The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-03-24 00:00:00

rity, bu

doubt the propriety of the Governor
of Maine entering upon a correspondence with a foreign

•
, but that for himself he knew- too well his position to
keep up such a correspondence; and that, if there were any-
thing in his (Sir Howard Douglas's) conduct of internal af-
_ open to objection, it would be better that the
,or of the state of Maine ahould refer the matter to his
.11 general Government; that for himself he hoped the
krneri—

power,

fairs which was

1 functionary would recollect the importance of

keeping up unbroken the friendly relations between the two
countries; and he suggested that the best way to maintain
that was to lease matters in dispute to their respective go-
vernments ; that on the question of possession he was deter-
mined to maintain it inviolate on the part of the government
of Great Britain. Upon this a proclamation was issued by
the American authorities of Maine, calling out a large body
of the militia. A person was sent by them who insisted on
coming into his (Sir Howard Douglas's) presence, for the

purpose of insisting upon the demands which had been
made. The mister made by him through his secretary was,
that he must positively refuse to recognize this person in an
official capacity, and he refused also to enter into any cor-
respondence with the Governor of Maine, who wrote to
Washington to insist on his (Sir 11. Douglas's) recal, and
the same Governor ordered him to release Mr. Baker.
The home Government supported him in his views, and
their answers to him were couched in the same tone in
which he had expressed himself. Upon this a large de-
nt of troops came within fo►ty miles of Frederick-

Ir. Baker was brought to trial and a lenient sen-
tence was passed upon him in the shape of a moderate
term of confinement and a fine. Threats continued to
be made and the excitement proceeded ; everything was
done to intimidate him, but he saw that it was expected
he would call out the troops. After Baker had expiated his

term of imprisonment, he refused to pay the fine. Upon the
payment of this fine he as governor of the province insisted.
Troops were threatened to be marched into the town, but he
did not move a single soldier or constable ; and the result
was that Mr. Baker, after remaining in gaol two or three
weeks longer, paid thy fine. Ile thus vindicated the sove-
reignty of the British Crown, and as long as he was in the
province not one person dared to intrude. In the spring of

. -
the next year it was declared by the Governor of Massachu-
setts that a road would be made to run from Mars-hill to the
disputed territory. He, therefore, wrote to Sir Charles
Vaughan, who did his duty manfully. Now it happened that
upon the very identical spot where he apprehended Baker
and his associates, and where he (Sir H. Douglas) had vin-
dicated the exclusive possession of Great Britain, on that
very spot had the noble lord opposite who had raised the
motion that night permitted the Americans to erect the forts
of Jarvis and Fairfield, on the north line, a little short of
where it met St. John's River • was not that concession ?
Why it was the concession of all that he (Sir H. Douglas)
had contended for,—it was relinquishing the possession—it
was capitulating the whole case—it was allowing the Ameri-
can force to take military possession. And then the Ma-
dawasca settlement—that was an encroachment, and the peo-
ple were handed over like so many serfs to the Americans.
He was fully determined, if the Government had commanded
the release of Baker, to have regarded the injunction. This,
however, could not have happened, for Government had cor-
dially approved of the course taken by him. He would have
disregarded it, because,he well knew that one encroachment,

if acquiesced in, soon led to others. The order was sent,
however, by Mr. Livingstone, from Washington, to Sir A.
Campbell, to release these parties, a proceeding which was
protested against by the local government. In August, 1837,
a person was sent to this Madawasca settlement, which he
and his successors had protected with so much firmness, to
make a census of the population, as part of the inhabitants of
Penobscot county ; a correspondence was opened with the
Governor of'Maine, and the result was, that the person was

eleased, on his giving an assurance to the colonial govern-
ment that he would desist from these practises. He was re-
leased on August 5, 1837 ; and what was the consequence of
that weakness? The consequence was that he immediately
reappeared in the Madawasca settlement on the 26th of the
same month, and proceeded with the census. Of course, it
would be expected that he would have been brought to trial
and visited with condign punishment. But what did the
house think ? He was again released, at the instance of the
American Government—of course, under the orders of the
noble lord. This was followed by a series of encroachments
,nd aggressions from New Hampshire into the Canadian ter-
-v. Considering the lateness of the hour he would not
trouble the house with details extending from the 83d to the
192 d page of the printed papers. He had bought this cata-
logue of weaknesses to the year 1838. Turning to the cor-
respondence in 1840 and 1841 he found that a proposition was
made to the British embassy at Washington, and transmitted
to the noble lord, to the effect that, considering the disorders
that prevailed, it would be better that each country should
send into the disputed territory a settled posse of equal
strength. His (Sir H. Douglas's) answer to a similar appli-
cation was that he would look after his own affairs, and Nould
make his own arrangements with regard to the military and
police. The noble lord, however, thought differently in 1840
and consented to the arrangement, the consequence of which
was that an equal force was sent by the United States and
Great Britain into the disputed territory for the purpose of
keeping peace. Why that was surrendering the very point
for which he (Sir H. Douglas) had contended, by permitting
a concurrent jurisdiction on the territory which we claimed
as our own. The United States then complained that Great
Britain still possessed an exclusive military jurisdiction,
and therefore requested the withdrawal of our troops, and
our troops were withdrawn. The United States suggested
the substitution of detachments of national troops on the
part of the two countries. " A very good idea," said the
noble lord, " we will ;" and concurrent military possession
was forthwith established; another surrender of those rights
for which he (Sir 1-1. Douglas) had struggled. After this,
it was of course impossible to dispute their right to make a
military road, which was completed all the way across the
disputed territory up to the St. John, and the erection of
forts followed as a natural consequence, for the forces em-
ployed must needs have some abiding place, and the forts
Fairfield and Jarvis were built forthwith, by which means
the United States obtained concurrent possession of the
whole territory. To sum up all, the noble lord left the
whole of the territory, the whole jurisdiction, and the whole
sovereignty subverted; instead of maintaining in it an ex-
clusive jurisdiction, he had permitted a concurrent power,
and a surrender of the territory became inevitable. The
noble lord spoke of the arrogant tone adopted by the United
States, as though they were the actual possessors of the soil;
but he could not see what other course could have been ex-
pected after the events to which he had referred. But did
the noble lord think that after having gone up they would
have gone up without a war? Did he think the United
States would, under any circumstances, have withdrawn
from the disputed territory they had usurped ; That they
would destroy the fortifications they had built or pull down
the flags they had hoisted, or that they would be satisfied
with any conventional boundary short of the line the noble
lord had permitted them to take? No such thing. They
were determined to take their stand there, and to meet Lord
Ashburton in the manner which the concessions of the
noble lord only enabled them to do. What were their terms?
They had yielded nothing, and if concessions had been made
to them derogatory to the honour of the crown and the in-
terests of the country, it was not by the present govern-
ment, but by the noble lord, for he had left no choice to his
successors but to make a conventional line or go to war.
With respect to the treaty itself he thought the proximity of
the frontier to the line of communication would be a great
-s the St. John; he admitted,

inconvenience

The line aeros,

was an eyesore— (hear, hear) ;—and ii Lord Ashburton
could have got that point and omitted to do so, he was much
to be blamed for it; but if the demand for it would have
ruptured the negotiations, it was not worth that, for, in a
military point of view, it was insignificant. Rouse's Point
was a military point only, on account of the facilities it
afforded for offence ; but this was precisely the reason the
Americans were anxious to get it, and we should have been
anxious to retain it. The great defence of New Brunswick
as the territory on the right bank of the St. John. So
ling as St. Andrew's bay was held, no irruption could be
made into New Brunswick, no attack could be made on St.
John's. For all these reasons he avowed that he entirely
approved of the arrangements of the treaty which had been
so happily concluded. lie recognised in the strongest terms
the eminent services rendered to the country by the distin-
guished individual who had negotiated and concluded it, and

he felt that gratitude was due to the government for having
selected him and given him those instructions to a satisfac-
tory terminate. Whatever might be the wishes or desires
of the country, there was nothing left but to adopt the
conventional line. Government could only do what they
had done. He felt it his duty to support arrangements
which he would not have advocated 12 years ago, but he
thought it the best that could be done under the circum-
stances, particularly as the noble lord had let slip out
of his hands the actual possession of the whole of the
territory.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS OF THE UNITED STATES.—
From the valuable report of the Hon. H. L. Ellsworth, corn-

missioner of patents to the congress, we have extracted the
following item, showing the total amount of the principal
agricultural products of the country for 1812 :
Wheat.

150,883,617

22,762,952

135,883,382

Hemp and Flax
Tobacco .

158,565 tons
194,694,811 lbs.

683,333,231
94,007,484

Sugar
Silk Cocoons

142,415,199
244,124

130,748 gallon

it growing States Ohio is the greatest producer—
. _ crop being over twenty-five millions bushels.
Inc next largest is New York, being sixteen millions. The
next in order are Pennsylvania and Virginia.—New York
Paper.