List of settlers on the eastern section of Plymouth township, (Drew and Manson, proprietors,) showing the number of acres claimed by each under the 4th article of the treaty of Washington, and the value of improvements thereon.

In 1832 the valley of the Aroostook was an unbroken wilderness. The broad intervals and the gentle slopes along that river and its tributaries were covered with a heavy growth of pine, spruce and maple forests. The lands bordering upon the St. John's had already been stripped of the more valuable timber, and the attention of the lumbermen began to be directed to the tributary streams. Immediately prior to the rejection of the award of the king of the Netherlands, the principal scene of lumbering operations in that region was on the Tobique, a considerable stream, which flows into the St. John's from the east, about six miles below the mouth of the Aroostook.

Prior to the rejection of the award in 1832, the valley of the Aroostook, which had been assigned to the jurisdiction of the United States, remained free from the operations of the lumbermen; but when that fact became known, and the British claim of jurisdiction over that region was revived, these men, being British subjects, began to turn their attention to that rich and tempting field of operations. Settlers from the neighboring province began to make their way up the Aroostook, and to occupy and improve the lands on both banks of that river. Large lumbering operations were prosecuted at the same time; and, as appears from the evidence taken, between the time of the rejection of the award of the arbiter, in 1832, and the time of the forcible

occupancy of the territory by the authorities of Maine, in 1839, most of the valuable lumber for a considerable distance on each side of the river had been taken off, and the lands in the immediate vicinity of the river, for ten or fifteen miles from its mouth, were taken possession of and improved by the squatters. All obstructions to these proceedings were precluded by an arrangement between the two governments that neither should exercise jurisdiction over the territory in dispute. In a communication addressed to the British minister, dated July 21, 1832, the Secretary of State says:

"Until this matter [the negotiations in reference to the disputed line] be brought to a final conclusion, the necessity of refraining on both sides from any exercise of jurisdiction, beyond the boundaries now actually possessed, must be apparent, and will, no doubt, be acquiesced in on the part of his Britannic Majesty's provinces, as it will be by the United States.'

To this proposition the British minister responded, under date of April 14, 1833, that his "Majesty's government entirely concur with that of the United States in the principle of continuing to abstain, during the progress of the negotiation, from extending the exercise of jurisdiction within the disputed territory beyond the limits within which it has hitherto been usually exercised by the authorities of either party.'

This arrangement was substantially adhered to until the winter of 1839, when the authorities of Maine, becoming aroused at the extensive depredations which were being committed upon what they regarded as the valuable property of the State and its citizens, resolved to interpose the State sovereignty for the protection of its own rights and interests, regardless of the diplomatic understandings of the general government. They accordingly despatched an armed posse with instructions to arrest the lumbering depredations in the region of the Aroostook, and to assert and maintain the jurisdiction of the State over it, but not to interfere with the peaceable occupancy of actual settlers.

It appears from the testimony of D. O. Parkes, George Grantham, and M. Kean, who were on the ground at the time, and speak from personal observation, that these lands were well timbered, and that the timber was mostly cut and taken off between 1832 and 1839, during the period of suspension of jurisdiction. Their average estimate of the quantity of timber on the land at the commencement of the operations (1832) was 23 tons. Mr. Grantham thinks two-thirds of it was taken off between 1834 and 1839. The other witnesses state that most of it was taken during that period.

These statements and estimates are corroborated by Mr. l'attee, one of the State commissioners, and Mr. Hamlin, State land agent, and several others, whose affidavits are among the papers.

It is clear, from the whole testimony, that the quantity of timber taken during said period could not have been less than one ton per acre; and that the price actually paid for stumpage, at the time, was not less than one dollar and sixty cents per ton. The value of timber upon the stump, in that vicinity, at this time and for several years. past, is $4 56 per ton.

The quantity of land upon which this stumpage is claimed is 23,646 acres, for which it is understood that the proprietors are willing to accept one dollar per acre as full compensation, although that rate is more than fifty per cent. below the value, as stated by the witnesses whose testimony was taken.

The fifth article of the treaty would seem to indicate that some arrangement had existed between the two governments designed for the protection of this property. It is as follows:

"Art. 5. Whereas, in the course of the controversy respecting the disputed territory on the northeastern boundary, some moneys have been received by the authorities of her Britannic Majesty's province of New Brunswick, with the intention of preventing depredations on the forests of the said territory, which moneys were to be carried to a fund called "the disputed territory fund," the proceeds whereof, it was agreed, should be hereafter paid over to the parties interested, in the proportions to be determined by a final settlement of boundaries, it is hereby agreed that a correct account of all the receipts and payments on the said fund shall be delivered to the government of the United States," &c., to be paid over to the States of Maine and Massachusetts.

Wheter any money was received from the provincial government, under this article or not, does not appear from the papers or evidence submitted to me.

That this timber was lost to the proprietors during the suspension of the jurisdiction of the United States, and consequently of the State of Maine, over the territory in accordance with the diplomatic arrangement referred to, appears to be clearly shown; but whether the government is legally or equitably bound to remunerate its citizens for property lost under such circumstances is respectfully submitted. That the State of Maine withheld the exercise of her authority over the territory as a matter of courtesy to the general government, and not in submission to recognized authority, is apparent from the fact that she resumed the exercise of her jurisdiction in 1839, without the consent of the United States. But if such courtesy was exercised in deference to the known wishes of the general government, and the citizen was deprived of his property in consequence, was not the property of the citizen the consideration, by fair construction, paid for the forbearance which the interests of the United States required, and therefore taken for public use?

VARIATION OF BOUNDARY LINE.

A further claim is presented for indemnity for a quantity of land which was lost to the proprietors by the adoption in the treaty of Washington of a conventional line from the monument at the head of the St. Croix, bearing westward from the direct north line required by the treaty of 1783.

By the treaty of 1783 the boundary of the two countries was to be a line drawn from the source of the St. Croix "directly north" to the highlands. By the treaty of 1814 it was provided that commissioners should be appointed to ascertain and determine the points mentioned, &c.

The point to be regarded as the "head of the St. Croix" was fixed upon by the two governments in 1794, and a monument was erected. to mark the spot. The "direct north" line from that point was never surveyed and marked by the two governments, although some attempts were made for that object. In 1804, surveyors, under the direction and authority of the State of Massachusetts, run and marked a north line-up to which the State made sundry grants of land— which line corresponds very nearly with that run in 1840 by Major Graham, of the United States topographical engineers, and which is, without doubt, the true line of the treaty of 1783. The line adopted by the treaty of Washington of 1842 did not pretend to be the old treaty line, but a conventional line run and marked by an exploring party sent out by the joint commission appointed under the treaty of Ghent, but never claimed by either party as being the recognized treaty line.

The proposition to adopt this new line was made by Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster, in his letter, dated June 21, 1842, in which he proposes, "without at all doubting the accuracy of Major Graham's line, to adopt the "exploring line," as being better established and recognized. And to this proposition of the British minister Mr. Webster assented, notwithstanding the Maine commissioners remonstrated against it, in a letter addressed to Mr. Webster, dated July 16, 1842, in which they inform him that the proposed line would "cut off a portion of the grants made long before by Massachusetts; that it was well known not to be the true line; and that it would take from Maine a strip of territory nearly a mile wide where it crosses the St. John's, and diminishing in width until it came to a point at the monument. The quantity of land lost to individual proprietors by this change in the line is represented to be about ten thousand acres, for which indemnity is asked.

Diagrams of the towns, portions of which were thus cut off, with affidavits of surveyors of the number of acres lost, with some other testimony in relation thereto, has been exhibited, and are submitted with the papers in these cases.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

N. C. TOWLE,
Agent, &c.

It appears from the foregoing statement and from the evidence in the case, that the title to 8,434 acres of land in the Eaton grant and Plymouth township, was transferred from the private proprietors of the same to the settlers in possession, by the operation of the 4th article of the treaty of 1842. Private property having thus been taken for public considerations, the government is bound to make compensation. The value of the land the committee of the last session fixed, as the result of the testimony, at $4 per acre, including the timber and exclusive of improvement. The present committee regard that as a reasonable price, amounting to $33,736; and for the payment of that sum provision is made in first and second sections of the accompanying bill.

It further appears that valuable pine timber was taken from the

lands of the claimants between the years 1833 and 1839, while the owners were disabled from protecting their property, in consequence of an arrangement entered into between the United States and Great Britain. From public considerations connected with the peace of the country, their property was placed out of that protection of the laws which is the common right of all citizens, and their claim to be indemnified for resulting losses would seem to be well founded. The amount claimed under this head is $23,646, being at the rate of one dollar per acre. The proof in the case would indicate the justice of allowing a larger sum, but as the commissioner of Maine has expressed his willingness to acquiesce in that sum, the committee have adopted it, and provide for its payment in the third section of the bill. The testimony as to the extent and value of the lands belonging to individuals transferred to New Brunswick by the adoption of the conventional line is too indefinite to authorize the committee to propose measure of relief.

In conclusion, this committee, upon a careful re-examination of the case, concur in the opinion to which the committee of the last Congress arrived, and report the accompanying bill.

DANIEL CLARK.

APPENDIX.

MEMORIAL OF GEORGE M. WESTON.

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America:

This memorial of George M. Weston, commissioner from Maine, to present the claims of that State under the fourth article of the treaty of Washington, respectfully represents:

The fourth article of the treaty of Washington, concluded between the United States and Great Britain on the 9th of August, 1842, was in the following words:

"All grants of land heretofore made by either party, within the limits of the territory which by this treaty falls within the dominions of the other party, shall be held valid, ratified and confirmed to the persons in possession under such grants, to the same extent as if such territory had by this treaty fallen within the dominions of the party by whom such grants were made; and all equitable possessory claims arising from a possession and improvement of any lot or parcel of land by the person actually in possession, or by those under whom such person claims, for more than six years before the date of this treaty, shall. in like manner, be deemed valid, and be confirmed and quieted by a release, to the person entitled thereto, of the title to such lot or parcel of land, so described as best to include the improvements made thereon; and in all other respects the two contracting parties agree to deal upon the most liberal principles of equity with the settlers