The Sun.
London, England, 1842-10-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 3, 1842.

THE BOUNDARY L
The New York papers received last night con-
tain the whole of the correspondence between
Lord Ashburton and Mr. Webster. It extends
to great length, but will be read with interest.
The following letters will enable our readers to
judge of the manner in which Lord Ashburton
opened the negotiations, and the proposals made
on both sides for settling the long-disputed ques-
tion of the Boundary Line

LORD ASIIBURTON TO MR. WEBSTER.
Washington, June 13, 1842.
SIR —On considering the most effectual mode of
proceeding to arrive at an amicable and satisfactory
termination of the long-continued controversy respect-
ing the north-eastern boundary, between the British
colony of New Brunswick and the State of Maine, I
believe that I may confidently conclude, from what has
passed in the preliminary conference which I have
had the honour of holding with you, that we concur
in the opinion that no advantage would be gained by
resorting to the interminable discussion on the gene,
ral ground on which each party consider their claims
respectively to rest.
In the course of the many years that this discussion
has lasted, every argument, on either side, is appa-
rently exhausted, and that without any approach to
an agreement. The present attempt, therefore, of a
settlement, must rest, for its success, not on the re-
newal of a controversy, but on proceeding on a pre•
sumption that all means of a reciprocal conviction
having failed, as also the experiment of calling in the
aid of a friendly arbiter and umpire, there remains
only the alternative of a compromise for the solution
of this otherwise apparently insurmountably diffi-
culty, unless, indeed, it were determined to try a
second arbitration, attended by its delay, trouble, and
expense, in defiance of past experience as to the pro-
bability of any more satisfactory results.
It is undoubtedly true that, should our present at-
tempt unfortunately fail, there might remain no other
alternative but a second reference, yet when I con-
sider all the difficulty and uncertainty attending it, I
trust that all parties will come to the conclusion that
the very intricate details connected with the case must
be better known and judged by our two Governments
than any diligence can make them to be by any third
party, and that a sincere, candid disposition to give
reciprocally fair weight to the arguments on either
side is likely.to lead us to a more satisfactory settle-
ment than an engagement to abide by the uncertain
award of a less competent tribunal.
The very friendly and cordial reception given by
you, Sir, as well as by all the authorities of your Go •
vernment, to the assurance that my mission here, by
my Sovereign, has been determined by an unfeigned
desire to settle this and all other questions between us
on principles of conciliation and justice, forbids me to
anticipate the possibility of the failure of our endea-
vours applied with sincerity to this purpose.
With this view of the case, therefore, although not'
unprepared to enter into the general arguinent, I ab-
stain from doing so from the convictton that an amica-
ble settlement of this vexed question, so generally de-
sired, will be thereby best promoted. But, at the
same time, some opinions have been industriously cir-
culated throughout this controversy, and in some in-
stances by persons in authority, of a description so
much calculated to mislead the public mind, that I
think it may be of service to offer a few observations. •.

Ido not, of course, complain of the earnest adhe-
rence of partizans on either side to the general argu-
ments on which their case is supposed to rest ; but a
position has been taken, and facts have been -re-
peatedly stated, which I am sure the authorities of
the Federal Government will. be abundantly able to
contradict, but which have evidently given rise to
much public misapprehension. It is maintained that
the whole of this controversy about the boundary be-
gan in 1814; that up to that period the line as claimed
by Maine was undisputed by Great Britain, and that
the claim was avowedly founded on motives of 'inte-
rest, to obtain the means of conveniently connecting
the British provinces. I confine these remarks to the
refuting this imputation,
,and I should, indeed, not
have entered upon'the ;Ontroversy, even on this, if it
did not appear to itivolye,ni some degree a question of
national sincerity and good faith.
The assertion-.islfounded orr-; the discussions which
preceded the treaty of peace signed at. Ghent in 1814.
It is perfectly true that a proposal was. submitted by
the British Plenipotentiaries,-fOr the 'revision .of the
boundary line on the north-eastern frontier, and that
it was founded on the position that it was desired to
secure the communication between the provinces, the
precise delineation of which was at that time imper-
fectly known. The American Plenipotentiaries, in
their first communication from Ghent to the Secre-
tary of State, admit that the British Ministers dis-
claimed any intention of acquiring an increase of
territory, and that they proposed the revision for the
purpose of preventing uncertainty and disput&-.a pur-
pose sufficiently justified by subsequent events.
Again, in their note of the 4th of September, 1814,
the British Ministers remind thoae from America that
the boundary line has never been ascertained, and
that the line claimed by America, which interrupted
the communication • between Halifax and Quebec,a
never could have been in the contemplation of the par-
ties to the treaty...Joeace. in 1783. .
The same view of the case „will he found to pervade
all the communications between the- Plenipotentiaries
of the two countries at Ghent. There was no attempt
to:press any cession of , territory on the ground of
policy or expedience ; but though the precise geo-
graphy of the country- was then imperfectly known,
it 'was notorious at' the time that different opinions
existed as to the boundary likely to result from con-
tinuing the north line from the head of the. river St.
Croix. This appears to have been so clearly known
and admitted by the American Plenipotentiaries, that
they, in submitting to the conference the project of a
treaty, offer a preamble to their fourth article in these
words :—" Whereas neither that part of the highlands
lying due north from the source of the river St. Croix,
and designated in the former treaty of peace between
the two Powers, as the north-west angle of Nova
Scotia nor the north-westernmost bead of Connec-
ticutriver has yet been ascertained," &c.
It should here be observed that these are the words
proposed, not by the British, but by the American
negotiators, and that they were finally adopted by both
in the sth article of the treaty.
To close my observations upon what passed on this
subject at Ghent, I would draw your attention to the
letter of Mr. Gallatin, one of the American Plenipo-
tentiaries, to Mr. ecretary Monroe, on the 25th
December, 1814.
He offers the following conjecture as to what might
probably be the arguments of Great Britain against
the line set up by America :—" They hope that the
river which empties into the Bay de Chaleurs in the
Gulph of St. Lawrence, has its source so far west as
to intervene between the head waters of the river St.

John's and those of the streams emptying into the
river St. Lawrence ; so that the line north from the
river St. Croix will first strike the heightS of land
wiiich divide the waters emptying into the Atlantic
ocean (river St. John's) from those emptying into the
Gulf of St. Lawrence (river de Chaleurs), and after-
wards the heights of land which divide the waters
emptying into the Gulf of St. Lawrence (river de
Chaleurs) from those emptying into the river St.
Lawrence ; but that the said line never can, in the
words of the treaty, strike any spot of land actually
dividing the waters emptying into the Atlantic ocean
from those which empty into the river St. Lawrence."
So obvious an argument in opposition to the line
claimed by America could not escape the known sa-
gacity of Mr. Gallatin. I state it not for the pur-
pose of discussing its merit, but to show that at Ghent,
not only the fact was well known that this boundary
was a matter in dispute, but that the argument re.
specting it had been weighed by the gentlemen so
eminent in its subsequent discussion.
Indeed, the fact that the American Ministers made
the disputed question a matter for reference, by a
treaty afterwards ratified by the President and Senate,
must to every candid mind be sufficient proof that it
was generally considered to be involved in sufficient
doubt to entitle it to such a mode of solution. It
cannot, possibly, be supposed that the President and
Senate would have admitted, by treaty, doubts re-
specting this boundary, if they had been heard of for
the first time through the pretensions of the British
Plenipotentiaries at Ghent.
If the argument or assertions which 1,1 am now
noticing, and to which I studiously confine myself,
had not come from authority, I should, owe some
apology for these observations. The history of this
important.controversy is too well known to you, Sir,
and stands but too voluminously recorded in your
department, to make them nwessary for your own
information.
The repeated discussions between the two coun-
tries, and the repeated projects for settlement which
have occupied every succeeding Administration of the
United States, sufficiently prove how unfounded is
the assertion that the doubts and difficulties respect-
ing this boundary had their first origin in the year
1814. It is true that down to that time, and indeed
to a later period, the local features of the country
were littlo known, and the different arguments had '
in consequence not assumed any definite form, but
sufficient was known to ,both parties to satisfy them
of the impossibility of tracing strictly the boundary
prescribed by the treaty of peace in 1783. I would
refer, in proof of this, simply to American authorities,
and those of the very first order.
In the year 1802, Mr. Mansion, at that time Secre-
tary of State for the United States, in his instructions
to Mr. Rufus King, observed that the difficulty in fix-
ing the north-west angle of Nova Scotia " arises from
a reference in the treaty of 1783 to highlands which
it is now found have no definite existence, And he
suggests the fippgintrnPPt of a Commission, to be
jointly appointed, " to determine on he pint most
proper
.to be substituted for the description in article
11 of the treaty in 1783." Again, Mr. President Jef-
ferson, in a message to Congress on the 17th of Octo •

ber, 1803,stated that a " further knowledge of the
ground in the north-eastern or north-western angles
of the United States has evinced that the boundaries
established by the treaty of Paris, between the British
territory and ours, in those points were too imper-
fectly described•to be susceptible of execution." These
opinions of two most distinguished American states-
men gave rise to a convention of boundary, male, in
London by Rufus King and Lord Ilawkesbury, which
from other circumstances, which it is not necessary to
refer to, was not ratified by the Senate.
I might farther refer you on this subject to the re-
port of Judge Sullivan, who acted as a Commissioner
of the United States for settling the controversy with
Great Britain respecting the true river St. Croix;
who says " the boundary between Nova Scotia and
Canada was described by the King's proclamation in
the same mode of expression as that used in the treaty
of peace. Commissioners who were appointed to settle
that line have traversed the country in vain to find
the highlands designated as the boundary."
With these known • facts, how can it possibly be
maintained that doubts about the boundary arose for
the first time in the year 1814?
I need not pursue this subject further. Indeed, it
would have been useless to treat of it at all with any
pin-son having before him the records of the diplomatic
history of the two countries for the last half century.
My object in adverting to it is to correct an error
arising, I am ready to believe, not from any intention
to misrepresent, but from want of information, and
which seemed to be sufficiently circulated to make
some refutation useful towards promoting the desired
friendly and equitable settlement of this question.
We believe the position maintained by us on the
subject of this boundary to be founded in justice and
equity, and we deny that we have been determined
in our pretensions by policy and expedience. I might,
perhaps, fairly admit that these last mentioned con-
siderations have prompted, in some measure, our per-
severance in maintaining them. The territory in con-
troversy is (for that portion of it at least which is
likely to come to Great Britain by any amicable set-
tlement) as worthless for any purpose of habitation
or cultivation, as probably any tract of equal size on
the habitable globe, and if it were not for the obvious
circumstance of its connecting the British North
American provinces, I believe I might venture to say,
that, whatever might have been the merit of our case,
we should long since have given up the controversy,
and willingly haVe made the sacrifice to the wishes
of a country with which it is so much our interest, as
it is our desire, to maintain the most perfect harmony
and good will.

I trust that this sentiment must be manifest in my
unreserved communication with you on this, and on
all other subjects connected with my mission. If I
have failed in this respect, I shall have ill obeyed the
instructions of my Government and the earnest dic-
tates of my personal inclination. Permit me, sir, to
avail myself of this, my first opportunity of formally
addressing you, to assure you unfeignedly of my
most distinguished consideration.
Hon. Daniel Webster, &c., &c.

ASHBURTON.

MR. WEBSTER TO LORD ASHBURTON.

Department of State, Washington, June 17, 1842.
• Lord Ashburton having been charged by the
Queen's GOVernment with full powers to nego-
tiate and settle all matters of discussion between the
United States and England, and having on his arrival
at 'Washington announced that, in relation to the
questioU of the north-eastern boundary of the United
States' lie 'was' authorised to treat for a conventional
line, aline by agreement, on such terms and conditions,
and . with .such mutual considerations and equivalents,
as might be thought just and equitable, and that he
was ready, to
,enter upon a negotiation for such con-
ventional lihe so soon as this Government should say
thafit was authorised and ready on its part to corn-
mence such negotiation, the undersigned Secretary of
State of the United States has now the honour to ac-
quaint his Lordship, by direction of the President, that
the undersigned is ready, on behalf of the Govern-
ment of the United States, and duly authorised, to
proceed to the consideration of such conventional line,
or line by agreement, and will be happy to have an in-
terview on this subject at his Lordship's convenience.
The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to
tender. to Lord Ashburton assurances of his distin-
guished consideration. . DANIEL WEBSTER.
Lord Ashburton, &c.
LORD ASIIBURTON TO MR. WEBSTER.

Washington, June 17, 1842.
The undersigned, Plenipotentiary of her Britannic
Majesty, on an extraordinary and special mission to
the United States of America, has the honour of ac-
knowledging, with much satisfaction, the communi-
catkin received to-day from Mr. Webster, Secretary
of. State of the United States, that he is ready on be-
half of the United States, and duly authorised, in re-
lation to the question of
,the north-eastern boundary
of the 'United States, to proceed to the consideration
of a'eonventional line, or line by agreement, on such
terms and conditions, and with such mutual consi-;
derations- and. equivalents, as might be thought just
and equitable.. And in reply to Mr. Webster's invi-
tation to the undersigned, to fix some time for their
conference upon this subject, he begs to propose to
call on Mr. Web ter, at the Department of State, to-
morrow, 'at iWelVd o'clock, for this purpoSe, should
that time be perfectly convenient to Mr. Webster.
The und.ersigued;avails himself of this opportunity
,o assure Mr.,Wekstq of his distinguished eonsidera-
ASHBURTON.

hon.
Hon. Daniel Webster.; &c. &c.
MR. WEBSTER TO LORD ASHBURTON.
Department of State, Washington, Junel7, 1842.
The Secretary of State will have great pleasure in
seeing Lord Ashburton at twelve o'clock to-morrow,
as proposed by him.
LORD ASHBURTON TO MR. WEBSTER.
Washington, June 21, 1842.
SlR—The letter you did me the honour of address-
ing me on the 17th instant, informed me that you
were now prepared and authorised to enter with me
into discussion of that portion of the difference between
our two countries which relates to the north-eastern
boundary ; and we had the following day our first
formal conference for this purpose, with a view to con-
sider, in the first instance, the best mode of proceed-
ing to arrive at what is so much desired by all par-
ties—an amicable, and at the same time equitable, set-
tlement of a controversy, which, with the best inten-
tions, the authorities of-the two countries, for nearly
half a century, have in vain endeavoured to effect.
The result of this conference has been, that I have
been invited by you to state generally my view of this
case, and of the expectation of my Government ; and
although I am aware that in the ordinary practice of
diplomatic intercourse I should expose myself to some
disadvantage by so doing, ..I.uevertheless do not hesi-
tate to comply, premising only that the following ob-
servations are be considered merely as memoranda for
discussion, and not as formal propositions to have any
binding effect, should our negotiation haVe the unfor-
tunate fate of the many which have preceded it, of
ending in disappointment. •
I believe you are sufficiently aware of the circum-
stances which induced me personally to undertake
this mission. If the part which, during a long life,
I have taken in public affairs, is marked by any par-
ticular character, it has been an earnest, persevering
desire to maintain peace, and to promote harmony
between our two countries. My exertions were un-
availingly employed to prevent the last unfortunate
war, and have since been unremitting in watching
any passing clouds which might at any time forbode
its renewal. On the accession to power of the present
Ministers in England, perceiving the same wise and
honourable spirit to prevail with them, I could not
resist the temptation and the hope of being of some
service to my country, and to our common race, at a
time of life when no other cause could have bad suffi-
cient interest to draw me from a retirement better
suited to my age and to my inclination.
I trust, Sir, that you will have perceived in the
course of my hitherto informal communications with
you, that I approach my duties generally without any
of those devices and manoeuvres which are supposed,
I believe ignorantly, to be the useful tools of ordinary
diplomacy. With a person of your penetration they
would avail as little as they would with the intelli-
gent public of the two great enlightened countries of
whose interests we are treating. I know no other
mode of acting than an open, plain dealing, and I
therefore disregard, willingly, all the disadvantage of
complying with the invitation given me to be the first
to speak on this question of the *boundary.
It is already agreed that we abstain from a continued
discussion of the arguments by which the lines of the
two countries are reciprocally maintained ; and I have
so well observed this rule that I have not even com-
municated to you a volume of additional controversial
matter which I brought with me, and much of which
would, if controversy were our object, be of no incon-
sithrable weight and importance. It would be in
the event only of the failure of this negotiation, which
I will not anticipate, that we should be again driven into
the labyrinth from which it.-is our purpose to escape,
and that failing to interpret strictly the words of the
treaty, we should be obliged to search again into con-
temporaneous occurrences and opinions for principles
of construction which might shed light on the actual
intentions of the parties.
Our success must, on the contrary, depend' on the
reciprocal admission, or presumption, that the royal
arbiter was so far right when he came to the conclu-
sion which others had collie to before him, that the
treaty of 1783 was not executable according to its
strict expression, and that the case was therefore one
for agreenient by compromise. The only point upon
which I thought it my duty to enter upon anything
like controversy is that referred to in my letter of the
13th instant; and I did so to rescue my Government
and myself from an imputation of unworthy motives;
and the charge that they had set up a claim which
they knew to.be unfounded, from mere consideptions
of policy or conveniem, 'MP A4§@rtinns of persons
in my' position, on subjects conneptcA with their di-
plomatie duties, are naturally rPPIANT4 by the wqrlci
with some caution; but I trust that you will believe
me when I assure you that I should not be the person
to come here on any such errand, .

I do not pretend, nor have I ever thought the claim
of Great Britain, with respect to this boundary, any
more than the claim of America, :to be unattended
with difficulties. The claims have been considered
by impartial men, of high authority and unques-
tioned ability, to be equally so attended; and there-
fore it is that this is a question for a compromise, and
it is this compromise which it has become our duty to
endeavour to accomplish.
I will only here add the most. soleMn assurance,
which I would not lightly make, that after a long and
careful consideration of all the arguments and in-
ferences, direct and circumstantial, bearing on the
whole of this truly difficult question, it is my settled
conviction that this was the intention of the parties to
the treaty of peace of 1783, however imperfectly
those intentions may have been executed, to leave to
Great Britain, by their description Of boundaries, the
whole of the waters of the river St. John.

The length of these preliminary observations re-
quires, perhaps, some apology; but I now proceed to
comply with your application to me to state the prin-
ciples and conditions on which it appears to me that
this compromise, which it is agreed we should attempt,
should be founded.

A new boundary is in fact to be
.traced between
the State of Maine and the province of New Bruns-
wick. In doing this, reference Must be had to the
extent and value of territory in dispute, but as a ge-
neral principle, we cannot do better than keep in
mind the intention of the framers of the first treaty of
peace in 1783, as expressed in the preamble to the
provisional article in the following words :—" Whereas
reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience are
found by experience to form the only permanent
foundation of peace and friendship between States,
&c." I have on a former occasion explained the rea-
sons which have induced the British Government to
maintain their rights in this controversy beyond any
apparent value in the object in dispute, to be establish-
ing a good boundary between our two countries, so
as to prevent collision and dispute, and and unobstructed
communication and connection of our colonies with
each other. Farther, it is desireTto-retain under the
jurisdiction of each Government respectively, such
inhabitants as have for a length of time been so living,
and to whom a transfer of allegiance might be painful
or distressing.
These are briefly the objects we have in view, and
which we must now seek to reconcile to a practical
division of the territory in dispute. Great Britain
has no wish of aggrandizement for any general pur-
pose of increased dominions, and you must be satisfied
by the liberality with which I have professed myself
ready to treat questions of boundaries in other quar-
ters, where no considerations of particular convenience
or fitness occur. I might further prove this by call-
ing your attention to the fact, that of the land likely
to come to us by any practical settlement, nine-tenth
parts of it are, from its position and quality, wholly
worthless. It can support no population, it grows
even little timber of value, and can be of no service
but as a boundary for two distinct Governments.
In considering on the map a division of the terri-
tory in question, this remarkable: circumstance must
be kept in mind, that a division of• Ores by their
number would be a very unequal division of their
value. The southern portion of this •territory, the
valley of the Aroostook, is represented to be one of
the most beautiful and most fertile tracts of land in
this part of the Continent, capable of the highest state
of cultivation, and covered with fine timber ; while
the northern portion, with the exception of that small
part comprised within the Madawasca settlement, is
of the miserable description I have stated. It would
be no exaggeration to say, that one acre of the Aroos-
took would be of much more value than ten acres
north of the. St. John. There would he, therefore, no
equality in making a division of acre for acre.
But, although I remind you of this circumstance,
Ido not call on you to act upon it. On the contrar=y,
I am willing that you should have the advantage in
this settlement, both in the quantity and quality of
this land.. All I wish is, to call this fact in proof of
my assertion, that the object of Great Britain was
simply to claim that which was essential to her, and
would form a convenient boundary, old to leave all
the more material advantages of this bargain to the
State of Maine.
I now come to the more immediate application of
these principles, to a definite line of boundary; and
looking at the map with reference to the sole object
of Great Britain as already described, the line of the
St. John's, from where the north line of the St. Croix
strikes it, up to some one of its ,sources, seems evi-
dently to suit both parties, with the exception which
I shall presently mention.
This line throws the waste ir-iebarren tract to
Great Britain, and the rich and valuable lands to
111aine ; but it makes a good boundary, one which
avoids collision and probable dispute • and for the
reasons stated, we should be satisfied with it if it were
not for the peculiar circumstances of a settlement
formed on both sides of the St. John's, from the
mouth of the Madawaska up to that.ofthe Fish river.
The history and circumstances of this settlement
are well known to you. It was originally formed
from the French establishment in Acadia, and has
been uninterruptedly under French or British domi-
nion, and never under any other laws. The inhabit-
ants have professed great apprehension, of being sur-
rendered by Great Britain, and have lately sent an
earnest petion to the Queen, deprecating that being
done. _

Farther, this settlement forms one united commu-
nity all connected together, and living some on one
and some on the other side of the river, which forms
a sort of high road between them.
It seems self-evident that no more inconvenient line
of boundary could well be drawn than one which
divides in two an existing municipality, inconvenient
as well to the inhabitants themselves, as to the autho-
rities under which they are to live. There would be
evident hardship—l might say cruelty, in separating
this now happy and contented village, to say nothing
of the bickvrings and probable collisions likely to
arise, in taking from this spot the precise line of the
river, which would, under other circumstances, satisfy
us. Indeed, I should consider such a separation of
these industrious settlers, by placing them under
separate laws and Governments, a most harsh pro-
ceeding, and that we should thereby abandon the great
object we should have in view, of the _happiness and
convenience of the people, andlixiiiei boundary the
least likely to occasion future strife. -
I dwell on this circumstance at some length in justi-
ficatio3.6f'ilie necessity I am under of departing to
this inconsiderable extent from the marked line of the

liver St. John's. 'What line should be taken to cover

this difficulty I shall have to consider with you, but I
cannot in any case abandon the obvious interests of
the people. It will be seen by an inspection of the
map, that it is not possible to meet. this difficulty by
making over to Maine the northern portion of this
settlement, as that would be giving up by Great Bri-
tain the immediately adjoining communication with
Canada, which it is her principal object to preserve.
These observations dispose of those parts of the
question which immediately cOneern the State of
Maine ; but it may be well at the same time to state
my views respecting the adjoining boundary of the
States of New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York,
because they made part of the reference to the King of
the Netherlands, and were, indeed, the only part of
the subject in dispute upon which a distinct decision
was not given.
The question here at issue between the two coun-
tries was as to the correct determination of the parallel
of latitude and the true source of the Connecticut
river. Upon both these points decisions were pro-
nounced in favour of Great Britain ; and I might add
that the case of America, as matter of right, was but
feebly and doubtingly supported by her own authori-
ties. I am nevertheless disposed to surrender the
Ivhole of this case, if we should succeed in settling, as
proposed, the boundary of Maine: There is a point
or two in this line of boundary where I may have to
consider, with the assistance of the surveyors ac-
quainted with the localities, the convenience of the
resident settlers, as also, which line may best suit the
immediate country at the head of the Connecticut
river, but substantially the Government of America
shall be satisfied, and this point be yielded to them.
This concession, viewed with reference to the sale ,
of the land ceded, which is generally reported to be
fertile, and contains a portion at house's Faint much
coveted in the course of the controveray, would, under
ordinary circumstances, be considered of considerable
importance.
The concession will, however, be madQ. by Great
Britain without reluctance, not only to mark the
liberal and conciliatory spirit by which it is desired
to distinguish these negotiations, but because the case
is in some respects analogous to that of the Mada.
aska settlements, before considered. It is believed
that the settlers on the narrow strip, which would be
transferred to Great Britain 'by rectifying the 45th
parallel of latitude, which was formerly incorTmly
laid down, are principally from the Unitt4l States, and
that their opinions and habits inoilne them to evince
a preference to that form of government under which,
before the discovery of the error in question; thq
supposed themselves to be living.
It cannot be desired by her MetleSty to acquire any
addition of territory MAR it.toh circumstances, what-
ever may be the weight of her rights ; but it will be
obsorved that the same argument applies, sltoost
exactly to the Madawaska settlement, aril justifies the
reservation I am thus uNiaed to make. In these
days the convonieree and happiness of the people to
be 4
ue gaWrileil will ever be the chief guide in tranxio•
tions of this description, between such cico6rnments
as those of Great Britain and.tlw United States.
Before quitting this slilijeot, 1 would observe that it
is rumoured that Major Graham, in his late survey of
I:lbine, reports some deviation from the true florth of
the line from the head of the St, cro.ix towards the St.
John's. I would also propose to abide by the
old line, long astablished, and from which the devia.
tion by 'Major Graham is, I am told, inconsiderable,
without at all doubting the accuracy and good faith of
that very distinguished officer.

In stating the important concessions I am prepared
to make on a final settlement of these boundaries, I
am sensible that concessions to one State of this Union
are not always to be made available for the satisfac-
tion of any other; but you are awarethat I am treat-
ing with the United States, and that for a long line
of important boundaries, and that I cannot pre-
sume to enter on the question how this settlement
might operate on, or be in any way compensated to,
the d it !rent States of the confederacy.
I should, however, add my unfeigned belief that
what I have proposed will appear reasonable with
reference to the interests of the State of Maine con-
sidered singly:
That the proposition, taken as a whole, will be
satisfactory to the country at large, I can entertain no
doubt. _

I abstain from noticing here the boundaries farther
west, which I am prepared to consider and to settle,
because they seem to form a part of the case which it
will he more convenient to treat separately.
In the course of these discussions much anxiety has
been expressed that Maine should be assured of some
means of communication by the St. John's, more es-
pecially for the conveyance of her lumber. This sub-
ject I am very willing to consider, being sensible of
the great importance of it to that State, and that the
friendly and personal relations between the neigh-
bouring countries cannot be better secured than by
reciprocally providing for all their wants and interests.
Lumber must for many years be the principal pro-
duce of the extensive valley of Aroostook and of the
southern borders of the St. John's ' • and it is evident
that this article of trade being worth anything must
mainly depend upon its havingaccess to the sea through
that river. It is further evident that there can be no
such access under any arrangement otherwise than by
the consent of the province of New Brunswick. It
is my wish to seek an early opportunity of consi-
dering with some person well acquainted with the
commerce of that country, what can be done to give
it the greatest possible freedom and extent without
trenching too much on the vital regulations of the two
countries. But, in the mean time, in order to meet
at once the urgent wants and wishes of Maine in this
respect, I would engage that, on the final settlement
of these differences, all lumber and produce of the
forest of the tributary waters of the St. John's shall
be received freely without duty, and dealt with in
every respect like the same articles of New Brunswick.
I cannot now say positively whether I may be able
to go farther, but this seems to me what is principally
required. Suggestions have at times been thrown out
of making the port and river of St. John's free to the
two countries, but I think you will be sensible that
this could not be done without some reciprocity for the
trade of the St. John's in the ports of the United States,
and that, in endeavouring to regulate this, we should
be embarking in an intricate question, much and often
discussed between the two countries. It cannot also
fail to occur to you that joint rights in the same har-
bours and waters must be a fruitful source of dissen-
sion, and that it behoves us to be careful not to sow
the seeds of future differences in the settlement of
those in our own day.
I have now stated, as I was desired to do, my views
of the terms on which it appears to me that this set-
tlement may be made. It must be sufficiently evident
that I have not treated the settlement in the ordinary
form of a bargain, when the party making the pro-
posal leaves himself something to give up.
The case would not admit of this, even if I could
bring myself so to act. It would have been useless
for me to ask what I know could not he yielded, and
I can unfeignedly say, that even if your vigilance did
not forbid me to expect to gain any undue advantage
over you, I should have no wish to do so. The treaty
we have to make will be subjected to the scrutiny of
a jealous and scrutinizing public, and it would ill
answer its main purpose if producing and perpetuating
harmony and good will if its provisions were not con-
sidered by good and' reasonable men to make a just
and equitable settlement of this long-continued con-
troversy.
Permit me, Sir, to conclude with the assurance of
my distinguished consideration.
lion. Daniel Webster, &c :&c. ASHBURTON.