Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1839-06-18
VOLUME xXXV1.---No. IL.

ceedngs If the colonial authn rites of New Brunswick
against MIR. Ehenezer Greey citizen OF the State
OF Maine, and for which. the Government OF the s.,
regarding them infringement Of national and ind
y'dusl tights he'd instructed The undersigned demand
repara,ion from The Government OF her Britannia Ola.
lssiy
The undersigned can but express his and
eIgned regret. in learning from Lord Pamprston,
that these proceedings Of the authorities of New Bruins
"Ick are not only approved and justified and all repa-
ration for the wiupgs inflicted on MIR. Greedy denied :;
hut that il is the settled determination Of her Mspstys
Government to continue 10 assert and enforce, by all
The constitutional means in It's power, its exercise of
jurisdiction within the disputed Territory, until the
question Of Boundary, under The stipula,ions Of The
Treaty shall bp drinitively settled That this deterni.
nalIun the part of her Majesty's Government will
be received with painful surprise and concern by that
"f N" u 81 the undersigned need hardly assure Lord
Palmprsiun
sorts that The of Mr. g. prec sey parallel that Of
Mr. John Bsker, an American citizen who arrested
and imprisoned by the au'hore of New Brunswick
IN the year 1877 tor similar offence, and which he
came OF the time, the subject OF correspondence be.
tween The Representatives Of the two countries and
was approved and justified by her Maj"sys Govern
ment tbs L"tdsh'g moreover rs pleased TO say, that
upon that OCCASION the right OF jurisdiction The part
OF Great Britain erahly maintained by the
Earl Of Aberdeen Qhe then Principal Secretary Of State
for Furegn Aairs the not. addressed by him 10 Mr..
Lawrence the American Charge d Afaires. in London,
on the l4h of August 1873 u which Lord Palmerstnn
refers az rendering unnecessary on his part any fur.
thrr discussion OF the merits of the present case I'M
der such circumstances The undersigned is not aware,
that II would be either necessary proper for him TO DO
more than TO transmit his Lofdsp's 10 his Go.
vPrnmpnt, and again protest, il is his duty TO do,
we'll against The decision which has been made as The
doctrines contained in the Earl of Aberdeen note, now
re affirmed by her Maesiys Government, as the basis
of It's present decision.
In The principles aud doctrines laid down in this Note
of The Earl vi Aberdeen is proper that The undersigned
should state. IN the most explicit manner, that the Co.
vernment If th" U :. neither have consent 10
ncqu.esce; on The contrary he begs to Lord Pal
that both before and subsequent To the arrest
aud imprisonment OF Mr. Baker the Government of the
u 5. only resisted the right OF jurisdiction asserted
by Great Britain this territory but declared It's fixed
d''rmln lion not TO acqursce IN It's exercise Tn proof
OF ihs The undersigned need only rerr his Lordshp 10
the past history of The negotiation, and more particularly
TO The correspondence which took place between the he.
pres atives of the two Governments IN London and
! Washington
However strong then The convictions of Lord Pal.
merston may be, as 10 the unanswPrnbe character OF
Lord Aberdecns yindcalIon nj the claim Of her Ma
to- Government 10 the jursd ciion over this Territory,
the undersigned, after The most careful review OF The
arguments contained IN that mole, must be permitted 10
say that his not the less TO the just claims OF
his Government. in the principles assumed by the
Earl of Aberdeen the foundation Of his argument,
his Lnrdshp 10 have entirely Inexperienced as
we'll the grounds upon which The United States rest their
claim the property contest, those upon which 1t
resrs,s that of Her Mojesy's Government This will
be made quite apparent, by brief examination OF his
Lordships note aud The history Of the nsgos'i"n.
4 Lord Aberdeens remarks are ccmprehended under
three heads. In the first place. his Lnrdshp assumes,
that the derive their claim 10 this Territory under
The provisions Of the treaty of l1c3 BY which their
sovereignty and independence were acknowledged by
Great Britain and thereby in effect sdni,iing tas his
Lndship suppnses the PRIOR title OF The BRUSH crown
20 The property.
Secondly Tina, Great Britain had never parted with
the possession of the Territory and there had been
actus delivery OF il into the ssesson of The u : un.
tba md nnttu thntpp ltIs nj
sovereignty and jurisdiction had been exercised since ts
pxrcuton have (unlil the attempts Inc part
of the State of Msne been exercised by her Moestys
Government and that consequently, Great Britain, me-
yer having been dlvesed of her ancient right OF urs-
Lction the character OF the Territory had undergone
change since the period an!ecedenl to the treaty OF
1853; and,
Thirdly, tina, the question of eventual Sovereignty
bpirg in doubt il was consistent with the acknowledged
rule oi law where such doubts existed, the party
whn had clearly the right, and had retained the
actual possesslon should continue 10 h"id IL unu tne
question finally settled.
Now upon The first point assumed by Lord Aberdeen,
it proper remark that The United States do not rest
their CLAIM of right upon the provisional Treaty OF 7o2
or The drfnvc one ofl7o3 by which their Sovereignty
and Independence WINS ucknow lodged The provision
:: me treaty Of 1883 TO Title and boundaries are not
10 be, have they ever been, regarded by the U 81
matters OF grant cesson on the part OF the British
Government The rights "f the I. > as lndependentand
Sovereign States although acknowledged by that treaty,
not acquired under it, but by long and blcody
waged Tor independence The treaty Of l1s3 was,
IN fact, treaty Of peace and dlsmemberment forming
two empires out Vi one, and laying down the iunoa-
mental rights of each The thirteen STATES comprising
Union al the period Of their separn"n had been
from their first establishment. separate and independent
States win separate and ind" pendent Governments
and in this their several boundaries were liked
By the treaty peace their boundaries like their IN
dependence, not granted but Acknowledged and
the Acknowledgement cn The part OF Great Brrsn, was
Ike that Of other nations IL therefore, treaty
nh d,vs If a nd nj a
sun Of PROPERTY and each State OF course became en-
ulIed to The rights enjoyed by before The separation
The limits OF the several States aud OF course those
Of u.s. having been fixed before the Revolu.
lion remained The after, and were consequently
derived from the treaty supuations but from the
fact Of declaring themselves Independent.
The rights and 'vrreghly OF the United States were
reore not granted but dged by the treaty,
and as such cannot bp considered in The light OF grant
or cesslon of territory, but simply what was intended
TO be. an acknowledgment OF previously existing rights.
And here the undersigned will take occasion TO re-
mark, that this doctrine on the part OF the
American Government asserted now Tor the first time
in relation the subject Of their Northeastern Boundary
II is the doctrine winch the Uri,ed States have always
MAINTAINED in their intercourse with foreign nations,
and with n"ne more so than Great Britain In Inc 'm-
pnrrant negotiation between the two Governments IN
the year ISIS relation to the FISHERIES, the treaty OF
1888 became incidentally The subject OF correspond
between Mr.. John Quincy Adams, inc thrn WINS
Ter of thu United States in London. and Enfi banu,s
Upon that occasion, the nature and character OF hu.
treaty and The rights secured under II, were oiscustu
and eluc,dlted by Mr. Adams, with power ano do'y
OF argument. winch The undersigned can neither add 10
81 improve To lha, CORES pondeuce he now begs leave
10 refer Lord PaImerstnn
There is no fnundamn Their for Lord aoerdeens cup.
uosinp tina, the claim Of the s. rests upon the stipu
ia.ions oil the treaty Of 1888
Nor his Lordshp fortunate in the other grounds
rssd on as TO the pusesOn OF the territory by Great
Rri,an before the Of the Revolution and there hav
mo b,en no actual delivery OF possession the u s. at
The time Of the execution of The treaty There was
rnc no settlement within he limits Of the disputed ter
,,rory before the American Revolution II was first set.
lied by the French IRON Nova Scotia after that period,
and the greater part Of admitted by Great Britain
as late as 1914 To have been actually unoccuPIed ana
waste, before the separation between the two countFes
ndred. The right Of jurisdiction over the country wa,
tered by The and the roostook commenced