Lincoln telegraph. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1836-1846, 1838-04-26

be sought for are not necessarily range
of mountains, but rather the summit level
of the country.
"2d. The arbiter expresses his opinion
that an inquiry as to what we're the ancient
boundaries of the North American prcsin-
ces, can be of no use for the present pur-
pose, because those boundaries were not
maintained by tie treaty of 1888, and had,
in truth, never been distinctly ascertained
and laid downs
"3d. The arbiter declares that the north
west angle of Nova Scotia, mentioned IN
the treaty of 1888, is not poiut which
was then known and ascertained; that it Is
an angle which is created by the intersec-
ton Of any lines of boundary at that time
acknowledged as existing, but that is an
angle still to be found, and to be created
BY the intersection of new lines, which are
hereafter to be drawn in pursuance cfthe
stipuations of the treaty; and further, that
the nature Of the country eastward OF the
said angle affords no argument for laying
that angle Down in one place rather thaa
in another.
"4th. lie states that no just argument
can be deduced for the settlement OF this
question fron the exercise Of the rights OF
sovereignty over the 6ef of Madawaska and
over the Madawaska settlement.
"5th. He declared the highlands con-
templated in the treaty should divide i'm
mediately, not medately, rivers flowing in
to the ST. Lawrence and rivers flowing in
to the Atlantic; and that the word divide
requires contiguity Of the things to be d.
yided.
"6th. He declares that rivers falling In
to the Bay of Chaleur and the Bay of Fun
dy, cannot be considered according to the
] meaning of the treaty, as rivers flowing IN
to the Atlantic; and specifically, that the
rivers St. John and Restigouche cannot be
looked upon as answering to the latter
description.
"7th He declares that neither the line
of boundary claimed by Great Britain, nor
that claimed by the United States, can be
| adiudged as the true line, without depart
ing from the principles of equity and JUS
tice as between the two parties.
TWAS the opinion of bis Majesty's Gov
eminent, Sir Charles alledged, that the de-
cisions of the arbiter upon the second and
| LIlITu pOlilb iClGlltu w hiLt, oo wi ~ W
on the subordinate questions, ought to be
acquiesced in by the two Governments;
and that, in any future attempt to estab-
lish boundary, whether in strict confor-
nifty with the words Of the treaty OF 1888,
or by agreeing to the mode of settlement
recommended by the arbiter. il would be
necessary to adopt these seven decisions
| as good groundwork for further proceed
ings. That the British Government, there
fore, previously to any further negotiation,
| claimed from the Government Of the Uni
ted States an acquiesence in the decisions
pronounced by the arbiter upon all those
points which he had decided; and, as a
preliminary to any attempt to settle the re-
naming point by negotiation, TO be satsfl-
ed that the General Government was pos
sessed ofthe necessary powers to carry IN
to effect any arrangement upon which the
two parties might agree.
With respect to the proposition made by
the American Government, Sir Charles
thought that the difficulty, which was
found insurmountable, as against the line
recommended by the King of the Neither
lands viz: the want of authority to agree to
any line which might imply ccsslon OF
any part of the territory to which the trea-
ty, as hitherto interpreted by the United
States, might appear to entite one OF the
component States of the Union, would be
equally fatal to that suggested by Mr.. Liv-
ingston, since line drawn from the head
of the ST. Croix to highlands found to the
westward of the meridian of that spot would
not be the boundary of the treaty, and
might be more Justly objected to by Maine,
and with more appearance OF reason than
that proposed by the arbiter.
In reply to Mr.. McLane to the prece-
ding note is dated on the 18th of March,
He expressed his regret that his Britannia
Maiesty's Government should still copsid-
er any part ofthc opinions of The arblter
obligatory on either party; those opinions
the Secretary stated, could not have been
carried into effect by the President, with
out the concurrence Of the Senate, who,
regarding them; not only as not determln-
ing the principal object of the reference,
but as, in fact, deciding that object to be
impracticable, and, therefore, recommen-
ding to the two parties boundary not
even contemplated, either by the treaty or
by the reference, nor within the power Of
the General Government to take declined
TO give their advice and consent to the ex-
ecution of the measures recommended by
the arbiter; but did advise the Executive
to open new negotiation for the ascer-
tainment Of the boundary, in pursuance OF
the treaty. Of 1888; and the proposition OF