Page images
PDF
EPUB

"Interrogatory by the Commissioners.

"In explanation of your answer to the 3rd Interrogatory proposed by the Agent on the part of the United States, do you know whether it was understood, intended or agreed, between the British and American Commissioners, that the River St. Croix as marked on Mitchell's map, should so be the boundary as to preclude all inquiry respecting any error or mistake in the said Map, in designating the River St. Croix? Or was there any, if so, what understanding, intent, or agreement, between the Commissioners relative to the case of error or mistake in the said Map?

"Answer. The case of such supposed error or mistake was not suggested, consequently, there was no understanding, intent, or agreement expressed respecting it."

Depositions of
Indians.

The Indians swore that there was a tradition that De Monts wintered in the Schoodiac, but erected a cross on the Magaguadavic, which alone had been called the St. Croix. This statement was substantially the same as that made by Indian chiefs to Mitchell in 1764. The British agent, after examining the affidavits presented by the agent of the United States, agreed to their being filed de bene esse, conceiving that they contained little or nothing material to the issue. As to the use of Mitchell's map by the plenipotentiaries who signed the treaty of peace, and their alleged understanding touching the river intended under the name of the St. Croix, the apprehensions created by Mr. Sullivan in the minds of the British commissioner and British agent were dispelled by the deposition of Mr. Adams, as well as by a letter from Mr. Jay, who wrote in the same sense as Mr. Adams testified.' Subsequently Mr. Jay made the following deposition:

"The answer of John Jay, who was one of Deposition of Jay. the American Commissioners, by whom the Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and the United States was negotiated, to the interrogatories put to him, at the instance of the Agent on the part of the United States, by the Board of Commissioners for ascertaining the River St. Croix, intended in and by the said Treaty.

"The said John Jay, having been duly sworn, answers and says, that, in the course of the said negotiations, difficulties arose respecting the eastern extent of The United States; that Mitchell's Map was before them, and was frequently consulted for geographical information; that in settling the eastern

Mr. Jay to Mr. Sullivan, July 28, 1797, Correspondence of John Jay, IV. 228.

a

boundary line (described in the Treaty), and of which the River St. Croix forms a part, it became a question which of the rivers in those parts was the true River St. Croix, it being said that several of them had that name; that they did finally agree, that the River St. Croix laid down in Mitchell's Map, was the River St. Croix which ought to form a part of the said boundary line. But whether that river was then so decidedly and permanently adopted, and agreed upon by the parties as conclusively to bind the two nations to that limit, even in case it should afterwards appear that Mitchell had been mistaken, and that the true River St. Croix was a different one from that which is delineated by that name on his Map, was a question or case which he does not recollect nor believe was then put or talked of.

"By whom in particular that Map was then produced, and what other Maps, Charts and Documents of State were then before the Commissioners at Paris, and whether the British Commissioners then produced or mentioned an Act of Parliament respecting the boundaries of Massachusetts, are circumstances which his recollection does not enable him to ascer tain. It seems to him that certain lines were marked on the copy of Mitchell's map, which was before them at Paris, but whether the Map mentioned in the Interrogatory as now produced, is that copy, or whether the lines said to appear in it are the same lines, he cannot without inspecting and examining it, undertake to judge.

"To the last interrogatory he answers, that for his own part he was of opinion, that the easterly boundaries of the United States ought, on principles of right and justice to be the same with the easterly boundaries of the late Colony or Province of Massachusetts.

"Although much was said and reasoned on the subject, yet he does not at this distance of time remember any particular and explicit declarations of the Parties to each other which would authorize him to say that the part of the said line (described in the Treaty) which is formed by the River St. Croix, was mutually and clearly conceived and admitted to be also a part of the eastern boundary line of Massachusetts.

"He doubts there having then been very clear conceptions relative to the just and precise easterly extent of Massachusetts; for he has reason to believe, that respectable opinions in America at that time considered the River St. John as the proper eastern limit of The United States.

"Sworn this 21st of May 1798 before me,

"JOHN JAY.

"EGBERT BENSON."

To complete the evidence of the American Letter of Franklin. commissioners of 1783, we print the following letter from Franklin to Jefferson:

"PHILADELPHIA, April 8th, 1790. "SIR: I received your letter of the 31st 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, & which may indicate the true river the commissioners on both sides had in view, to establish the boundary between the two nations. Your letter found me under a severe fit of malady, which prevented my answering it sooner, or attending indeed to any kind of business. I can 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 20 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 that 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 still further lights from him. That the map we used was Mitchell's map, Congress were acquainted at the time by a letter to their Secretary for Foreign Affairs, which I suppose may be found upon their files.1 "I have the honor to be with the greatest esteem and respect, Sir, Your most obedient & most humble servt

"Hon. T. JEFFERSON,

"Sec. of State."

"B. FRANKLIN.

1 The letter referred to by Franklin as that by which Congress was acquainted that the plenipotentiaries used Mitchell's map is a letter sent by Adams, Franklin, and Jay to Livingston, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, December 14, 1782, in which they say: "The map used in the course of our negotiations was Mitchell's." (Wharton's Dip. Cor. Am. Rev. VI. 133.) Mr. Sullivan, in a letter to Judge Parsons, referring to the depositions of Adams and Jay, said: "Mr. Adams and Mr. Jay testify that they were governed by Mitchell's map, but add (strangely) that the bounds of the charter of Massachusetts were intended, when in fact the charter of 1692 (sic) was bounded on the gulf and river St. Lawrence. All Nova Scotia was, by the charter of William and Mary, a part of Massachusetts, and separated from it after the Treaty of Ryswick, in 1700, or about that time. The letters and papers were mentioned and produced. There have great difficulties resulted from that expression in these testimonies." (Amory's Life of Sullivan, I. 328.)

Arguments and Documentary Proofs.

While the commissioners were at Boston the agents, besides submitting arguments, filed numerous documentary proofs. Among the documents presented by the agent of the United States was a copy of Mitchell's map found in the office of the Secretary of State of the United States, which was said to be the copy used by the American plenipotentiaries at Paris and on which the boundary was marked with a pen or pencil. Among the documents presented by the British agent were extracts from Champlain and facsimiles of his maps. The American agent objected to receiving these extracts and facsimiles, and demanded the production of the originals.'

Incompleteness of
Surveys.

Marking of the St.
Croix's Source.

After a session of several weeks the commissioners adjourned to meet at Providence, Rhode Island, on the first Monday in June 1798. The reason for this adjournment was the fact that, owing to unfavorable weather, the surveyors and astronomers had been unable to complete their labors, and were still at work. It was agreed that as soon as the surveys were completed a general map of all the rivers and of Passamaquoddy Bay should be made by the surveyor-general of New Bruns wick, and that a copy of it should be delivered to each of the agents to enable them to perfect their arguments and replies.2 It has been seen that the treaty required the commissioners in their final declaration to particularize the latitude and longitude both of the source and the mouth of the river which should be decided to be the St. Croix. Owing to the delays in the field work the commissioners while at Boston advised the agents to recommend it to their governments to dispense with the ascertainment of the latitude and longitude of the source. They conceived that if the latitude and longitude of the mouth were ascertained, "a minute description of the courses and distances from thence to its source would completely answer every purpose intended and identify the source beyond the possibility of future doubt." In accordance with this view instructions were sent to Mr. King, the minister of the United States at London, who on the 15th of March 1798 concluded

3

'Rives's Correspondence of Thomas Barclay, 76.

2 Id. 75.

3 Mr. Barclay to Mr. Liston, May 2, 1798, Rives's Correspondence of Thomas Barclay, 80.

with Lord Grenville an "explanatory article" by which it was agreed that the commissioners, instead of particularizing the latitude and longitude of the source, might describe the river in such other manner as they might judge expedient; and it was also agreed that, as soon as might be after the decision of the commissioners was rendered, the two governments should concert measures to erect and keep in repair a suitable monument at the place ascertained and described to be the source of the River St. Croix.'

dence.

Notwithstanding the conclusion of this conMeeting of the Com- vention, the surveys which still remained to mission at Provi- be executed were not completed in time for the reassembling of the commissioners in June. This circumstance induced Mr. Sullivan to apply for a postponement, and the meeting at Providence was finally deferred till September. On the 22d of that month the arguments of the agents, which were exceedingly voluminous, were closed, but the maps compiled from the surveys by the surveyorgeneral of New Brunswick did not reach Providence till the 15th of October. On that day the commissioners entered upon the consideration of their decision, which was rendered on the 26th of October.2

The grounds of the decision are fully disQuestions Discussed. closed in statements of the commissioners, as well as in the correspondence and arguments of the agents. There were four questions, more or less distinct, which it was necessary to consider. These were: (1) The intention of the framers of the treaty of peace; (2) the historical River St. Croix; (3) the boundaries of Nova Scotia; (4) the fulfillment of the conditions of the treaty of peace, with which the River St. Croix was connected.

Intention of the
Treaty of Peace.

(1) As to the intention of the framers of the treaty of peace, nothing decisive was ascertained. It has already been seen that the depositions of Messrs. Adams and Jay, and the letter of Franklin to Jefferson, contained nothing conclusive. It was stated, and was not denied, that Mitchell's map was used by the negotiators; but the answer of Adams and of Jay to the question whether the River St. Croix as marked on that map

Am. State Papers, For. Rel. II. 183-185; Treaties and Conventions of the United States, 1776-1887, p. 396.

2 Rives's Correspondence of Thomas Barclay, 94.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »