. Rt. Hon.. CHAS. R. VAUGHAN, &C. &c. &c.

The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, in acknowledging the receipt, on the 20th ult. of the note of Mr. Vaughan, of the day of that month, in answer to that which the undersigned had the honour to address to him, transmitting the reports made by the agents of the United States and the State of Maine, would have restricted himself to a simple expression of his satisfaction with the engagement of Mr. Vaughan to lay the demand of the Government of the United States for the immediate liberation of John Baker, and a full indemnity for the injuries he had suffered by his ar rest and detention, before thegovernments of Great Britain and the Province of New-Brunswick, but for certain opinions and principles advanced by Mr. Vaughan, to which the undersigned cannot assent. And he feels it to be necessary, to guard against any misinterpretation from his silence, expressely to state his dissent from them. In doing this, he will avoid. as much as

possible, any discussion of the respective claims of the two countries to the disputed territory. If it were necessary to enter into that argument, it would not be difficult to maintain as clear a right, on the part of the United States, to that territory, as they have to any other portion of the territory which was acknowledged by Great Britain to belong to them by the treaty of 1783. But as, by the arrangements between the two go. vernments, the question of right has received a different disposition, it is unnecessary to give it a particular consideration here. The correspondence which the undersigned has had the honour of holding with Mr. Vaughan has related to the intermediate possession, and to acts of jurisdiction within the dispu. ted territory, until the right is finally settled. It would furnish a just oc. casion for serious regret, if, whilst the settlement of that question is in amicable progress, any misunderstanding should arise between the two governments, in consequence of what must be regarded by the government of the United States as the unwarranted exercise of a right of jurisdiction by the govern. ment of the province of NewBrunswick within the disputed territory.

The undersigned cannot concur, in the opinion that the limits of the treaty of 1783, being undefined and unadjusted, the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the disputed territory rests with Great Britain, until that portion of it, designated in the treaty of 1883, shall have been finally set apart from the British possessions as belonging to the United States. Mr. Vaughan's argument assumes that some other act of setting apart the territories of the United States from those of

Great Britain, than the treaty of peace of 1783, was necessary; and that, until that other act should be performed, the United States could not be considered in possession. This argument would prove that the United States are not now law. fully in possession of any portion of the territory which they acquired in the war of their Independence; the treaty of 1783 being the only act of separation in virtue of which they are in possession of their territory. If, at the conclusion of the treaty of 1783, Great Britain had had the actual, and not merely constructive possession, and that actual possession had all along remained with her, Mr. Vaughan might have contended that the government of Great Britain had a right to exercise a jurisdiction, de facto, over the disputed territory. But at that epoch neither party had the actual possession of the disputed territory, which was then an uninhabited waste. Which of the parties had the right to the possession, depended upon the limits of the treaty of 1783. If, as the United States contend, those limits embraced it, they had the right both of sovereignty and to the possession, and Great Britain could not law. fully exercise either. It is true that Great Britain asserts that those limits do not comprehend the disputed territory. On that point the parties are at issue, and cannot agree. They have, however, amicably agreed to refer the decision. of it to a common friend. Whilst the experiment is making for this peaceable settlement of the ques. tion, ought either of the parties to assume the exercise of sovereignty or jurisdiction within the contested territory? If he does, can he expeet the other party to acquiesce in it, or to look on with indifference?