The Sun.
London, England, 1842-10-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, OCTOBER 5, 1842.

vernment to render their attempts futile and abortive,
and to put down such evil-doers with a strong hand ;
and I would, in conclusion, further suggest that the
effectual, and only effectual, method of counteracting
the attempts of wicked and designing men to undermine
the principles of the lower classes, and t9,kender them
discontented with the established institutions
of their country, is the diffusion of 'sound religious
knowledge (in which there can be no excess)
amongst those classes who are the most ex-
posed to their attempts, and the educating
their children in the fear of God, so that all may be
taught that obedience to the law of the land and to
the Government of the country is due, not as a matter
of compulsion, but of principle and confidence. Gen-
tlemen, her Majesty's Judges will be happy to render
you any assistance in the performance of your duty,
if any difficulty should arise.
The Counsel retained for the Crown are Sir W.
Follett (Solicitor-General), Mr. Sergeant Ludlow,
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, Mr. Godson, Mr. Waddington,
and Mr. Talbot.
•At the time of writing there are eight bills before
the Grand Jury, but not any as vet brought into
Court. The bill for treason against Ellis has not yet
been presented. The first case to be tried will-be
that against the men charged with setting fire to Dr.
Vale's house at Hanley. It is expected to come on
this afternoon, and, next to the charge against Ellis,
is considered the most important of the special assizes.
It will occupy several hours.
Although there are large bodies of troops, both
cavalry and infantry, in the vicinity, there appears to
be little likelihood of their services being called into
requisition, the town and adjoining district being
perfectly tranquil, and the only bustle observable in
the town is occasioned by the holding of the cattle
fair, which has brought a larger number of the
peasantry than ordinary into the borough.

THE BOUNDARY LINE.
(Concluded from The Snn of yesterday.)
LORD ASHBURTON TO MR. MWISTER.

Washington, July 11, 1842.
SIR-I lose no time in acknowledging the receipt
of the note you did me the honour of addressing me
on the Bth instant, and I beg, in the first place, to say
that I am duly sensible of the assurance you give me
that the President has been pleased to appreciate the
motive which induced my present mission, and much
flattered by your recognition of the candour and frank-
ness which have hitherto marked our intercourse.
I had hoped that we had.escaped by mutual consent
from a return to the endless and fruitless argument on
the general question of the rights of our respective
Governments. in the matter of the north-eastern
boundary.
It seemed to me to have been decided by so many
high and competent authorities, that the precise geo-
graphical point so long looked for was not to be found,
that it necessarily followed that any hope of settle-
ment must rest upon an amicable compromise.
The arrival here of the Commissioners from Maine
and Massachusets, and the admitted disposition of the
two Governments, have given the public a very general
expectation that this compromise might at last be
effected ; and I hope you will excuse my expressing
my regret that the note now before me, and the paper
from the gentlemen from Maine, addressed to you,
which accompanied it, should have contained so much
of a renewal of the old controversy, and should not
have been confined to the simple question whether we
could or could not agree to terms of settlement. If
the observations contained in my note of the 13th
ult. have given rise to these consequences, I much
regret it, and I would now pass over all these more
than useless discussions, and proceed at once to notice
the proposal you make, if I were not apprehensive
that my so doing might be construed into some want
of respect for the parties from whom these observa-
tions have proceeded.
I will, however, endeavour to bring within a nar-
row compass what I have to say on the subject, and
the more so, because, with all deference to you, Sir,
I may add, that there is little in these arguments that
is new, or that has not been often advanced and re-
futed during the many past years of controversy.
I should except from this want of novelty the posi-
tion, one; entirely new, advanecxepdrebssy
tChoemthminisg-
Nsioonvearssefortoima,
wAhlaicihnei,s,tashaty,tohue north-west angle
to be sought for and found," was the
f
Madawaska river, which river, it is maintained by a
long argument, supported by authorities and maps,
was always considered as the real St. John, and this
is stated to justify the opinion expressed by the old
Congress, in 1799, that this north-west angle was at
the source of the St. John. _ _ _

Giving all possible consideration to this apparently
new discovery,- I cannot say that it appears well
founded. Looking at Mitchell's map, the use of which,
by the negotiators of the peace of 1783, has been al-
ways so much relied upon on the part of America,
there is nothing more clearly marked than the great
distinct channel of the upper St. John, and it seems
hardly possible that the negotiators or the Congress
should have made the supposed mistake.
But supposing this hypothesis were well founded,
the Temiscouata Lake is, then, to be now this long
lost angle of Nova Scotia. What becomes, then, of
the point so long contended for by Maine, between
the Metis and one of the tributaries of the Resti-
gouche ? These points must be about fifty miles
apart. Both cannot be true ; and if it be maintained,
as I rather collect it to be, from the paper of the
Maine Commissioners, that the point at the Metis is
the true boundary, as being the point stricken by the
north line, though the other be the true north-west
angle of Nova Scotia, there is at least an end of the
whole argument, resting upon this north-west angle,
being, as stated by you, " the thing to be sought for
and found."

If this new discovery leads us to no other inference,
we can hardly fail to derive from it the conviction
that all the ingenuity applied to unravel this mystery
leaves us equally in the dark ; and that it is not with-
out reason that it has been decided by so many per-
sons, after careful examination, that this boundary is
not susceptible of settlement according to the precise
words of the treaty.
This decision has been come to by Mr. Madison in
1802, by Mr. Jefferson in 1803, by Judge Sullivan
about the same time, by the arbiter in 1831, and it
has been acted on by nearly every Secretary of State of
the United States during the controversy from that
time to this ; for although in a case of dispute each
party during the dispute endeavours to hold his own,
I am not aware that any Secretary a State, or any
President of the United States, has ever treated this
subject otherwise than as one attended by that degree
of uncertainty that it could only be solved by an ar-
biter, or by a compromise. I would appeal to your
candour, Sir, to say whether, at this time, and under
these circumstances, it is fair to speak of this disputed
territory as belonging indisputably to one party, and
to be yielded by way of concession, and for equiva-
lents, to the other. Any convention I may sign must
be for a division of that which is in doubt or dispute ;
with any arrangement between the State of Maine
and the general Government I have nothing to do ;
and if, which God forbid, our endeavours at an ami-
cable compromise should at last fail, I must hold that
Great Britain retains her right, at least equal to the
United States, to every part of the territory in dis-
pute, until by a renewed reference, or by the skill of
some more fortunate negotiator, this difference may be
brought to a close.
I have now only to add a few observations upon the
arguments contained in your own note.
Some stress is laid upon the fact that the joint
Commissioners of the two Governments, in 1817,
directed the surveyors to run the north line from the
St. Croix, until it met water running into the St.
Lawrence. The lines to be run were to ascertain the
exetent first instance, a line
9litimed by either
geographical facts of the case. No proceeding could
be more proper. The claims of the two parties varied, i
sahnoduiltdNbveasrnuantunroarlth to t
that, inhe the
party ; where that line would reach, or what high-
lands or streams it might strike, Was unknown ; so
much so, that Mr. Gallatin, in his letter from Ghent,
mentioned in my note of the 13th ult., expressed his
doubts on this subject. His predietiou turned out to
be true. The point where the line strikes the Metis
was a point not fulfilling the words of the treaty. It
did not divide the waters as desired, unless the Bay of
Chaleurs and the Gulf of St. Lawrence are considered
to answer to the description of the Atlantic Ocean.
Mr. Gallatin was sensible of this, and intimates that
if this fact created doubt, the lands about the Resti-
gouche might be given up ; but he forgets, that in
giving up this territory, he gives up his argument;
for he maintains, in opposition to the British line of
boundary, that it does not continuously, and in all its
parts, divide the waters, as required by the treaty.
The American line was in this equally deficient, and
it is useless, therefore, now to consider whether it
would have been preferable to the British line, if it
had divided the waters of the St. Lawrence from those
of the St, John.

. .
To make even a plausible •case for the America*,
line, both the St. John's and the Restigouche m
-P.st be
held to be rivers emptying into the Atlantie
ocean.
.4
The Royal arbiter says it would be b 7
class them. I believe that whatevc.:e zardous so to
argument might
be made in the case of the St, -•, argument connected with
the distinctions with wh_;:cin it was mentioned, in the
treaty, to consi,ler the Restigouche as flowing into
the Atlantic ocean would be more than hazardous—
it would be most absurd. At all events, I would
submit tO ;you that no inference could be drawn from
trig Ontranissioners in 1817 having ordered a north
lino to be run ; the same Commissioners, after drawing
the line, having disagreed as to any conclusions from it.
I am rather surprised that an inspection of the
map should lead us to such different views of the
course of the rivers and of the coast as stated by yon.
I find that the upper St. John's and the Restigouche,
so far from cutting at right angles the parallel lines
of the coast and the St. Lawrence, as you say, run in
their main course nearly parallel with them. I am

1, not aware that the last is important,although it seems
connected with your argument.
My inspection of these maps, and my examination
of the documents, lead me to a very strong conviction
that the highlands contemplated by the negotiators of
the treaty, were the only highlands then known to
them, at the head of the Penobscot, Kennebec, and
the rivers west of the St. Croix ; and that they did
not precisely know how the north line from the St.
Croix would strike them ; and if it were not ra y wish
to shorten the discussion, I believe a very goodargu-
ment might be drawn from the words of the treaty in
proof of this. In the negotiations with Mr. Living-
ston, and afterwards with Mr. M‘Lane, this view
seemed to prevail ; and, as you are aware, there were
proposals to search for these highlands to the west,
where alone I believe they will be found to answer
perfectly the description of the treaty. If this ques-
tion should unfortunately go to a farther reference, I
should by no means despair of finding some confirma-
tion of this view of the case.
I shall now, Sir, close what I have to say on the
controversial part of this question. I should not have
treated of it at all but from respect to the gentlemen
from Maine, whose arguments you conveyed to me;
and I shall certainly not renew it unless called upon
by you to do so. Our immediate business is with
the compromise of what is not otherwise to be set-
tled • and argument and controversy, far from assist-
ing ;hat end, have ever generally a tendency to irri-
tate and excite.

Referring, then, to our more immediate subject of
a line by agreement, I deeply regret, on reading your
observations and proposals, that we are yet so far
asunder. I always thought this part of our duty
better performed by conference than by correspond-
ence, unless, indeed, we had the misfortune not to be
able ultimately to agree, in which case it would cer-
tainly be necessary that our two countries should see
clearly on paper how nearly we had approached to
each other ; and on whom the blame at last rested of
leaving unsettled a question involving such serious
consequences. I would still recommend this course
of personal discussion and conference, but, in the
meantime, I proceed to consider the proposals and ob-
servations contained in your note.
It is sufficiently explained in my plan for a settle-
ment, why I was anxious not to divide in two parts,
by any new line of boundary, the Madawaska settle-
ments ; and I am sorry to say that the information I
have since received, both as to local circumstances and
the anxiety of the people themselves, tends strongly to
confirm my impressions. At the same time, you will
have seen that I was sensible that some good reason
should be assigned why we should not be satisfied with
what you justly term the otherwise perfect boundary
of the St. Johns.

In your reply you recognise the difficulties of the
case, and do justice to our motives, but you state dis-
tinctly, on the part of your Government, that you
can consent to no line which should bring us over the
St. John without some equivalent of territory to be
found out of the limits of that part which is in dis-
pute ; and you refer more particularly to a certain
narrow strip lying between the north line and the
river. This strip I have no power to give up ; and I
beg to add, that the refusal of my Government is
founded simply on their objection to dispose arbitra-
rily of the persons and property of her Majesty's sub-
jects, living by preference under her authority ; an
objection which, you are aware, applies with peculiar
force to the inhabitants of this part of New Brunswick.
I had hoped that the other equivalents which I had
offered, combined with the sense entertained by the
Government of the United States of the pressing im-
portance of the case on the ground of humanity,
would have been sufficient for the purpose I so anxi-
ously desired ; but perceiving, from your note, as
well as from personal conversation, that concession
upon this point is insisted upon, I might be disposed
to consider whether my anxious desire to arrive at a
friendly settlement would not justify me in yielding,
however reluctantly, if the latter part of your propo-
sal did not, if finally persevered in, forbid all hope of
any settlement whatever.

"The boundary you propose, supposing the British
territory not to come over the St. John, is to run from
the north side of that river, three miles above its
junction with the Madawaska, over an arbitrary line,
which my map does not exactly permit me to follow,
until it reaches, somewhere, the St. Francis. I need
not examine this line in its precise details, because I
am obliged frankly to state that it is inadmissible. I
think I might, Sir, appeal to your candid judgment
to say whether this is a proposition of conciliation—
whether, after all the antecedent discussions on this
subject, it could be reasonably expected that, whatever
might be the anxiety of my Government for a friendly
settlement, I could be found with power to accede to
such terms. I need not observe to you that this would
give to great Britain less than the award of the arbi-
ter, while at the same time she would be called upon
to give up what that arbiter awarded her, and if I
do not mistake you, the floatage of the lumber of Maine
down the St. John is also expected to be surrendered.
I must beg to say that I am quite at a loss to ac-
count for such a proposal. Your own principle of
maintaining the great river as the best boundary, is
abandoned—an arbitrary line is drawn which nobody
ever suspected before, and I can only suppose this
course to be dictated by that general assumption that,
notwithstanding all former admissions and decisions
to the contrary, this territory said to be in dispute, in
truth belongs to one party to be doled out as a favour
to the other ; an assumption that cannot for a moment
be admitted, and which you, Sir, with the records of
your office before you, will hardly maintain.
The position in which this negotiation now stands
seems to prove what I have before ventured to ad-
vance, that it would have a better chance of success
by conference than by correspondence ; at all events,
that we should soon arrive at ascertaining what we
can or cannot do. Slow, unnecessarily slow, our pro-
gress has hitherto been, and the public seems some-
how or other to have become informed that there are
differences. I hope that when we come to discuss
them, they will prove less serious than they are sup-
posed to be, but it is very desirable that doubts and
distrusts should be set at rest, and that public credit
and the transactions of commerce should suffer the
least possible disturbance. For although, should this
negotiation unfortunately fail, it will be our duty im-
mediately to place it in some new course of further
reference, it is not to be disguised that such a result
must be productive of considerable public anxiety and
disappointment.
What I have said in relation to the Madawaska
settlements will, I trust, sufficiently prove my disposi-
tion to approach such a discussion with the true spirit
of conciliation, and I trust that you will permit me
to express a hope that it will be met with a correspond-
ing feeling.
Before concluding, I wish to add a few words re-
specting the line of the St. John's to one of its sources,
and the navigation for certain purposes of that river.
It may be true that the district between the St. John's
and the highlands west of the St. Francis, may be of
some extent, but your own surveyors will confirm to
you that it is of very little value either for cultivation
or for timber. Is it reasonable that in the division of
an object in dispute, its intrinsic value should be only
disregarded, and its extent alone considered ?
I would farther suggest for your consideration
whether, supposing the division of the King of the
Netherlands to be admitted to supply fairly the
equity of the case between the parties, what is pro-
posed to be added to Great Britain, viz., the strip on
the 45th parallel of latitude, and the use of the navi-
gation of the St. John, be not an ample compensation
for what we ask in return, viz., that barren strip
above the upper St. John, which is wanted for no
other phrpose than as a boundary, for which purpose
it is admitted on all sides to be most convenient.
The right to use the St. John for floating down the
lumber of Maine on the same terms as the river is
used by the Queen's subjects, is now treated as a
matter of light importance. This is not uncommon
when a concession of any kind is about to be yielded,
but I beg to remind you that this was not formerly
so considered. It has been repeatedly solicited and
invariably refused, and no Minister of Great Britain
has before been permitted to connect this concession
with the settlement of the boundary.
It is considered by my Government as a very im-
portant concession. I am sure that it must be con-
sidered by all persons in Maine connected with the
lumber trade as not only valuable, but indispensable,
and I am compelled to add, that I am empowered to
allow this privilege only in the event of a settlement
of the boundary on satisfactory terms. It is said in
the memorandum of the Maine Commissioners that
this conceded navigation will be as useful to the town
of St. John's as to the -lutelJerers of Maine, but it
will not escape you that even if this be so, it is a
concession necessary 'to 'give any value whatever to
so bulky an arti'...ie as lumber, which being not
otherwise dispe,sable, would bear any reasonable toll
which the Provincial authorities of New Brunswick
might th:ink it expedient to levy upon it. Farther,
it should not be forgotten that the timber, once at
mouth of the St. John's, will have the privilege of
reaching the British as well as other markets, and
lastly, that it is a very different thing to held a privi-
lege of this important description by right or by mere
sufferance, to be granted or withheld at pleasure.
I have to apologise for entering into these details in
treating of the great question with which we are oc-
cupied, but they seem called for by observations in
the paper you sent me.
I beg, Sir, you will be assured of my unfeigned
and distinguished consideration. ASHBURTON.
Hon. Daniel Webster, &c., &C., &C.
LORD ASIIBURTON TO MR. 'WEBSTER.
Washington, July 16, 1842.
SlR—There is a further question of disputed
boundary between Great Britain and the United
States, called the north-west boundary, about which
we have had some conferences ; and I now proceed
to state the terms which I am ready to agree to for
the settlement of this difference.
As the principal object in dispute is to be given up
by Great Britain, I trust, Sir, that you will here

again recognise the spirit of friendly conciliation
which has guided my Government in disposing of
these questions.
I have already sufficiently discussed with you the
boundaries between her Majesty's provinces and the
United States, from the monument at the head of the
river of St. Croix, to the monument on the river St.
Lawrence, near the village of St. Regis.
The Com Missioners under the sixth article of the
treaty of Ghentsucceeded in continuing this boundary
from St. Regis, through the St. Lawrence and the
great northern lakes, up to a point in the channel be-
tween Lake Huron and Lake Superior.
A further, continuation of this boundary, from this
point through Lake Superior to the Lake of the
Woods, was confided to the same Commission, under
the seventh article of the treaty of Ghent, but they
were unfortunately unable to agree, and have con-
sequently left this portion of the boundary undeter-
mined. Its final settlement has been much desired
by both Governments, and urgently pressed by com-
munications from Mr. Secretary Forsyth to Mr. Fox,
in 1 t 39 and 1840.
What I have now to propose cannot, I feel assured,
be otherwise than satisfactory for this purpose.
The Commissioners who failed in their endeavours
to make this settlement differed on two points :
First, as to the appropriation of an island called
St. George's Island, lying in the water communication
between Lake Huron and Lake Superior. And,
Secondly, as to the boundary through the water
communications from Lake Superior to the Lake of
the Woods.

The first point I am ready to give up to you, and
you are no doubt aware that it is the only object of
any real value in this controversy. The Island of
St. George is reputed to contain 25,920 acres of
very fertile land ; but the other things connected with
these boundaries being satisfactorily arranged, a line
shall be drawn so as to throw this island within the
limits of the United States.

In considering the second point, it really appears
of little importance to either party how the line be
determined through the wild country between Lake
Superior and the Lake of the Woods, but it is im-
portant that some line should be fixed and known.
The American Commissioner asked for the line
from Lake Superior up the River Kamarastaquid to
the lake called Dog Lake, which he supposed to be
the same as that called Long Lake in the treaties,
thence through Sturgeon Lake to the Lac la Pluie,
to that point where the two lines assumed by the
Commissioners again met.
The British Commissioner, on the other hand, con-
tended for a line from the south-western extremity,
at a point called Le Fond du Lac to the middle of the
mouth of the estuary or Lake of St. Louis River,
thence up that river, through Vermilion River, to
Lac la Pluie.

Attempts were made to compromise these diffe-
rences, but they failed ; apparently more from neither
party being willing to give up the Island of St.
George, than from much importance being attached
to any other part of the case. Upon the line from
Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods, both Com-
missioners agree to abandon their respective claims,
and to adopt a middle course, for which the American
Commissioner admitted that there was some ground
of preference.

This was from Pigeon River, a point between Ka-
marastaquid and the Fond du Lac ; and although
there were differences as to the precise point near the
mouth of Pigeon River where the line should begin,
neither party seem to have attached much importance
to this part of the subject.
I would propose that the line be taken from a point
about six miles south of Pigeon River, where the
Grand Portage commences on the lake, and continued
along the line of the said Portage alternately by land
and water to Lac la Pluie—the existing route by land
and water remaining common to both parties. This
line has the advantage of being known and attended
with no doubt or uncertainty in running it.
In making the important concession on this boun-
dary, of the Isle of St. George, I must attach a con-
dition to it of accommodation, which experience has
proved to be necessary in the navigation of the great
waters which bound the two countries—an accommo-
dation which can, I apprehend, be no possible incon-
venience to either.

This was asked by the British Commissioner, in
the course of the attempts at compromise above
alluded to; but nothing was done because he was not
then prepared, as I am now, to yield the property and
sovereignty of St. George's Island.
The first of these two cases is at the head of Lake
St. Clair, where the river of that name empties into it
from Lake Huron.

It is represented that the channel bordering the
United States' coast in this part is not only the best
for navigation, but, with some winds, is the only ser-
viceable passage.
I do not know that under such circumstances the
passage of a British vessel would be refused; but on
a final settlement of boundaries it is desirable to sti-
pulate for what the Commissioners would probably
have settled had the facts been known to them.

The other case, of nearly the same description,
occurs on the St. Lawrence, some miles above the
boundary at St. Regis.
In distributing the islands of the river by the Com-
missioners, Barnhart's Island and the Long Sault
Islands were assigned to America. This part of the
river has very formidable rapids, and the only safe
passage is on the southern or American side, between
those islands and the main land. We want a clause
in our present treaty to say that for a short distance,
viz. from the upper end of Upper Long Sault Island
to the lower end of Barnhart's Island, the several
channel& of the river shall be used in common by the.
boatmen of the two countries.

I am not aware that these very reasonable demands
are likely to meet with any objection, especially when
the United States will have surrendered to them all
that is essential in the boundary I have now to pro-
pose to you.
I beg you will be assure, Sir, of my unfeigned and
distinguished consideratic,n. ASHB RION.
Hon. Daniel Webster, &c. &c.