farther than it would be if a preference were given to either of the other three rivers;

"Lastly, that the Map A having been recognized by the Convention of 1827 as indicating the courses of streams, the authority of that map would likewise seem to extend to their appellation, since in case of dispute such name of riveror lake, respecting which the parties were not agreed, might have been omitted; that said map mentions Connecticut Lake, and that the name of Connecticut Lake implies the applicability of the name of Connecticut to the river which flows through the said lake:

"WE ARE OF OPINION:

"That the stream situated farthest to the northwest among those which fall into the northernmost of the three Lakes, the last of which bears the name of Connecticut Lake, must be considered as the northwesternmost head of Connecticut river.

"And as to the third point, to wit: the question, What is the boundary to be traced from the river Connecticut, along the parallel of the 45th degree of north latitude, to the river St. Lawrence, named in the Treaties Iroquois or Cataraguy:

"CONSIDERING:

"That the High Interested Parties differ in opinion as to the question-Whether the Treaties require a fresh survey of the whole line of boundary from the river Connecticut to the river St. Lawrence, named in the Treaties Iroquois or Cataraquy, or simply the completion of the ancient provincial surveys:

"CONSIDERING:

"That the fifth article of the Treaty of Ghent of 1814 does not stipulate that such portion of the boundaries as may not have hitherto been surveyed, shall be surveyed; but declares that the boundaries have not been, and establishes that they shall be, surveyed:

"That, in effect, such survey ought, in the relations between the two Powers, to be considered as not having been made from the Connecticut to the river St. Lawrence, named in the Treaties Iroquois or Cataraquy, since the ancient survey was found to be incorrect, and had been ordered, not by a common accord of the two Powers, but by the ancient provincial authorities: "That in determining the latitude of places it is customary to follow the principle of the observed latitude;

"And that the Government of the United States of America has erected certain fortifications at the place called Rouse's Point, under the impression that the ground formed part of their territory-an impression sufficiently authorized by the circumstance that the line had, until then, been reputed to correspond with the 45th degree of north latitude:

"WE ARE OF OPINION:

"That it will be suitable to proceed to fresh operations to measure the observed latitude in order to mark out the boundary from the river Connecticut along the parallel of the 45th degree of north latitude to the river St. Lawrence, named in the Treaties Iroquois or Cataraquy, in such manner however that, in all cases, at the place called Rouse's Point, the territory of the United States of America shall extend to the fort erected at that place, and shall include said fort and its Kilometrical radius (rayon Kilometrique.)

"Thus done and given under our Royal Seal, at the Hague, this tenth day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one, and of our Reign the eighteenth. " WILLIAM.

"VERSTOLK VAN SOELEN,

"The Minister of Foreign Affairs.”

Analyzing this award, we find that as to the Analysis of Award. line from the northwest angle of Nova Scotia to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River, the arbitrator held (1) that the term "highlands" was applicable to ground which, without being mountainous or hilly, divided rivers flowing in opposite directions; but (2) that it was not shown that the boundaries described in the treaty of 1783 coincided with the ancient limits of the British provinces; and (3) that neither the line of highlands claimed by the United States nor that claimed by Great Britain so nearly answered the requirements of the treaty of 1783 in respect to the division of rivers as to give a preference to the one over the other. Abandoning therefore the attempt to determine this part of the boundary according to the treaty of 1783, he recommended a line of convenience.

As to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River, he held that it was the stream farthest to the northwest among those that fall into the northwesternmost of the three lakes, the last of which bears the name of Connecticut Lake.

As to the forty-fifth parallel of north latitude, the arbitrator held that it should be determined by the customary principle of observed latitude, without regard to prior surveys, but expressed the opinion that the United States should be left in the possession of the fort at Rouses Point.

Estimating the disputed territory to contain an area of 12,027 square miles, or 7,697,280 acres, the award of the arbitrator gave to the United States 7,908 square miles, or 5,061,120

acres, and to Great Britain 4,119 square miles, or 2,636,160

acres.

Award; Protest of
Mr. Preble.

On the 12th of January 1831 Mr. Preble, Recommendatory who was then envoy extraordinary and minCharacter of ister plenipotentiary of the United States at The Hague, addressed to the minister for foreign affairs a note respectfully protesting against the award, and reserving the rights and interests of the United States, on the ground that the proceedings of the arbitrator constituted a departure from his powers. The question where the boundary should run, said Mr. Preble, if the treaty of 1783 could not be executed, was one which, he believed, the United States would submit to no sovereign. As to the opinion of the arbitrator that the ranges of highlands respectively claimed by the United States and Great Britain comported equally well in all respects with the language of the treaty, Mr. Preble said he did not intend to question its correctness. But when the arbitrator proceeded to say that it would be suitable to run the line due north from the source of the River St. Croix, not "to the highlands which divide the rivers that fall into Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the river St. Lawrence," but to the center of the River St. John, thence to pass up that river to the mouth of the River St. Francis, thence up the River St. Francis to the source of its southwesternmost branch, and from thence by a line due west to the highlands claimed by the United States, and only from that point along the highlands described in the treaty, thus abandoning the boundaries of the treaty and substituting for them a different line, Mr. Preble said it became his duty, "with the most perfect respect for the friendly views of the Arbiter, to enter a Protest against the proceeding, as constituting a departure from the powers delegated by the High Interested Parties, in order that the rights and interests of the United States may not be supposed to be committed by any presumed acquiescence on the part of their Representative near His Majesty, the King of the Netherlands."

991

Mutual Waiver of
Award.

The British Government, while perceiving that the award was recommendatory rather than decisive, expressed its acquiescence in it, but authorized its minister at Washington privately to

1S. Ex. Doc. 3, 22 Cong. 1 sess.

intimate to the United States that it would not consider the formal acceptance of the award by the two governments as precluding modifications of the line by mutual exchange and concession. The Government of the United States for a time hesitated. Mr. Preble's protest was made without instructions,2 and President Jackson was inclined to accept the award He afterward regretted that he had not done so.3 The award was, however, unsatisfactory both to Maine and to Massachu setts, and on December 7, 1831, the President submitted the question of its acceptance or rejection to the United States Senate. The Senate in June 1832, by a vote of 35 to 8, resolved that the award was not obligatory, and advised the President to open a new negotiation with Great Britain for the ascertainment of the line. The British Government, though it declined to consider the question of the navigation of the St. John in connection with the boundary question, promised to enter upon the negotiations in a friendly spirit; and it was agreed that both sides should in the mean time refrain from exercising any jurisdiction beyond the boundaries which they actually possessed."

Maine.

Meanwhile the Government of the United Negotiations of States entered into an unsuccessful negotia United States with tion with the State of Maine, with a view to obtain a free hand for effecting a settlement. It was proposed that the legislature of Maine should provisionally surrender to the United States all territory claimed by the State north of the St. John and east of the River St. Francis, Maine to be indemnified by adjoining territory for the ultimate loss of any part of the territory thus surrendered, and, so far as the adjoining territory should prove inadequate, by Michigan lands, at the rate of a million acres of such lands for the whole of the territory surrendered, the lands thus appropriated to be sold by the United States and the proceeds paid into the treasury of Maine. An agreement or "treaty" to this effect was actually signed in 1832 by Edward Livingston, Secretary of State, Louis McLane, and Levi Woodbury, on the part of the United States, and by William Pitt Preble, Ruel Williams, and Nicholas Emery, on the part of Maine. It never was rat

Br. and For. State Papers, XXII. 772, 776, 783.

2 S. Ex. Doc. 3, 22 Cong. 1 sess.

3 Curtis's Life of Webster, II. 139.

4 Br. and For. State Papers, XXII. 788, 850, 871.

5 Br. and For. State Papers, XXII. 788, 795.

ified. Nor did the fact that it was concluded become public till long after the transaction had failed.'

Lane.

In April 1833 Mr. Livingston made to the Proposal of Messrs. British minister at Washington a proposal Livingston and Mcwhich Mr. Gallatin once declared to be "incomprehensible." He proposed that, in connection with the appointment of a commission of European experts, fresh surveys should be made, and that if it should be found that the line due north from the source of the St. Croix would not reach the highlands described in the treaty of 1783, a line should be drawn from the source of the St. Croix directly to such highlands, whatever its direction might be." This proposition was further explained by Mr. McLane, Mr. Livingston's successor. The first duty of the commissioners, said Mr. McLane, would be to find the highlands, whether north or south of the St. John; and it would then be their duty to draw a line from the monument at the head of the St. Croix to that point in the highlands which should be nearest to a due-north line, but not in any case to deviate to the eastward.1

tory.

The British Government, thinking that British Proposal for nothing could be accomplished by a new comDivision of Terri- mission and further surveys, unless the parties could previously agree as to what were "rivers falling into the Atlantic Ocean," now formally withdrew its offer to accept the compromise recommended by the King of the Netherlands, and proposed to divide the territory by taking the River St. John, from its intersection by the due-north line to its southernmost source, as the boundary."

The President declined this proposal, but United States' Pro- offered to solicit the consent of Maine to make posal of the St. the St. John from its source to its mouth the John. boundary. To this offer the British repre

S. Ex. Doc. 431, 25 Cong. 2 sess.

2 Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Davies, June 14, 1839, Adams's Writings of Gallatin, II. 546.

3 Br. and For. State Papers, XXII. 804, 812.

'Br. and For. State Papers, XXII. 818-820. Mr. Gallatin said that Mr. Livingston and Mr. McLane "sadly departed" from the true ground, "simply because they did not take the trouble to examine the question.” (Letter to Mr. Howard, Nov. 5, 1840, Adams's Writings of Gallatin, II. 549.) Br. and For. State Papers, XXII. 826, 857.

"Mr. Bankhead, British chargé, to Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, Dec. 28, 1835. (Br. and For. State Papers, XXIV. 1179.)

Br. and For. State Papers, XXII. 1184; XXV. 903; S. Ex. Doc. 319, 25 Cong. 2 sess.